Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 July 21: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion | Log Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 12:25, 21 July 2008 editMadeYourReadThis (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers97,136 edits Adding Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mark Madden. (TW)← Previous edit		Revision as of 12:50, 21 July 2008 edit undoPrimeHunter (talk \| contribs)Administrators79,231 edits fix page nameNext edit →
Line 17:		Line 17:
	{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Denistone East railway station, Sydney}}		{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Denistone East railway station, Sydney}}
	{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lower North Shore Metro Extension}}		{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lower North Shore Metro Extension}}
	{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion\|Green Week (2nd nomination)}}		{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Green Week (2nd nomination)}}
	{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jcoder Java IDE Editor}}		{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jcoder Java IDE Editor}}
	{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Puzha.com}}		{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Puzha.com}}

Revision as of 12:50, 21 July 2008

< July 20	July 22 >

Guide to deletion Centralized discussion

Village pumps: policy; tech; proposals; idea lab; WMF; misc

For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

Purge server cache

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

The result was Strong keep. ——RyanLupin • (talk) 00:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Mark Madden

article fails to assert why this radio personality is notable. Lacks 3rd party verifiable references. Rtphokie (talk) 12:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment There were some references there, they were just added incorrectly, this has been fixed. I'd considered withdrawing this AFD but I'd like to get other editors opinions on this article. The references that are there are either in the local paper, are self published (in the case of the wrestling blog) or are from a sports blog. Is this radio personality known outside of Pittsburgh? Are there better references available to establish his notability?--Rtphokie (talk) 12:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- The blog sources are certainly questionable, but since they only document factual information, it shouldn't be too hard to replace them. Even if he is not known outside of Pittsburgh, he can be a notable figure in Pittsburgh radio and thus warrant an article. The question is whether he has reliable articles written about him. He does have several articles, such as this little number, which are notable. Thus, I would say he's notable enough for inclusion. 83.203.183.112 (talk) 13:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep, not only a big name in Pittsburgh radio, but was a host on nationally broadcast ESPN radio. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment reference?--Rtphokie (talk) 15:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Strong Keep Seems to have well more than enough establish notability. I'm not about to ignore his off-radio jobs. SashaNein (talk) 18:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Strong Keep Could probably use some additional references, but they shouldn't be hard to find. National TV personality, national radio show host - they'll be out there. Mlaffs (talk) 01:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete by Orangemike. Jезка (talk) 10:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

List of Bhatia gotra

Misplaced Pages isn't a random collection of information. StaticGull Talk 12:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete - An apparent list of non-notable people based solely on their family name. Jезка (talk) 12:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

See also List of Bhatia gotras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - attached to this AfD ➨ ЯEDVEЯS has wasted eight of nine lives 12:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete to both. It's just a list of surnames under the Bhatia gotra. Whatever next? Baby names? ChiragPatnaik (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete WP:CSD#A1, insufficient context to identify the subject. So tagged. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 00:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Vince Adáme

Fails WP:MUSIC. Given references don't mention him, 35 ghits for "Vince Adáme" drummer, none of which are reliable and few of which are more than name dropping. Flagged with "notability" tag since eleven months. Amalthea (talk) 12:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Fails WP:BIO; non-notable person with little media coverage. Jезка (talk) 12:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:BAND. I had hoped the authors would improve this beyond a promo/coi/original research piece but I think enough time has passed and that's not going to happen. Katr67 (talk) 16:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. —Katr67 (talk) 18:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 19:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Northern Beaches Metro

Delete as per other articles Past main AfD Bidgee (talk) 12:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete - No sources or references. The metro line's existence is very questionable. Contents of the article are purely imaginary. --Pikablu0530 (talk) 13:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment: A Google search shows that The Sydney Morning Herald has a few articles that mention it. I think it's just a proposal, though, and who knows if it will ever be built.--Lester 10:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. This line hasn't been approved or even seriously proposed by any government. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete -- the article does have one source, though its citation was not correctly inserted. The creator may have intended to include a second but fialed to include the reference. Nevertheless, these are vague proposals without substance and fall within WP:CRYSTAL. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Has not progressed from politicans' to-do list. WWGB (talk) 01:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete, this proposed rail line is not contained within the citations for the article. Was not able to find anywhere else that it was seriously being considered. Fails notability/verifiability due to lack of sources. Lankiveil 11:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC).

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. -- RyRy (talk) 19:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Denistone East railway station, Sydney

Delete as per other articles Past main AfD Bidgee (talk) 11:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Strong Keep - This is one of the stations part of North West Metro which has been officially announced and there are official sources supporting their existence and planning. This is unlike the other ones where the only source is SMH, and never confirmed officially on whether they will be built or not. --Pikablu0530 (talk) 13:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep. This is a different situation to the others: the others were a loose blueprint for a line which may or may not happen, and which may or may not have had stations there. The government has actually committed to building this line, though; this station will be built, and it's useful to have an article containing the information that's known about it. That's why I'm voting keep here, where I voted strong delete on those. Rebecca (talk) 14:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep per above. The "Past main AfD" does not apply as this is the subject of secondary sources (mostly government) and even as "planned" it's notable. --Oakshade (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Strong Keep all future railway stations that are to be built are notable!♥_INchile 19:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Now keep. Was Delete There are no references, so fails WP:N as there are no secondary sources to support the article. Assize (talk) 03:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Um, no. The policy requires that sources exist, not that they be in the article at the time. We don't delete articles on notable topics because the current text sucks. There's clearly plenty of sources on this: it's probably the most major public transport extension announced in Australia over the next decade or so, so between official sources and press coverage, there's plenty of material, both on the line and its stations. Rebecca (talk) 11:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  - Rebecca's interpretation above is entirely correct. The sources merely have to exist for future improvement. We delete if no future improvement is possible. Orderinchaos 09:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: From WP:N, which you refer to above, "If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources, that does not necessarily mean that its topic is not notable.". Hopefully this article can be improved so that we DO have reliable sources to establish its notability. - DigitalC (talk) 12:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  - Interesting interpretation. But what about "The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability." in WP:N. If there are sources, why not add them, and I'd go for a keep. Assize (talk) 13:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Just by virtue of being a publicly funded rail station, by law, extensive government documents of proposals, budgets and administration exist. These kind of sources aren't always immediately available through internet hyperlinks. --Oakshade (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not asking for a hyperlink. A paper reference is fine. The information in the article must have come somewhere, otherwise it is on par with a hoax or crystalball. I suspect it is no more than a passing mention in a press release but at least that could be cited and that would warrant a keep. Assize (talk) 21:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

But resources exist, by law. Just because you don't see them doesn't mean they don't and it's a hoax. --Oakshade (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

What "law" says they must exist as I'm not aware of an Australian law that requires that. This is now sounding Original Research if you're relying on the original government documents. I've done a search for this proposed station and turned up zip. Under WP:Deletion, that on the face of it warrants a deletion. Surely this AfD is about improving the article so that somebody reading about this station be should be able to verify a reference somewhere if they want to. The argument for keep so far is "there really are bunyips, I can't show you one, but it really must be there". Assize (talk) 03:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No, your argument amounts to "the article currently sucks, so I'm voting delete". And you're being told "hang on, there's actually plenty of sources for this, should someone bother to include them" - which is plenty enough to make it notable per Misplaced Pages policy. It's a major government project, for gods sake. Rebecca (talk) 04:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

With respect, I'm not voting delete because the article "sucks". I couldn't care whether it is a stub or badly written. I'm simply saying this is an objective encyclopedia and references are necessary. I don't care whether they are paper or hyperlinks. I usually argue keep if there is some sort of reference. Assize (talk) 12:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Assize, Google (or whatever search engine you used) doesn't mean everything and does not justify something's existence. Why do you need to go online to search for it when it's existence is stated clearly in the article North West Metro and has been sourced for that matter? I know the source isn't in the station's article itself, but as quoted above, "we don't delete articles on notable topics because the current text sucks." For your convenience, here's one place you could find out about it's existence. --Pikablu0530 (talk) 04:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

have added that reference to the article Murtoa (talk) 06:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Your research skills are much better than mine. Much appreciated. Assize (talk) 13:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Assize, In Australia, that "law" of government disclosure is the Freedom of Information Act 1982. As you seem Australian, I'm surprised you never heard of it. In New South Wales (the state that's funding this project), the more specific state law is the Freedom of Information Act 1989. --Oakshade (talk) 04:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Quite simply, one can't spend oodles of taxpayers' money without any paper trail. Often governments will get a report prepared on something as they are not experts on the particular area, so will need expert advice on structural and technical possibilities and their likely costs. Additionally, in order for companies to tender in order to build the stations, a certain amount of information is made available in tender briefs. This is public infrastructure as well, so not only would there be the minimum to comply with the law but also a certain amount of advertising by the Government to say "look what we're doing for your community" and, closer to the time, more specific information on usability. Furthermore, once a few years go past, inevitably journals focussed on public works and/or railways mention anything that needs to be mentioned. So no shortage of possible documentation, and you will pretty much never have a station (especially a new one) without it. Orderinchaos 09:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Older Australians will remember the sports grant affair in which the record of grants was kept on a whiteboard. Politicans can and do regularly make announcements on the fly without reports. The Freedom of Information Act does not mandate that records must be kept of every major capital announcement. It determines what information that exists can be released. It doesn't mean that information does exist. All this debate, when simply a reference could have been added to make the topic notable. Assize (talk) 13:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Part II of both the federal and state acts mandate the publication of all government affairs. If they didn't require that, the acts would be close to useless. --Oakshade (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No, they must publish a statement of affairs, not document their affairs. Some commentators say that the Acts are useless as a result. Assize (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The acts are much more complex than that. All discussions of government policy, all contracts, all details, and all costs must be published. --Oakshade (talk) 19:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep Plainly notable, and reliable sources exist. Current state of the article is not a justification for deletion. Orderinchaos 09:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep, subject of secondary coverage. Would be interested to see where the information for the stuff in the infobox (number of platforms, etc) is though. Lankiveil 11:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC).

