Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 April 20

< April 19	April 21 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was No consensus — Tivedshambo _(t/c) 15:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AC/DC's fifteenth studio album

Unconfirmed and unsourced article for the new AC/DC album. No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 01:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless some verifiable sources turn up. Seems to be forum spculation. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, This article does not have any sources, therefore, this unofficial name of AC/DC's new album is false. Dontcare27 (talk) 22:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no refs. Atyndall93 | talk 10:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since there's no title, I changed the article name to AC/DC's fifteenth studio album. Alex (talk) 20:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. There are reliable sources, including Blabbermouth.net, and there is an announcement on the band's website. I believe Tikiwont and Dontcare27 objected to the past title; Dirty Rhythm. The page, and the AfD debate, have been moved away from that. Not sure what Atyndall is suggesting... dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per good sources in the article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Merge into AC/DC. Until there is official release information about this newly de-titled "album", any article about the project is presumptive and runs afoul of WP:CRYSTAL - and the lack of certainty about the recording supports this. Verified information about a proposed album can safely be put in an appropriate subsection of the article covering the artist; when there is an official announcement (from either the record company or the act, not a fansite or other self-published medium), an updated stand-alone article can be created quickly. B.Wind (talk) 03:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Baldur's Gate characters. Sandstein (talk) 06:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imoen

Aricle about a fictional character from the Forgotten Realms campaign setting, which is which part of the Dungeons & Dragons franchise promoted by TSR, Inc. The article fails WP:NOT#PLOT and has no reliable source to demonstrate the notability of the fictional characters outside the D&D franchise from which it is derieved. The article's content is a synthesis of primary source material, written from an in universe perspective. Gavin Collins (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and/or redirect into ~~Baldur's Gate (series)~~ List of Baldur's Gate characters#Imoen. BOZ (talk) 01:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Create an article called List of characters in Baldur's Gate, merge this article into it. McJeff (talk) 01:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and/or redirect as per BOZ.Shemeska (talk) 01:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and/or redirect as per above. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BOZ. Atyndall93 | talk 10:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and Merge - How about merge to Baldur's_Gate_NPCs#Imoen instead? The character has a listing there already. Web Warlock (talk) 11:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I provided sufficient references and accurate sources. Therefore it needs to be kept. Beside if we merge it, we will remove more than half of the content already on the article. The article itself is detailed enough more so than just a list of characters. Hence keep! Dumoren (talk) 12:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge useful content and redirect to List of Baldur's Gate characters#Imoen. There's not enough encyclopedic content here to justify a full article - all information required can be given in two or three paragraphs. Una Laguna^Talk 16:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Baldur's Gate characters; the Imoen entry on that page is more than sufficient, based on what I saw playing the game series through to completion.—RJH (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Eusebeus (talk) 16:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per RJH etc. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Pretty clear-cut. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per First pillar, consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on Dungeons & Dragons for which there are many published books. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, there's tons of D&D/FR books, but Imoen isn't a canon FR character (if we define "canon" as first-party material by TSR/WotC) and only appears in two licensed computer games (and their expansion packs). --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Baldur's Gate characters as above. No real notability outside of FR/BG universes. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 09:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Nichols

Doesn't seem to be a notable musician, despite having backed dozens of notable musicians – there are no evident sources pertaining to his individual notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G12 Speedy Delete,, tagged as such. Page contents are copied from http://jimmynicholslive.com/about.html. One or two trivial changes have been made to the text but are not nearly enough; content is still at least 95%-98% identical which is plenty to constitute a copyright violation. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 00:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had failed to recognize a previous version without the copyright material or I would not have suggested the speedy. (Slaps self with trout.) Thus, the AfD is back on. The notability is somewhat unclear on this one. If WP:MUSIC is interpreted strictly, then this artist doesn't quite seem to make the cut. However, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and strict interpretation of guidelines is not always for the best. I would be inclined to say that he is notable. I admit it's a grey area, but a whole career of supporting work with many major artists seems at least as significant as a flash-in-the-pan artist who charts once and then never records or tours again after that. The one-hit wonder is notable per WP:MUSIC by virtue of charting; in my opinion, this guy is probably just as significant to the music industry, maybe more so. I would say: notable by a slight margin. The bigger issue, to me, is the lack of any references. I did a quick check of Google and Google news and found nothing that meets WP:RS, though I admit I did not look deeply. As it stands now, I would say weak delete based on lack of sources. If sources were provided, I think the artist is just notable enough to change to a weak keep, but only if at least one WP:RS compliant source is provided. To do otherwise sets a bad precedent; we have too much unsourced material already. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 16:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note Copyrighted material was removed.-Wafulz (talk) 11:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one sentence article that does not assert or demonstrate notability. Aside of stating that the subject of the article heads an apparently nameless back-up band (how can someone be notable for heading a non-notable music group?), the article is empty. B.Wind (talk) 03:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, would not appear to be anything more than a garden variety session/backup musician. Was not able to find any significant reliable, independent sources about him. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 23:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yarmulke day

