Shortcut: WP:AFD/Y

Centralized discussion
• talk • log • watch
Discussions
Date links and auto formatting (Two items) Include this template on all talk pages? Size of the lead image in an article Maps: primary or secondary sources? Location of the left-hand search box Relicensing Wikipedia under CC-BY-SA Best location for coord missing template Main Page redesign proposal
Archive

Purge server cache

Marjorie Rendell

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

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

Mcroll'd

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

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

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

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

• Delete No indication of notability. Edward321 (talk) 00:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Paul Green (property developer)

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

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

• Redirect per WP:BLP1E and the general notability guidelines for people. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 23:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect is obvious, but why do you think it should be deleted first? - Mgm|^(talk) 00:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per BLP1E, isn't a likely search term, so a redirect would be pointless. RMHED (talk) 00:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Australian handball

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

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

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

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

• Redirect/smerge to Four square, of which this is clearly a variety. Grutness...wha? 00:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
• Delete There's no doubt it exists as an informal game played in one form or another by many over the years. But this is a tough one. I just have strong doubts that it can be properly sourced. If not, I don't know how you could distinguish between fact and fiction. Murtoa (talk) 02:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Bulls-Eye Troll

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

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

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Battle Trolls. They do seem to exist, but they're not independently notable of the line. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

New Zealand Handball

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

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

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

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

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

• Delete Non-notable schoolyard game, no sources to speak of. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Four square, of which this is clearly a variety (it's usually called four square here in NZ in fact - I've never heard it called anything else). Grutness...wha? 00:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Kenworth Truck T908

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

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

• Is this the name of an actual truck model? If it is, it might be a possible redirect candidate. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Justice Lords

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

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

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

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

Tygrus

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

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

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

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

Ultimen

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

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

• Weak delete Unless someone can source some of this. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect reasonable search term.- Mgm|^(talk) 00:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Rubber-Band Man (Static Shock)

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

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

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

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

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

Meta-Breed

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

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

• Redirect to Static Shock. Not independently notable. Horselover Frost (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Static Shock and merge anything that can be verified. May not be independently notable, but makes for a reasonable search term so a redirect is in order.- Mgm|^(talk) 00:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Heather Sharfeddin

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

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

• Weak keep per [1] and notices in Publisher's Weekly. Minimally notable. JJL (talk) 02:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• Delete - Keep – Regretfully - Based on the fact that I did find some very glowing reviews on several of her books and a few in-depth interviews from reliable - creditable – 3rd party sources, as shown here [2]. Which, for me makes the author acceptable under notability inclusion for authors. Likewise, I hope that her next book, scheduled for 2009 will make the best sellers list and we will read about Ms. Sharfeddin, here on Wikipedia. Best of luck to her. ShoesssS ^Talk 23:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Talon (Static Shock)

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

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

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

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

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

Dee-Dee

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

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

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

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

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

Curaré (Batman Beyond)

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

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

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

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

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

Co-Motion Cycles

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

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

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

• Keep I wrote the (admittedly) short article. I have no connection with the company or their products or their employees. I simply came across them when shopping for a new bicycle. I don't think the article reads like a press release as it stands. Co-motion is fairly notable in tandem circles. Wikipedia's article on tandem bicycles lists Co-Motion in its list of manufacturers. A Co-motion tandem has been ridden in the Race Across America (RAAM). I don't know how many bikes they sell annually, nor is this a statistic that's likely to be available from a privately-held corporation; in any case, annual sales doesn't seem to be a criteria for notability.Simplem (talk) 02:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Burke's Postulate

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

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

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

Ahito (Galactik Football)

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

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

• I am also nominating the following related pages:

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

Mei (Galactik Football) (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Micro-Ice (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Rocket (Galactik Football) (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Sinedd (|talk|history|links|