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 00:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Lower North Shore Metro Extension

Delete as per other articles Past main AfD Bidgee (talk) 11:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete - No sources or references. The metro line's existence is very questionable. Contents of the article are purely imaginary. --Pikablu0530 (talk) 13:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Strong Keep will obviously be built this is cited and planned/under contruction metro lines are notable.♥_INchile 19:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - the line has never been officially announced nor noted in any news articles. The article contains imaginary station names that are not cited (although confusingly, it has a non-existent citation mark there). The line is not even under planning, hence it's existence is very questionable. --Pikablu0530 (talk) 00:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. This line hasn't been approved, and I've never seen it even be seriously proposed. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete some rail enthusiasts love to post an article on any proposal put forward, however nebulous. I would suggest there should be a guideline as to when such project can have an article. I would suggest that they need to be (1) funded and (2) authorised (or at least going through the authorisation process). That would mean that there is a reasonable prospect of their being completed. Until then it is mere WP:CRYSTAL. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete, this rail line is not mentioned in the provided references. The only ghits for this come back to Misplaced Pages. I'm willing to admit that there might be other sources for it, but I'm very skeptical. Will cheerfully change my mind if reliable references stating that this is being seriously proposed or considered are provided. Lankiveil 11:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC).

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Green Week

AfDs for this article:

Fails WP:GNG particularly objective third party evidence, contains far too much original research. Michellecrisp (talk) 11:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete Notability appears to be limited solely to the Monash University campus. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep I really can't see the point to deleting it. The notability is wider than just the campus, many people have heard of Green Week before. There have been articles in the Herald Sun about it (using it to highlight the dangers of Binge Drinking, etc) and other lesser known media attention. I think it is well known enough to warrent inclusion into wikipedia. Disco (talk) 04:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment many people have heard of Green Week before sounds like a weasel statement! If it is well known then there should be ample reliable and verifiable sources establishing its notability. In its current form it lacks this significantly. Michellecrisp (talk) 04:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Total weasel statement. But anyway, since I haven't archieved news articles written about it, I can't back it up. The Herald Sun is the largest paper in our state, and they had an "opinion" page decidated to Green Week once, but I've spent 5 minutes googling and I can't find anything. And that is just print media - there is footage of an ABC weather report in the late 80's/early 90's where it was delivered without the weather charts becuase "some students from farm week have stolen them". Again, totally unverifiable! Disco (talk) 01:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete This may be notable for folk at Monash Uni's Clayton campus, but beyond those walls the event is no more notable than similar events at presumably every university around the country. As for coverage in substantial sources, Google News archives reveal a couple of passing references only. However, I note that there are reasonable articles for similar events at Uni of WA, Adelaide Uni. I would contend that in these examples however that there is more substance and historical background as opposed to long descriptions of non-notable competitions and non-notable winners. I'd think that any worthwhile content could be contained within the Monash University, Clayton campus entry. An example of this is for Prosh Week at Melbourne Uni. Murtoa (talk) 06:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that in the Prosh articles there is more worthwhile content, and more attention needs to be made to Green Week. But is that a reason to delete or just a criticism of the article in its current form? I guess when you look at the popularity of the event, on the campus (around 8,000 I believe), I just can't see the need to delete it when people are willing to keep it maintained. But, as you can probably tell, I have no knowledge on what constitutes notibility, but I still want to keep it because I really can't see the harm in it. I have a feeling I am outvoted here though... :) Disco (talk) 01:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately WP:NOHARM is not a valid reason for keeping an article. Michellecrisp (talk) 02:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again my lack of knowledge has been shown. Okay, so as the previous link to Google News archives shows, and at least another mention shows, Green Week has been covered by reliable, verifiable and noteable sources. The actual information used needs to be linked to a Monash page, but Green Week has been mentioned by 3 news sources so I believe it passes the noteworthy status - which is what was in question? Disco (talk) 03:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

These references, whose mention of Green Week is very much in passing (one is a music review, another an article about drinking), certainly establish that it exists, but don't establish the subject's notability. Ultimately I think it appropriate to mention briefly in the Clayton campus article, but I can't see how you'd find sufficient notable content to warrant its own article. Murtoa (talk) 03:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Campus-based activity, not notable beyond its clientele. WWGB (talk) 01:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete. user:Disco said there are articles in The Herald Sun newspaper about it. Where are they? I searched the Herald Sun and can't find Green Week. You have to prove notability, which as yet has not been done.--Lester 04:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I admitted that I could not find them, I doubt they are still archived as it was years ago. But there are links to The Age which mentions them. Disco (talk) 04:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete, no significant coverage by reliable sources to indicate notability beyond a particular campus.--Boffob (talk) 06:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete, the coverage provided seems to be trivial at best (seriously, Urban Dictionary?). A few students having a few too many drinks and getting up to mischief does not notability make. Lankiveil 11:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC).

The result was Delete. BJ 19:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Jcoder Java IDE Editor

The article lacks reliable sources to verify that this product meets the notability criteria. Prod removed by creator, who added sources from which the program can be downloaded, and indicated on the talk page that she believed that these sources would solve the problem. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable. Highly unlikely software released as a beta would be notable at this point. eaolson (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It's no longer a beta version so I've changed it from beta to freeware. Also, I know that an article needs independent third-party sources which show that it's of notability and importance, so I found these links.

Editor's review: http://www.alexaboostup.com/cgi-bin/nph-pxy.pl/000010A/http/www.softpedia.com/reviews/windows/JCODER--Review-88906.shtml blogger's reviews: http://webmasterfreeware.blogspot.com/2008/06/jcoder-10-freeware.html http://www.getpack.com/archives/13816 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manycat (talk • contribs) 09:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete per FisherQueen, and it also seems there's a conflict of interest with the article's author seeking to promote the software. Checking the link to the editor's review, the review is based on an unrelated calendar program, so I wouldn't trust it as a reliable source. --Gerta (talk) 19:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The result was delete. Tan ǀ 39 17:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Puzha.com

non notable ChiragPatnaik (talk) 10:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep The article needs (a lot of) work but Puzha appears to be a pretty big publisher in India with a fair amount of titles. I wouldn't call that 'non notable'. Channel ® 23:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not a publisher, merely a online bookstore amongst other aspirations. Have a look at this About Us page. Yes, there are references in a newspaper. But such launches are dime a dozen in India (as I'm sure they are anywhere in the world). I agree cleanup is an alternative. But much rather delete and ask for a better contribution. The collection of links at the bottom is a blatant SEo attempt IMO ChiragPatnaik (talk) 18:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BJ 19:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete. I'm not seeing anything that establishes notability. Its Alexa ranking is in the 6 digits as well. Wizardman 16:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Sean Whitton / 14:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Forever and never (band)

No evidence presented to demonstrate that this band meets Misplaced Pages's inclusion criteria for musicians and ensembles. JavaTenor (talk) 09:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Fails WP:BAND; no assertion of notability, little media coverage. Jезка (talk) 11:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete - as per nom - also, two of the references included in the article relate to the geographic location of the band, not the band itself, the other reference isn't a reference, its a link to a wikipedia page for Wavorly, an article which makes no comment of their connection to that band. Google search shows information about a band with a similar name - Forever Never specifically - and nothing about this band. Sonuvafitch (talk) 16:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Tan ǀ 39 22:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thaindian News

non notable... ChiragPatnaik (talk) 09:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep. There are already over 20 English Misplaced Pages articles that use Thaindian News in their references. That's a good indication that they run stories that other outlets and portals don't. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

well, it exclusively carries wire copy and as such is not a "news source"... more like a newsblog. On the flipside, a paper like the Metro newspaper does the same... So, that argument is a bit weak. Just because it has been quoted on wikipedia, doesn't mean it is significant. That would be a circular argument in the making...

That was just an example. This google search shows over 700,000 hits for "Thaindian News", which means that a lot of other websites are referencing it too. But I guess the real test is whether it meets WP:WEB. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Sean Whitton / 14:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The result was no consensus, defaults to keep. Hersfold 02:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Podbharti

not notable... no credible references...ChiragPatnaik (talk) 09:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete unreferenced, orphaned article. Only found a single 3rd party reference which does not meet the "significant coverage" that WP:N requires.--Rtphokie (talk) 12:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Sean Whitton / 14:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 21:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete, not notable. The only reference I could find was this article in a publication I've never heard of. Pburka (talk) 01:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC) Pburka (talk) 01:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

*Delete, Fails notability .--SkyWalker (talk) 04:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep, Iam changing the vote to keep. As there is enough of reference in article to prove the article is notable. Here are more source to prove it , , . I will search for more. --SkyWalker (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep: Simply because Google News doesn't list a website shouldn't mean its not notable. The website is from India, is in Hindi, and its natural that foreign publications won't talk about it. The page already cites noted website reviews/links. IMHO, the fact that its the first Hindi podzine from the subcontinent alone should make it notable enough.--Debashishc (talk) 13:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep, appears to have third party references now.--Boffob (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
~~Comment~~ Reaffirm delete has someone noticed that this site is down as of now? Also please note one of the references is to agencyfaqs.com which says that one of the authors of this blog is Debashish Chakrabarty. The same gentlemen who pitched to several people to change their vote. A gaping case of Conflict of Interest perhaps? ChiragPatnaik (talk) 15:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The result was Speedy delete as vandalism. Kevin (talk) 11:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Kleeco (game)

Unreferenced, unverifiable future video game. Probable hoax. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. No Ghits Creator is a vandal. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 09:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NOTE, is written in a somewhat journalistic tone, and is most likely a TMUISOD. And Google says Chris Nomril doesn't exist. L337 kybldmstr (talk) 10:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 19:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Indicast

it is not notable, and there are no references whatsoever ChiragPatnaik (talk) 08:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete:As per nom. "One of the first" does not qualify as "first" , no mention of viewership to justify claims of popularity. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 08:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete lacks 3rd party references. Fails to establihs notability.--Rtphokie (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete - empty. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

How to write article

Blank page, no content Chafford (talk) 07:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy - blank pages don't need an AfD, just a speedy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ǝsoɹ uɐqɹn (talk • contribs) 07:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 19:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Purok Langis

Not-notable since it is not a subject of multiple independent reliable resources. Also, a purok is a subdivision of a barangay which is the lowest form of administrative unit in the Philippines. seav (talk) 07:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment Just having no references isn't a reason to bring a page to AfD. May I draw your attention to WP:SOFIXIT & WP:ATD. Esradekan Gibb 09:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- I did not bring the article to AfD just because it has no citations/references, I brought it to AfD because you cannot find references talking about the article's subject. There's a difference there. See the article's talk page. --seav (talk) 11:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete This is a named section of a barangay within Bacolod City, i.e. a place smaller than a city neighborhood. The containing barangay (Banago) does not even have an article. This article on a group of houses has very little hope of being expanded further. --Polaron | Talk 16:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete per notability concerns and lack of reliable sources. Towns are notable but this is a section of a section of a city. Reliable sources were not found per Talk:Purok Langis. Google only gives mirrors of an older version of the article.--Lenticel 03:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete. A section of a barangay, or purok, is an informal geographic unit in the Philippines. Barangay is officially the country's smallest geographic unit, and not all of them have puroks especially those barangays that only consist of a neighborhood block (like in Manila). Starczamora (talk) 09:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete', a purok isn't even an official, legal political division. It's an informal name for a specific area that's too small to be considered even as a barangay, it's something like a block or two or an area near a landmark (such as a street corner). --- Tito Pao (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable settlement. And I've been there too. lolz! — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• 09:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Mile end (band)

Someone else tagged this for AfD but didn't complete the nom. Fixing it for them FatherJack92 (talk) 13:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

And Delete, fairly obviously doesn't pass WP:BAND. FatherJack92 (talk) 13:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The result was delete as sources were never provided. Wizardman 22:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

3 Doors Down (1997 album)

I searched Google and could not find any sources that this album even exists. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL (talk) 07:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge any relevant info into 3 Doors Down / Early years (1996-2000). Esradekan Gibb
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete Unsourced. Not notable. --Wolfer68 (talk) 03:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep. This is a notable band with a reasonably good band article. Their other albums meet notability criteria and have articles. While one could merge the information on this album into the band article, I think there is an argument on reasons of space and organisation to keep it separate. Thus, I am tempted to suggest this album article, while it needs clean-up and referencing, should be kept. Bondegezou (talk) 16:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- But where is the source that this album actually exists? --Wolfer68 (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  - Appears to be a demo from here: "Meanwhile, the songs kept coming, and in 1997 3 Doors Down recorded some demos. They pressed a CD to sell at gigs, and fans flocked out to see them live, numbering more than 2,000 per show." Similar story here. I'll have to dig around for a proper reliable source, but the verdict is that it was a self-produced demo CD. 81.51.89.187 (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Sean Whitton / 14:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete Whether 3 Doors Down is a notable band is 110% irrelevant. The WP:MUSIC criteria says the following; "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." Unless this demo has had significant independent coverage in reliable sources, then it cannot be kept. In my opinion, the one vote as a weak keep above is invalid since there is no reasoning which adheres to WP:MUSIC criteria. LuciferMorgan {talk) 17:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. It is accepted that arguments based on how information is organised over multiple articles is valid. There is appropriate material for Misplaced Pages here: the question is where to put it, in its own article or in the band article. Bondegezou (talk) 09:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep - a notable album by a notable band. While the album was never released on a major label, that alone does not keep it from being notable. Furthermore the success of the bands other albums, only has helped the notability of this album through the years --T-rex 00:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Tell us why this demo is notable and provide valid evidence - factual information as concerns this demo, proving it has had "significant independent coverage" would actually make your vote valid. Until then, I actually feel this vote is invalid since it has no basis in WP:MUSIC criteria - WP:MUSIC criteria deems demos as "generally non-notable" unless they've had "significant independent coverage", irrelevant of the success future albums have had. Before voting, it'd be great if people actually read the notability guidelines. Votes to oppose without any specific reasoning aren't accepted at FAC without specific reasoning, so I don't see why a vague keep should be accepted here either. LuciferMorgan (talk) 00:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep. I agree with everything the guy before me "T-rex" just said. I actually think this article should be expanded. 3 Doors Down's website probably has info on it. Tezkag72 (talk) 21:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete Non notable album. No sources to confirm any facts. Fails WP:N, WP:M, and WP:V.Undeath (talk) 19:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete, it has already been said: we don't cover demos like that. Punkmorten (talk) 10:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Ben Glenn, The Chalkguy

Subject fails to meet notability guidelines, tagged since last month without changes Movingboxes (talk) 07:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Sean Whitton / 15:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete. No reliable sources listed; appears to fail WP:BIO. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The result was Keep and merge (non-admin closure). Majority of information about Taa II is already in Galactus; the merge (wiht redirect) seems the best solution. Ruslik (talk) 08:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Taa II

No citations to multiple third-party reliable sources to establish notability, or even a claim of notability. Does not offer any sources to offer real-world perspective (development, critical reaction, etc.) User:TheBalance seems to have ownership issue be twice undoing redirect without offering any reliable sources or responding to underlying content issues. --EEMIV (talk) 06:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge any useful info to Galactus (most of it's there already) and Redirect there. FatherJack92 (talk) 13:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

My issue was your deletion of the article without discussion. You acted unilaterally even though the article does not meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion. TheBalance (talk) 15:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't deleted, it was redirected. A redirect keeps the article history in the database but sends the reader to a related article when they arrive at the page. A deletion removes the article from the database altogether and readers see a "create this page" message. Redirection is a vaild tool in an editor's toolbox and does not amount to deletion, therefore an article does not have to meet the criteria for speedy deletion if an editor simply wants to remove all the information from that particular page and instead redirect readers to a similar page where they believe most of the information can be found. On Misplaced Pages, per the editing policy, the information is what is important, not the page where it is located. Personally, it makes little difference to me where this article lies. However, it can be verified that the character exists, it is possible to write neutrally about the character and utilising primary source to do so would not infringe upon WP:OR. Notability is a subjective factor regardless of the claims the guidance page seeks to make, per WP:NOPE, and doesn't really help us in our purpose. I think if we have information on the character in an article, it perhaps should be in the article that bears that character's name, but that's just my personal preference. It seems to me that would be most advantageous for readers, and we must remember we are here for our readers. Misplaced Pages's purpose is to be the best reference point for all, not some. I do not see it as within an editor's remit to dictate which portions of our readership we should dictate too regarding content, so far as such content meets our foundation principle of being written from a neutral point of view. Hiding T 12:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep - per Hiding's excellent essay (WP:NOPE), and everything he said in the last few sentences of his comment above. Failing that, I propose to restore the redirect to Galactus. BOZ (talk) 12:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep - There is information in this article that is not on the Galactus main page. Additionally I first learned about Taa II by looking up its entry here in wikipedia, subsequently doing my own further research, and then ultimately contributing to the article itself. As has been mentioned, many people, including myself, use wikipedia to research fictional topics and content.Mobb One (talk) 07:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 00:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

New Hope TV

This is not a notable channel in India ChiragPatnaik (talk) 06:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete: Non notable, never heard of it. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 08:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BJ 19:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete Whilst TV channels are generally notable, there are no independent sources to support this assertion in regard to this channel. Computerjoe 's talk 23:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The result was Speedy delete g3, vandalism/hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

James and the Pontoons

Has existed for a year, but is unsourced and the only Google hits for the band come from this article and its mirrors. "... Johnson went to pursue his dream of being a Curling Champion" - um, hoax? Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 06:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Can not find anything even resembling a verifiable, reliable source. Esradekan Gibb 06:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete as unsourced and unverifiable. Movingboxes (talk) 07:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The result was Merge. —Sean Whitton / 15:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Revolution Song

Oasis song which was only ever a demo and doesn't pass WP:MUSIC#Songs. Prod removed by author. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 05:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb 06:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Merge any important details to Standing on the Shoulder of Giants (the album it was demoed for) and delete Doc StrangeLogbook 14:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Merge Ditto to what Doc Strange said above. -- Quartermaster (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Merge with Standing on the Shoulder of Giants. I agree with the two above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tezkag72 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The result was Keep. Synergy 07:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Chorny Kofe

No indication band meets notability guidelines of WP:BAND. Tan ǀ 39 05:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

keep, under "has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels". This is a major band with nine professionally released albums from 1986 to 2004, and hundreds of concerts, not some garage band to be policed under WP:BAND. Its notability is, of course, mostly restricted to Russia and the former SU, no notability to the Anglosphere is implied (see also countering systemic bias). The interwiki link to the extensive ru-wiki article is a dead giveaway that this needs to be expanded, not deleted. --dab (𒁳) 06:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- I have created Legends of Russian Rock (needs work of course. volunteers?) -- chances are that anything listed there passes WP:BAND easily. --dab (𒁳) 07:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Part (all) of the problem is that the article does not assert this notability. As it reads now, those released albums could be garage-band type EPs, home-burnt CDs, anything. I have nothing against this article and would like to see it remain, but unless we can get some accurate Russian translations going and figure out how to demonstrate notability... Tan ǀ 39 13:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

that used to be the case, but I have since added the labels, which is enough to satisfy WP:BAND. Feel free to google the labels yourself next time in the time it would take you to submit an AfD. --dab (𒁳) 21:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep Editor is making honest effort and defense. I'd rather err on the side of inclusion in this case. Notability seems to be asserted in current version of article. -- Quartermaster (talk) 18:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Da (as they say in Moscow) Notability in the Russian media is confirmed if one does a Google search using the Cyrillic spelling of the band's name: . It appears the band never played in the English-speaking world, which explains the lack of Anglophonic sources. But they appear to be popular in Russia. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
you have actually just googled "black coffee", which is drunk in Russia, too. More relevant searches would be :) --dab (𒁳) 13:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep. This was one of the mainstays of early Russian rock (aka govnorok). --Ghirla 07:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The result was Speedy keep, WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thumper (Bambi)

Unnotable fictional character. Fails WP:N, WP:FICT, WP:PLOT, WP:WAF. Thumper's role in each film is already well covered by the individual film articles. This just repeats the plots of both, with the focus on Thumper and some OR thrown in. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Notable fictional character. --Eastmain (talk) 05:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Please provide evidence showing his notability, namely significant, third-party coverage. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep Notable character but I can see that it does require citations and references. --Pmedema (talk) 07:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, as the article does not support this claim, please provide actual evidence of notability. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Mentioned in , has own book , is a collectable , is refered to in real life , has a Beanie version , has clothes , has a watch , etc...etc... --Pmedema (talk) 08:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep: clearly notable - see e.g. , , , , etc. Oh, and has also been featured on a US stamp: . I agree that the article could do with being rewritten to focus more on the character's cultural impact, rather than just on regurgitating the plots of the films, but this isn't cause for deletion. Scog (talk) 10:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep How many rabbits get to appear on a stamp? Nick mallory (talk) 12:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep Yes, it does need improving, but really, if you want to nominate non-notable fictional characters, I'd suggest that you start with this lot or perhaps with this little lot, rather than with this one, which is one of the rare characters that even has real-world notability!. FatherJack92 (talk) 13:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep I'm seeing lots of references here noted above. Plus, you can figure in that the names were spoofed in Diamonds Are Forever (film)...--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep The references are showing that he is indeed notable, but the article could really use reworking - no reason to delete though. Sonuvafitch (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Keep Frivolous nomination which does not comply with WP:BEFORE. Happily, Thumper likes to play in the snow. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Keep. Very notable film character. 23skidoo (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 00:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Flower (Bambi)

Unnotable fictional character. Fails WP:N, WP:FICT, WP:PLOT, WP:WAF. Flower's role in each film is already well covered by the individual film articles. This is just excessive plot repetition with some OR thrown in. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Agree with Collectonian's points ChiragPatnaik (talk) 10:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
.....whereas this one almost certainly is NN. Borderline, though. Weak delete. FatherJack92 (talk) 13:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:N, WP:FICT, WP:PLOT, WP:WAF. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Redirect possible search term, but the character itself is not notable like Thumper is. JuJube (talk) 05:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Redirect - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete Flower is minor character in a much bigger movie and is already discussed on the film's page. No need for seperate article. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 04:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The result was — The consensus here is the same as after the first discussion, merge. Since the content has already been merged the only action that will be taken here is restoring the redirect. — 22:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations

Procedural nom, as part of a disputed merge and related ANI thread. So we are taking it to AfD, as one mechanism of getting wider community input. I (Elonka) have no preference on how the article is handled, but am starting the AfD on behalf of User:Zero g, who is unfamiliar with the AfD process. In short: Is Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations notable enough to have its own article? --El on ka 04:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.
Merge / ~~delete~~ redirect or delete Quotations from reviews of this book by Hamilton and Mckintosh, both FRS, were added to the article on Richard Lynn. Subsequently User:Richard001 removed a red link in the article by creating a stub for the book, later adding a partial list of academic reviews, a list of contents and his own chapter-by-chapter synopsis. No notability has so far been established for the book, although all of the 7 or 8 academic reviews agree that the data gathered in it for the first time provided a valuable resource. It appears to have been a first draft for subsequent books on eugenics by the same author, which have had a much greater public impact and which have now superseded their predecessor, no longer in print. My own feeling is that the article of Richard Lynn is the most appropriate place to discuss the book. Having the reviews in the article is the most direct way of presenting the material for wikipedia readers, who are far more likely to retain the name of the author than the complicated title. Mathsci (talk) 07:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment I'd like to thank Elonka for starting this AfD. Mathsci (talk) 07:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep The article meets the WP:Notability_(books) requirements, "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience." -- Reviews have been published in 9 different academic journals by different authors. The review by W. D. Hamilton (considered one of the greatest evolutionary theorists of the 20th century) was very positive. In 1996 the book was covered in The Sunday Times which served a general audience. There were other mainstream articles about the book, like "You can't say that!," Antony Flew, The Salisbury Review, Spring 1998., but given the age of the book the actual text is hard to find online. Given the amount of references I don't see why the article should be deleted. --Zero g (talk) 13:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge/redirect or delete Neither the book nor the arguments in it are notable enough for an article of its own. The views expressed really are a synthesis or summary of most of Richard Lynn's work following his retirement from academia. As such I think the account of the book (and its sister book on Eugenics) is most appropriate in the article on Lynn himself, where it can easily be located in the context of his larger body of work. Finally, the views promoted in this book are fringe - Lynn is not a geneticist and he is not using "dysgenics" the way geneticists use it. Lynn himself is far more notable than this particular book (we are not talking about "Darwin" versus "On the Origin of Species" here!) and really, the main reason people know about Lynn is because he espouses the views summarized in the dysgenics book. Putting all of this stuff together does not even produce a long article, and I see no reason to separate it into two articles. To have an article on Lynn and articles on all his books seems to be nothing more than a way to rpopogate Lynn's views at Misplaced Pages. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge/~~delete~~ redirect This 1996 book has become less notable with time. I count nine independent journal citations in the last seven years, less than two per year. The meager attention that Lynn's book still receives is from psychologists, educators and academics in related fields. I found no citations by biologists or geneticists. It is likely that its poor distribution in academic libraries (missing from those of Columbia, Ohio State, University of Texas at Austin, University of Washington, and Dartmouth College) and its out of print status are correlates of this disinterest. Additionally, I concur with the points made by Slrubenstein and Mathsci. It is important to discuss this book, but, in my opinion, it is best discussed in the Richard Lynn article which provides the context for that discussion. Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge/redirect, since you can't merge/delete since that removes the edit history. A summary of the author's views and previous work, not really notable on its own - only two hits on Google News, one of which was a mention in passing. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- - As a note, considering the clear consensus on the talkpage here I can't personally see why this AfD is necessary. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
    - I agree. It's here because Elonka backed the sole dissenter, see the ANI discussion: because she felt the 5 editors in favor of a merge were working together "in other areas of conflict." Is this a precedent now so that where anyone disagrees we go for an AfD? Does consensus mean unanimity now? Doug Weller (talk) 17:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
      - Yes, a "disputed merge" can still come to a clear consensus, as this one did. Consensus is not unanimity. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
      - That's what I thought. I worry that a sole dissenter in a future similar situation will use this as a precedent. Doug Weller (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
        No, this is not a precedent. Unusual admin actions do not override policies and guidelines. I'd see this as a case of Elonka applying WP:IAR in a bold and creative manner. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
        
        OK, I understand. Thanks for the explanation. Doug Weller (talk) 18:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
    - If notability is disputed an AfD is the correct route to take instead of duking it out in a dark corner of Misplaced Pages. Clearly this is one of those cases where, just like the majority of mankind believes earth was created in seven days, the majority chooses to blissfully ignore the large body of available scientific evidence and believe whatever it is they've been told to believe. Apparently I have to accept that Misplaced Pages is unfit to neutrally deal with controversial topics. --Zero g (talk) 12:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Zero g, the cases are not really comparable. First of all, I don't think a majority of mankind thinks the universe was created in 7 days (the majority is not even Christian). Second, in the present case, the vast majority of scientists who work on human and/or population genetics disagree with Lynn's conclusions, in contrast to creation/evolution where the scientific consensus is on the other side. As far as I can see, the large increases in IQ registered over the past decades (the Flynn effect) don't really fit in with Lynn's thesis either. So the "large body of available scientific evidence" is not as unequivocal as you say. However, the question here is not really whether Lynn's hypothesis is right or wrong, Misplaced Pages is not about The Truth, which is why you have articles on creationism as well as evolution or astrology. AfD is about notability and this particular hypothesis seems te be ignored by almost anyone, hence it is not notable. Correct/incorrect does not really enter into this. As for neutrality, nobody here is arguing for suppressing Lynn's ideas from Misplaced Pages, just that a whole article on this theory is not warranted. --Crusio (talk) 12:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Jews, Christians, and Muslims (all 7 days peoples) add up to well over 3 billion. Next, more scientists have agreed (some with reservations of course) with Lynn's conclusions than disagreed, most have not expressed an opinion. But please add your source with this information to the Dysgenics article, it will save a lot of future disputes. Next the Flynn effect is phenotypic where as dysgenic research studies genotypic trends, this is explained in the dysgenics article I think.

The article provides the sources required (though barely) to meet book notability. I honestly believed the article was sufficiently sourced, had potential for growth, and would make a good encyclopedic contribution about the dysgenic hypothesis, but I respect the votes and opinions in this AfD that this isn't enough, and I apologize for all the drama and extra work this dispute has caused. --Zero g (talk) 17:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

C'mon, you must be kidding, each and every one of those 3 billion Jews, Christians, and Muslims is a creationist?? As for the lack of scientists making time to publish a paper disagreeing with Lynn's hypotheses, how many scientists have done that for astrology? The fact that Lynn is ignored except for a few exceptions says it all. --Crusio (talk) 17:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge/Delete. Per the numerous talk page and AN/I thread arguments, esp. on the notability and FRINGE-y nature of the theory, the whacked out notions of the unqualified author, and so on. Glad to offer a voice to this pointless exercise in bureaucracy which Elonka has forced on us to circumvent normal procedure, as seen on the article talk and AN/I thread. So let's reinforce normal consensus and make the statement that the normal process works, and process wonkery and manipulation will not get around the common sense decisions already reached in the normal style. ThuranX (talk) 17:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Merge/delete . The topic isn't notable by itself, and is better handled in the context of the larger topic. As for this AfD, sometimes it's worth going through an extra bureaucratic hoop to make sure that every hurdle has been crossed. We don't do strawpolls much, so in this case an AfD is the best way to establish the views of the community definitively. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Merge/Redirect WP:BK says this of academic books: Academic books serve a very different function and come to be published through very different processes than do books intended for the general public. They are often highly specialized, have small printing runs, and may only be available in specialized libraries and bookstores. For these reasons, the bulk of standards delineated previously for mainstream books are incompatible in the academic bailiwick. Again, common sense should prevail. In that case, notability should rely on the reputation of the academic press publishing it, how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media, how influential the book is considered to be in its specialty area and whether it is taught or required reading in a number of reputable educational institutions. I would dare say that 9 or so reviews since its publication 12 years ago, about half of which are from colleagues or fellow Pioneer Fundees, the almost utter non-existence of citations of this book outside of the author itself and a few very close associates, and the total silence about this book in more than 5 years now should speak for its lack of notability on its own. However, it would be suitable for inclusion in the article about the author, who is far more notable.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete. This book doesn't appear to be notable. I can imagine that the book might be used as a source in a different article, but that doesn't require a redirect. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Merge/redirect per Tim Vickers. Of course geneticists don't cite this stuff, this kind of reasoning was debunked ages ago. Friedrich Vogel, one of the greatest (if not the greatest) postwar German human geneticists used to scoff about this kind of theories that "people don't understand what regression to the mean means". but that's OR I guess :-). Anyway, the only iteresting part about this book is that it was written by Richard Lynn, who is notable because of his wacky fringe theories. --Crusio (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Merge and redirect. The academic world has ignored the work, and the political controversy associated with the work is more attached to the author. Summary style for a long article does not suggest that this would be a good candidate for spin-out if Richard Lynn (currently 36 kb) grows unmanageably large. - Eldereft (cont.) 01:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Merge/Redirect, per WP:CONSENSUS in the merge discussion. No opinion as to whether deletion is necessary (or possible, under GFDL, as some information (previously) in this article has been merged), although that would be the nominal purpose of this AfD. No new arguments against the merge have been presented, no new editors have come out against the merge, and therefore there's no reason to consider the WP:CONSENSUS overturned. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: WP:SNOW, anyone???--Ramdrake (talk) 18:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  - Response I have no objections, looks like the consensus is to redirect to the merged content on the Richard Lynn article. --Zero g (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
    - Ah, just let it run the whole 5 days, there is one editor that doesn't agree (Zero g) and he is making reasonable objections, so it doesn't technically apply here. Closing now wouldn't give him time to address the arguments brought forward by other editors. And, a snow closure may cause disruptive amounts of drama if/when the AFD result is challenged on the basis of bad procedure. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment As the creator of the article, I'm happy to see the AfD which I requested to begin with, only to find it had been merged while I was on a wikibreak. I wasn't very familiar with the guidelines for academic books, which still aren't very clear for borderline cases. It seems to meet the notability criteria for a book, but presumably that doesn't apply for an academic book. (I have modified said guidelines to reflect this, which shouldn't cause any fuss if that is the case.) However, it seems that those experienced with this procedure agree with the decision, so merging will have to be enough, even if information on the book is to be lost. By the way, liked Mathsci's comment "name is too complicated". Classic. Richard001 (talk) 07:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Merge/Redirect. As per arguments already made. Minkythecat (talk) 10:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge, redirect per numerous pertinnt arguments above. That's a better result for the reader, IMO. Guy (Help!) 18:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

- Comment I've kind of had my change of WP:BK reverted, though I presume it was just because of a misunderstanding. It's probably going to be a controversial change, however. Thinking about it more it seems very strange that an academic book can meet the criteria for a book and still not be notable. I mean, it is a book, isn't it? Would anyone like to attempt to show how it doesn't meet the normal criteria for a book? By my reckoning, it meets them with relative ease, whereas a lot of similar book articles here seem to come up short of the mark (many don't have a single citation, though I rarely see them going in the AfD direction). I appreciate that it's pretty weak on the citations, but I think if it meets the criteria for any book as outlined it the nutshell, it should therefore be notable. Richard001 (talk) 00:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  - I do not see how every published book merits an article. That a book is published in and of itself does not make it notable. WP:BK lists five criteria for notability and I personally do not think Lynn's book meets even one of these criteria. (I happen to agree with Richard001 that different criteria should apply to academic books; the guidelines provide three criteria and I would argue that the first is a non-critera - publication by an academic press is simply one of the things that defines the book as academic - and on the grounds of the two notability criteria that follow, I would say that this particular book is definitely not notable.) I am sure Zero G would disagree with me; notability is often not a lcear-cut issue but requires judgement. It is a little reassuring that I am not alone in reaching this judgment. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
    - Academic books meet a different set of criteria than standard books, as outlined above, for a number of reasons: first their usually much lower volume makes some criteria less applicable; second and most importantly, notability in the scientific arena is measured differently: a book is notable if the ideas it sets forward are reprised and integrated by later researchers, and eventually taught in schools and universities. That is the hallmark of scientific notability. In the specific case of this book, it was reviewed a few times, many of the reviewers were in the same circle as Lynn (which means it doesn't really count for book notability), and apart from a citation or two from the very author of the book, didn't really get cited again. To me, that's a pretty clear-cut case of academic non-notability.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Redirect. Utterly non-notable book, it's only relevance seems to be that it was written by a publicity seeking controversial retired academic. Any mention of the book on Misplaced Pages should therefore be included in said academic's article, if it needs to be mentioned at all. Alun (talk) 15:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep or Merge with some revision, although it looks to me like it was already merged into the author's main article, with editing, and is a better presentation. Anyway, the article as written deals with a subject that sounds interesting and seems valid; I don't question the notability of the author; and it is written intelligently. However, it's a wee long - especially for a book which, according to the author's wiki article, is now out of print. That doesn't subtract from the book's validity or notability in itself, however. But the article could be shortened - a chapter-by-chapter explanation is not necessary - we need an overview, that's all. I also believe that any article on a book should give a little bit more information on the author - just a quick bit about their background and other works, not a complete biography. My only big objection is to the list of reviews at the end - unacceptable! I'd rather see at least one pos and one negative review in summary on the page itself, than a long list of dead links like that - it's just not very professional and can, at times, be deceiving. itinerant_tuna (talk) 03:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep or Merge I agree with itinerant_tuna. The book seems borderline notable, or could be merged with the article on the author. However the article is really a coatrack for presenting the author's opinions. (There is a lot of this on WP.) On the other hand, I feel that a lot of the delete voters are motivated by their dislike of the same. I could be wrong however. Maybe they would also vote to delete a coatrack article on a "politically correct" book. -Steve Dufour (talk) 19:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The result was replace with disambiguation page which I will now go and do. —Sean Whitton / 15:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Razorblade

This article should be deleted under WP:MUSIC#Songs, no references, and non-notable song. SE KinG (talk) 03:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete or redirect to History for Sale no indication that it is any more notable than any of the other songs on History for Sale. Does not appear to have ever become very popular or made it high on any of the charts. - Icewedge (talk) 04:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Redirect to History for Sale, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Replace with disambiguation per FatherJack92 and Doc Strange. Nice thinking outside the box there. Esradekan Gibb 05:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Redirect - to History for Sale. Notability not established. --Pmedema (talk) 07:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Redirect to Razor which is what it sensibly was before someone plastered this NN song over it. Come on people, if users type "Razorblade" into Misplaced Pages are they really looking for an article on a band? FatherJack92 (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Or alternatively... turn this page into a dab, given this. FatherJack92 (talk) 13:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete, Redirect to Razor and create a dab page at Razorblade (disambiguation). Song is a NN album track. Doc StrangeLogbook 15:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Replace with disambiguation per FatherJack92 and Doc Strange. We can have a link to History for Sale there. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Dabify per FatherJack. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. —Sean Whitton / 15:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

List of The Land Before Time songs

Unnotable list of songs from the various Land Before Time movies and television series -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete Misplaced Pages is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed. This list is not suitable for an encyclopedia. WP:NOTDIRECTORY AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete, lacks any form of WP:RS, looks like just a list to me. Esradekan Gibb 05:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Per nom and AlbinoFerret's comments. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep; Misplaced Pages is not paper. This list harms no-one and I can see it being useful to some, since it relates to a notable film series. I think it is really no different than all the many "list of franchise characters" lists that are on Misplaced Pages already, and it does not require "reliable sources" any more than a plot summary of a movie does. Esn (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Esn (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep - Meets the criteria for stand-alone lists. References can be added. The movies are notable; it is not necessary that all of the songs referenced in the list be notable. BRMo (talk) 04:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment — There is useful information on the list, but if it is not possible to verifiy these production details and statements such as "but became a popular instrumental" - should this even exist? Even if it this possible to source such information, would it not be better to intergate the aforemention into a 'production' section in each movies' article? « ₣M₣ » 17:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Chelsea darling

Non-notable model. While the article is well-written and has a number of inline citations, the cites are to her website and various other photography web pages. 115 Google hits (many to a similarly named transsexual), but none of them reliable sources; they cover just about every self-entered modeling and photography website from One Model Place to Model Mayhem to deviantART to Flickr etc. No evidence that she passes WP:BIO as a recognized name model. Fails WP:V, WP:BIO. Ravenswing 03:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete- per Ravenswing's excellent and well-researched reasoning. Reyk _YO! 04:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable. Quite clearly fails to pass notability. Well written for what it is though. -Djsasso (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete, nonnotable. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.41.54.162 (talk) 20:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete, not notable enough. GoodDay (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
'Delete, just not that notable, and not enough for an encyclopedia. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The result was Speedy delete a7, youth club, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Outreach fc

Non-notable alleged soccer club, no Google presence for either the team or the players. Fails WP:ATHLETE, WP:V, WP:N and probably WP:NFT. RGTraynor 02:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Norm Nixon Jr.

College athlete, has not "competed at the highest level" of amateur sports per WP:ATHLETE. Actor with a single non-leading role, fail WP:ENTERTAINER. Steve Carlson 02:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BJ 19:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Sean Whitton / 15:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Question exactly how has he not competed at the highest level of amatuer sports since he is a college basketball player?--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The highest level of amateur sports would be competing in the NCAA finals tournament, being chosen to play on an all-star team, or setting a league record. There are way too many college athletes out there to warrant an article for every single one of them, unless they stick out in some particular way. Nothing personal! Steve Carlson 04:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

No offense taken, just seeking information. Interesting interpretation (at least to me) that the "highest level" rule would mean only the NCAA Finals tournament. If we took that "highest rule" interpretation of the pros, then only NFL players in the Super Bowl would qualify. I don't think that's what was meant... but it is something to think about!--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Weak deletePer he played on a total of 2 minutes in his last 7 games and rarely was a starter. Misplaced Pages has vague notability guidelines, just as the US Constitution has vague rules, but Misplaced Pages has no Supreme Court to make the final call. We have the unlikely possibility of consensus on the discussion page of a guideline, and we have AFD, where editors can assert their idea of what "highest level of amateur sport" means. I am opposed to blanket granting of inherent notability to every one of the thousands of men and women who put on a college jersey each year, or who had 30 seconds on the basketball court in 1930. I also disagree with the previous commentor who restricts it to the "college all star team" (does it even exist?) and the NCAA finals (only 2 teams, or all 16?) or "setting a league record" (what if the record only held for 1 month i 1882? This article presents no sources other than to say the man played for his college team, which basically does not show satisfaction of WP:N. The guideline needs to be made more explicit. Edison (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete Basketball is a professional sport in the USA. It only makes sense to invoke "highest level in amateur sport" when there is no professional level. Exceptions always possible, but not for someone playing only a few minutes, as Edison above claims - Nabla (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The result was Delete, WP:SNOW close. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Acne Solution

Contested prod. Misplaced Pages is not a how to guide and should not give advice, especially medical advice. It appears bits and pieces of the article are copied and pasted from sites on the internet, but I couldn't find any one page that contained enough text to speedy as copyright violation. Rnb (talk) 02:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete WP:NOT per nom. I can find nothing here with the necessary originality and quality to salvage for a Smerge to the existing Acne article. Plutonium27 (talk) 05:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete: Uh... seicer | talk | contribs 05:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete; WP:NOT#HOWTO, copyright issues, material better covered at acne vulgaris, looks like an excuse to post lots of links to commercial sites, etc. etc. I redirected a previous incarnation of this page to acne vulgaris, but the creator doesn't seem to have taken the hint. Iain99 20:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete per above. LuciferMorgan (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete and redirect to acne vulgaris as Iain suggests. Reyk _YO! 23:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete as per all the problems as noted above, I'm sure this could have been speedy deleted Medicellis (talk) 00:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Merge/Redirect to Acne vulgaris#Treatments. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The result was Speedy keep, nominator withdrew. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound ~~Hammer~~ Farfel and his otters • 23:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Marion Rice

~~Does not assert notability;~~ (fixed) is a personal page, as explained in the edit summary. Green caterpillar (talk) 02:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

~~Keep~~Delete and recreate. Keep Now that Eastmain has fixed it. New York Times obituary . The article is basically a copyvio of this obit.John Z (talk) 06:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep. I edited the text to make it less of a copyvio, and restored the AfD notice that someone had removed. An obituary in the New York Times is usually a strong indication of notability, and taken together with her accomplishments, is probably sufficient proof of notability. --Eastmain (talk) 15:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep in view of previous comments. The author has created several similarly-named (and similar) articles, of which at most one should survive. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep, even though I was original nominator. :P Notability's been established. :) Green caterpillar (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Born Loco

Non-notable musical entry. Appears to fail WP:MUSIC, definitely does not pass WP:RS Ecoleetage (talk) 02:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete, I'm gonna have to say, close to a keep, but not quite yet. Their main claim to fame, WP:MUSIC wise, is getting a song on to a Dutch horror movie. However, the only reliable sources I can find is from their own myspace bio, or a reprint of their bio on other websites, , , which by the way is where 95% of the info for this article comes from, verbatim I might add. When it comes to European metal, the Lords of Metal website seems to be the only one who's references appear to stand up in these AfD's, similar to Allmusic.com. Born Loco do have independent reviews there, , , , but that's it. All the rest I found looks as though they were written as listener reviews. WP:MUSIC#C1 call for multiple non-trivial published works. I can find only 1, the Lords of Metal ones. So hence, close but still a delete. Esradekan Gibb 03:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Sean Whitton / 15:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The result was Keep. ——RyanLupin • (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Oulu International School

Elementary and middle school with no third-party sources. Fail WP:SCHOOL Steve Carlson 01:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep. This is not a garden-variety elementary and middle school, but an international school offering an International Baccalaureate curriculum. Those are both unusual features for a school. Moreover, in a quick Google search I found several additional sources, and I cited two of them in expanding the article. Among other things, I learned that the school enrolls students from 20 nationalities and it's one of just 9 schools in Finland that offer "basic education" (i.e., elementary and middle school level) in the English language. On balance, I conclude that it's notable. --Orlady (talk) 02:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 03:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions.—Orlady (talk) 03:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep - as an international school that contains a high school. Good work by Orlady means that it now meets WP:N. Our coverage of education in Finland is woefully thin and we shouldn't be deleting the few pages we have. This is already a nice, well-written start to an interesting article on an unusual school. TerriersFan (talk) 03:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it does not contain a high school - the way the article currently reads, the students transfer to another school for high school. So unless international schools are in and of themselves notable, this still does not meet WP:N. Nice work on improving it, however! Steve Carlson 07:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does contain a high school. The school website makes it quite clear that it educates to age 16 (Grade 10 in US terms). It is the diploma programme that the students move to study for at grades 11-12 (ages 16-19) - see here. TerriersFan (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep as notable. Article well referenced and set out. A valid high school stub article.--Sting Buzz Me... 02:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The result was keep. John254 14:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

79th Street (Manhattan)

These streets in Manhattan are fairly generic and do not have any inherent notability. As an alternative, these could be merged to a range of streets or just two-way streets. -- bmitchelf•T•F 01:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Keep. nom has not provided specific reason to delete, and mentions merging but has not taken any steps toward doing so. You said it Dad (talk) 01:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment My reason for nomination is that they have no notability, as the articles are just filled with famous people who live there, intersections, and famous places, which are covered in their own articles. Even more streets than these should be deleted, in my opinion, but I did not want to take the time at first only to see it wasted. -- bmitchelf•T•F 02:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep These are major streets in Manhattan, with articles supported by reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 01:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep concur with above. JJL (talk) 01:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep all and nominate any though to really have a problem, though I think all or almost all could be supported without much difficulty. Streets are notable for what is located there--what else could they be notable for, except the details of their construction & zoning--which could in fact be fully documented for any NYC street. the inclusion of Central Park South on the list of streets called "fairly generic" shows the problem with the nomination! DGG (talk) 02:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep I've come here from the 116th Street article. Notability has been has been established there. Will assume the other streets have interesting histories as well. Louis Waweru Talk 02:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
nominating so many articles at once just isn't going to fly... but some of these streets don't look very notable. What's next, an article on a zip code because there's something notable in it? The principle of "notability is not inherited" would seem to rule out an article on a street just because something notable is located on it. --Rividian (talk) 02:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Additionally, streets are being added after votes have been cast, which confuses the issue. JJL (talk) 02:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  - I'm not a machine. I added them as quickly as I could. -- bmitchelf•T•F 02:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
    - Adding articles for deletion as fast as you can is a big part of the problem. Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy requires nominators to review articles and to consider options for improving or merging articles before a mad rush to deletion, a step that does not appear to have been taken for any of the articles list here. Alansohn (talk) 03:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
List separately Some of the article does assert notability and based on what I read, like 116th street, are indeed notable. SYSS Mouse (talk) 02:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep Streets are notable in cities not only for what's located on them, but as boundaries of neighborhoods and business backbones as well. Street's like 110th and 116th have songs and books written about them! Keep the stub articles, they are harmless. As far as the longer articles, I can't believe they are even nominated. Having disparate articles linked through street articles is one of the great strengths of WP. --Knulclunk (talk) 02:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I think some obvious merges Central Park North + 110th, Central Park South + 59th would not be out of line though.--Knulclunk (talk) 03:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep Manhattan is one of the most notable urban areas on the planet. These articles describe significant streets and are part of a larger effort to organize Misplaced Pages's coverage of Manhattan. --agr (talk) 02:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Wow, how do you come up with this crap? I think 78th Street is important since I live there, but not that it should have a Misplaced Pages article. You can't tell me that 112th Street deserves an encyclopedia article when all it does is describe its location, which I can find on a map. Obviously, these places are more important than I knew for some reason. -- bmitchelf•T•F 02:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- The current state of a Misplaced Pages article doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the subject deserves to have one. Bad articles can be improved. I'm sure more can be said about these streets than just the geographical location info that's there now. Reyk _YO! 03:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep - This bundling is overly broad. If you want to nominate streets do them individually. There are indeed some stubs and crappy articles. But I really get the impression that the nominator didn't even bother to read some of the articles. The notability of a lot of these streets is established more than a lot of the state highway articles out there. It's hard to believe the nominator would go after any of the midtown streets which is the capital corporate America. Americasroof (talk) 03:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Strong Delete every last one of them These streets are not notable. They are just streets; most of them are not even "major" streets in Manhattan, and even if they are, so what? Whether they are in the center of commerce or have songs written about them is beside the point. Will Misplaced Pages become a repository of every song ever written next? (That's a Robert Klein comedy routine, by the way.) Someone mentioned that just because there is something notable on them does not warrant their inclusion. Well, they got that right. (Sure, got that right.) --Jgroub (talk) 03:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep for now. I'm not sold on the justification for many other keep votes here, they seem to argue that these streets are notable simply because they exist or have inherited notability from the landmarks located on them. However I think the bundling here is over-broad as it includes a great many articles of various lengths, importance and notability. Some look crufty and the sort of article I'd vote delete on, but others are clearly worthy and so I can't justify voting delete. If you want to renominate a single article that you think is fairly typical of the bottom end of these street articles, I wouldn't object. If you got a consensus for delete on that discussion, then you could mass nominate more of the dodgy ones. Reyk _YO! 03:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep Major streets in one of the world's major cities should not be included in such a group nomination. The nomination is overly broad. Some of these streets are known for the United Nations, as venues for modern jazz, or as the home of Columbia University. A quick Google News search shows dozens of possible sources for many of them., such as this one for 27th Street in which the New York Times says it holds "a smorgasbord of architectural diversity." Many of these streets are the locations of nationally or internationally known institutions, entertainment districts, or commercial districts. Edison (talk) 04:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep Each article has substantiated notability. While individual streets in any particular place seem unlikely to warrant their own articles, New York City is one of the few if not only places where so many parts of it are notable. You said it Dad (talk) 04:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep most. Many should be merged into appropriate range articles such as Manhattan streets, 1-14, or a group of two or three that are contigous and were at one time renamed, should be merge, but most are notable enough to survive. Incidentally I live on one of the more dubious streets. For that matter, several Outer Boro streets are main arteries {I spent part of today dodging cars on Hylan Boulevard (Staten Island) and deserve articles. Jim.henderson (talk) 04:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Procedural Close Overbroad nomination that has had deletion candidates added to the bundle since original posting. Methinks it not a good idea to create an AfD history on all these articles by allowing this to run its course. Townlake (talk) 04:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep All or procedural close as above. Merging some might be appropriate, but Manhattan has got to be the most densely notable geographical location in the USA. Jclemens (talk) 04:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Or, dear God, somebody will post an article for every street of Beijing. And every street in old Rome. And Alexandria. And Athens. And Tyre, and Nineveh, and Ctesiphon, and Instanbul. In every historical era. Misplaced Pages is not a street directory. The "notable facts" for this street don't even rise to the level of laughing. I don't know about all the other streets, but ... RayAYang (talk) 04:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep because I don't think this should be a mass deletion... I would consider them individually. gren グレン 05:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep Clearly, there is not a consensus that streets are inheretly non-notable. These would really have to be considered individually. Maxa megalon 2000 05:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep - These gigantic batch AfDs are always a waste of everyone's time as there are always variations in the specific articles as to their notabilities. Just about every street in Manhattan has historical, social and economic significance, not only to NY, but to the world. I just clicked one of these at random (66th Street (Manhattan)) and found it's the location of Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts and the headquarters for ABC News (that stretch of the street is co-named Peter Jennings Way). No good nor supported reason was given to delete by the nom and their alternative ("a range of streets or just two-way streets"?) is non-sensical. --Oakshade (talk) 05:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep, all of these streets appear to have some degree of notability. Everyking (talk) 08:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep all. I object to a mass AFD as these likely have different characteristics, i.e. some may be notable some may be not. Please address specific issues individually. Nominator should also try working with relevant WikiProjects (e.g. WP:NYC) to address criteria for what streets should get an article rather than a mass deletion nomination. --Polaron | Talk 15:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep - although generically named, every single one of these is a major urban street two miles or more in length in one of the world largest, most famous and most heavily populated cities. Many of them - such as 110th Street - have strong cultural notability. Many of them also has historical relevance as boundaries of Dutch-era settlements, courses of elevated railroad tracks, sites of famous crimes, and the like. Even that fact that many of them feature the street addressses of nationally or internationally notable buildings contributes to the argument for their retention. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
It is snowing... --Explodicle (T/C) 16:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ - if you allow this, then you have to allow every third street of Delhi and Bombay et al. And I'm prepared to write those articles... ChiragPatnaik (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep - I guess a mass purge will never past muster... ChiragPatnaik (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
There is no inherent problem in that as long as there is sufficient information that can be used to write a substantial article. Being a major city, I don't doubt that lots of interesting stuff can be said about the major streets of Delhi. --Polaron | Talk 16:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Go for it! Misplaced Pages will be better off with comparable articles from other major metropolises. Alansohn (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is my first proposed contribution User:ChiragPatnaik/Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg. Do comment ChiragPatnaik (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. Put it in article space and add it to the other roads in Category:Streets in Delhi--agr (talk) 19:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Delhi Roads is a more interesting category... ChiragPatnaik (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I see the article is now up. I found it interesting and well sourced. Streets are a useful way of organizing information about cities. I think there are more important issues for people to spend time on than nit picking which streets should have articles.--agr (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment—A significant number of these articles look astonishingly unimportant; comparable to a common store article in value. But there are a handful that are properly cited and contain interesting details. Hence I can't support a mass purge.—RJH (talk) 17:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Speedy close. Although this is clearly a WP:SNOW situation for keeping, my preference would be to close as an overbroad nomination. New York City is one of those locations where individual streets most definitely can be individually notable but whether each of of those nominated here is notable, I couldn't say. But a blanket nom of this nature is impossible to resolve. This is just my 2 cents from a procedural perspective; I've no issue against the snowballing keep decision. 23skidoo (talk) 18:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment If I recall correctly, some New York streets have been deleted as non-notable in previous AFDs, but they tended to be 2 block long residential streets. Any of these could be individually considered and might or might not survive AFD. Edison (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep stubby as most of the articles may be, most if not all of them establish some notability. Maybe, if they were all nominated individually, I would reconsider, but they cannot be mass deleted on the basis of a one sentence nomination. Juliancolton 21:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Relist separately. Some of these streets seem to be clearly WP:50k notable - others may not be. This is in danger of becoming a trainwreck nom. Grutness...wha? 01:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Relist Most should go, just being a street in NYC is not inherently notable, "notability is not inherited" I think applies here, but being NYC some of these streets probably are notable. Just a note as well that the creation of these articles continues even now so a re-list and a re-opening of this debate is likely anyway. Strongly suggest the nom withdraw and re-assess on an individual basis. (Did anyone actually read every single one of these articles and check all the sources because I know I sure didn't) Beeblbrox (talk) 08:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Trainwreck - these needed to be reviewed and the relisted separetely to be judged on their own merit. -- Whpq (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep - these are notable and contain enough content to be their own pages CoolGuy (talk) 05:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

TitleTown USA

Non-notable segment of cable TV show. Contested prod. Hippo (talk) 01:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. You said it Dad (talk) 01:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
~~Comment~~ Merge to List of SportsCenter segments and specials (where there is already an entry for TitleTown USA). This one is gonna be tough. At its heart, TitleTown USA is nothing more than a vapid stir-the-pot publicity campaign by an American TV network. But, reliable sources covering the campaign exist - in particular, the cities nominated as "TitleTown" seem to be taking an interest in being nominated. And, that said, a whole lot of those sources are from the 20 nominated cities (thus not independent / disinterested; there's a civic boosterism aspect to a lot of the coverage). Candidly, I'm not sure how the core policies shake out here. Thoughts? Townlake (talk) 04:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Weak Keep Taking Townlake's comment into consideration, I think there is a good deal of potential for notability in the immediate future. For now, the article needs a lot of work, but I am fairly sure a lot more information will become available as the segment progresses. Eternalmonkey (talk) 06:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment. My concern is that while it is an interesting enough segment to watch, is it really something anyone will remember in a month or two when it's all over? After all it's just a segment. Hippo (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- As your link illustrates, notability isn't temporary. If it's notable today, it's notable forever for our purposes. That's part of the challenge here. Townlake (talk) 18:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  - I was really focusing on the second part of the paragraph in the link: "... articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future." Hippo (talk) 01:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
    - Good point. Townlake (talk) 04:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Note An editor removed the AfD and notability tags from the article a few hours ago; I just put them back. Townlake (talk) 04:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete Non notable. Per nom. Tosqueira (talk) 02:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Sean Whitton / 15:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete as a non-notable segment of a TV show. Fails WP:RS and WP:V. Juliancolton 15:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete as per Hippo's argument of premature assertion of notability. Haven't seen any substantial changes to the article in the past few days, the competition (and its format) "penetrating" the market in rejecting thirty thousand nominees is unlikely to have had a lasting effect. Stock promotion campaign. Ottre (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Redirect to List of SportsCenter segments and specials. We cover it there so might as well point people to the right place. --Rividian (talk) 23:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment The page is now redirecting to Green Bay, Wisconsin. I've already filed one AIV report on the page that was declined, and I don't know how to undo the redirect, so not really sure how to proceed. Townlake (talk) 17:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete per TarHippo. Not notable now, not notable in the future. Cmadler (talk) 15:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete It's not really notable. It's just an ESPN gimmick, like the "Live Show" in a few weeks. Besides, Green Bay (not ESPN) owns the trademark to "Titletown USA" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghettoshark (talk • contribs) 21:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

All-Star Holiday Party

Unnotable one-time niche television special. It was fun to watch, but the 2005 event has no significant coverage anywhere. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete - fails WP:N, fails WP:RS. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. WP:N You said it Dad (talk) 01:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete—I almost prodded this myself when it came across my Twinkle screen. I decided to give the author the benefit of the doubt, but that has run out now. No improvements to the article since creation, and probably none possible within the confines of WP:V, so preheat the oven to delete. Livitup (talk) 07:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The result was Delete, while some sources were found by Ben Aveling during this discussion, they were either not reliable, or did not discuss the newsgroup as their subject and only offered trivial coverage of its content. The notability and verifiability concerns were therefore unresolved. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Alt.sysadmin.recovery

Just another newsgroup, no mention of why it is important. Wongm (talk) 00:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete There are sources but none go beyond trivial mentions. I suppose standards of inclusion for websites apply to newsgroups too. --Rividian (talk) 00:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Weak delete this is a particularly well-known newsgroup, but I still see no evidence of WP:N per Misplaced Pages's standards. Perhaps a WP:NEWSGROUP is needed. JJL (talk) 01:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Weak delete. An interesting newsgroup, but I don't think it meets the WP:WEB criteria for notability. Incidentally, WP:WEB ought to cover newsgroups based on its provision that "Any content which is distributed solely on the Internet is considered, for the purposes of this guideline, as web content." (Technically and historically, I believe some newsgroups were distributed other than by means of the Internet, but I don't know if that is the case anymore, and at any rate the non-Internet distribution of newsgroups is unlikely to be significant in contemporary times.) The most likely method by which a newsgroup could satisfy WP:WEB would be to meet criterion 1, "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." I will discuss this issue at Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (web). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

There was a time when Usenet traveled via tape that was flown to some regions, but I thing that's long past. JJL (talk) 04:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete, unfortunately the scary devil monastery has received only trivial coverage. (Also note that WP:WEB already includes all internet-based content. WP:WEB is just the most common shortcut, and there is also WP:INTERNET.) --Dhartung | Talk 03:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep This is not so much a currently active group, but an interesting piece of Internet (well, USENET, really) social history. References can and should be found--the article should be cleaned up, not deleted. Jclemens (talk) 04:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Not just another news group. It meets WP:WEB#Criteria requirement 1 for notability, even though that isn't completely clear from the article. A google search shows how much influence the newsgroup has had. Most of the hits are talking about material covered in the newsgroup, not about the newsgroup itself, but that still counts under WEB (The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.) For a few examples that are perhaps amongst the more serious publications, see for eg and some of . That said, WEB also says: "Misplaced Pages articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance." This needs to be done before the article can be described as good. But the newsgroup is notable. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete - doesn't seem to have any chance of meeting WP:WEB. Wednesday Next (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
DeleteI dare say it made a few sysops feel notable but is just another alt.so-what. Plutonium27 (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep as per Ben Aveling. Robert Brockway (talk) 03:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The result was Delete. BJ 19:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Trustafarian

AfDs for this article:

This article was already deleted at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Trustafarian and that deletion was endorsed at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 September). DGG (talk · contribs) says it's not eligible for speedy deletion as a recreated deleted article, as a non-admin I couldn't really tell before I tagged it. At any rate, it was deleted the first time around for the same reason I'm asking it be deleted now... it's a dictionary definition that can't be expanded into a proper encyclopedia article... all you can really do is define it and tack on trivia. It's a term most of us in English speaking have heard of, but so are a lot of terms excluded due to the principle that we are not a dictionary. I'm not really sure why we need a second AFD to decide what consensus has already established twice, but here we are. Note that there are sources, but again, sources alone don't make it not a dictionary definition. Rividian (talk) 00:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete Still just a dicdef (and IMO one that's past its peak popular usage at that). Impossible to see how an article of necessary standard could ever be wrung out of it. Plutonium27 (talk) 01:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete per Plutonium. You said it Dad (talk) 01:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
comment I declined the speedy , as the article was quite different, but I have no opinion one way or another on the merits of deleting it here . DGG (talk) 02:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete as a WP:DICDEF with intermittent pejorative usage and little to define it (e.g. do they all have dreadlocks? or do they just wear alpaca hats?). In other words there isn't exactly a clear trustafarian subculture. At least beatniks and hippies often copped to the term and tried making it their own. Finally, I'd prefer a redirect to an appropriate article on trust fund babies as a phenomenon, but we don't really have one better than trust law and a bunch of more-specific subarticles. --Dhartung | Talk 03:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep/merge As Dhartung says, there should be an article about people who live off a trust fund. This article seems a good a start as any and can be moved as and when we decide upon a better title. For an extensive discussion of relevant tax/legal issues please see this House of Lords debate. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Why do people living off trust funds deserve an article any more than people living off lottery winnings or their wages at shoe factories or what have you? People get their money in different ways and sometimes there are stereotypes about people when lumped together that way. I don't really think it makes for a notable topic. --Rividian (talk) 12:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  - Because no-one has coined a word for people who win the lottery and then pretend to be something else. "Trustafarian" does not apply to everyone who lives off a trust fund, but only the subset who live a certain way. This is recognised cultural phenomenon, and should be documented appropriately. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete - it's still a dicdef, and probably couldn't be anything more. FatherJack92 (talk) 14:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Strong Keep The very fact that a word has been coined for those who live off trust funds yet affect the trapping of a different - and often more bohemian/less overtly wealthy - lifestyle makes it notable. Google "Nathan Barley" and "Trustafarian" for a good illustration of application. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- How does the fact that a TV character embodies some of the stereotypes of a term mean that we can expand the article on that term beyond a dictionary definition? At best it representes a sentence of trivia. There are lots of terms that have been coined for sorts of people... but until proven otherwise they're just terms, and better suited to a dictionary. And Misplaced Pages has a sister project that is a Dictionary... not everything we've ever heard of must be an encyclopedia article. --Rividian (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete Google News Archives has mentions going back to the late 1990s, Google Books has a large number of mentions, but no one seems to consider this anything more than another word for "trust fund baby", and I can't find a source that describes the phenomenon (there's the movie Born Rich), but we have an article on that. Wictionary already has it. When someone can find sources, it can be recreated. Noroton (talk) 01:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The result was no consensus to delete. —Sean Whitton / 15:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Kill A Watt

Article does not establish notability per WP:PRODUCT, sources do not help establish notability. Manufacturer does not have own article. Steve Carlson 00:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep as a surprising number of sources exist: , . I have added two to the article so far. Gadget reviews, but still... that's non-trivial coverage. Two ~500 word articles reviewing the product. Lots more seems to exist. --Rividian (talk) 01:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete per steve. You said it Dad (talk) 01:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep Google News search shows 170 sources, many about this specific product, such as , , , and . Seems to satisfy notability requirements for a product. I know of no requirement that the manufacturer have an article for a product to have an article. Edison (talk) 04:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I only mentioned that about the company because WP:COMPANY seems to imply that information about a product should be on the same page as the company, unless it gets too big, in which case it should be broken out into its own article. Kind of weird for a non-notable company to be making a notable product though. Steve Carlson 07:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment I can't seem to find the relevant guideline, WP:KINDOFWIERD , which would say that notable products do not come from non-notable companies. The problem is that the articles are about the product, not the company. Edison (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete It's just another "usage monitor", fancy name or not - has no notability on its own. And as Steve pointed out, the manufacturer doesn't have its own article. IceUnshattered 19:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Uh, the guideline you've linked to, WP:N, defines notability as non-trivial coverage by multiple sources... and that coverage has been demonstrated and is in the article now. So linking to WP:N is quite curious. --Rividian (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep This is not just any usage monitor. Unlike many in the market that do not really work well, this one actually works, and is well liked by consumers. The P4400 has 278 reviews on Amazon as of the date of this post, which is a very high number for any product. The product's manufacturer doesn't have to have its own article for the product to be notable. --AB (talk) 03:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)