Nonnotable holiday, invented by one kid. Has a couple of local news sources, so not speediable, but no indication of notability otherwise. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agreed that its very local and limited, if at all. Vishnava (talk) 23:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete un-notable - nobody celebrates it apart from the kid himself I expect. Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 00:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This doesn't belong here at all! Ecoleetage (talk) 02:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This holiday is just some teenager trying to get attention. Nobody even knows or cares about this. Blahblah5555 (talk) 06:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Just delete it. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, per nom. Atyndall93 | talk 10:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 23:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elaine Caruana

The article on Elaine Caruana was created after the death, in a car accident, of the person in question. It was only created as Elaine Caruana made the news, for the sole reason that she died in a traffic accident. Every traffic accident death makes the news in Malta. Previous to her death, she was not a well known personality in Malta, and, to this day, a Google search on her name results only in webpages which are related to her death in the accident - such as a memorial page, and the web archives of local newspapers. Just because she was a model, and possibly well known amongst her colleagues, doesn't mean she was notable. Moreover, just because she appeared on a (relatively unpopular) television program, as a model for clothes presented on the program, doesn't mean she was notable. With all due respect to the deceased woman, I do not think that a Wikipedia article about her is appropriate. The content of the article, which lists absolutely no particularly notable achievements, and demonstrates, as the only evidence of her "fame", the mere fact that she appeared as a clothes model on a television show, should be seen as further evidence for deletion. Yes, she was well known amongst her friends as being a friendly and nice person - however I'm sure almost all of us have known nice people who died, but we cannot validly create a Wikipedia article for each one of them. MaxCosta (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agreed that the news coverage is primarily related to her death in an accident, and not particularly over the person who died. Its like "the person killed in this accident happened to be..." Vishnava (talk) 23:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, biggest claims to fame seem to be as "one of the major models" on a Maltese TV program (not host or star), and as a contestant on a reality TV show, which is pretty universally regarded as short of notability by Wikipedia standards. --Dhartung | Talk 03:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable model. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no offense to family etc. but she wasn't notable before crash. Atyndall93 | talk 10:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to List of Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign endorsements as an {{R from other capitalisation}}, an article that was created and split off from Hillary Clinton in February 2008. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of hillary clinton presidential campaign endorsements

Nothing more than a list (which only contains one thing anyway), which should be merged into Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2008 if it is considered appropriate, but I have an inkling it may not be as it seems to be somewhat lacking in material that would improve the article. asenine ^t/_c 22:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Author has requested deletion - please delete asenine ^t/_c 22:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

speedy something I don't think this needed to come here for 5 days of debate, you could probably just merge/redirect as appropriate, but note that your nom is incomplete, there is no AfD notice on the page itself. Beeblbrox (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 23:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Janelle Schlossberger

This is an article about a high school girl who won a science competition for a "[not] shocking"[1] discovery relating to tuberculosis. The only coverage cited is a The New York Times article summarizing the competition and the press release from Siemens, who put on the competition. There's a lot of POV and OR in the article, and the information there not included in the only cited source makes me think that the author of the article personally knows the subject, raising conflict of interest and autobiography concerns. Her Google hits indicate that she is notable only for this one event. Ultimately, she won a contest with some unusually sophisticated results, but she isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia biography. Dylan (talk) 22:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would this be worth mergig and redirecting to an article on tuberculosis? -- saberwyn 22:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per below, probably not. -- saberwyn 12:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to an article on modern tubercolosis research. Winning the Siemens competition is one thing, but it has not been established as a definite scientific achievement with applications in medicine, etc. If a couple of solid institutions come up and say, "yeah, she got us on to this new avenue" then its really notable. If you follow the Intel and Siemens competitions, every year you'll see "notable" people who are changing the world - which is very good, but not necessarily encyclopedic. Vishnava (talk) 23:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notable only for a winning entry in a research competition for teens, NOT for a breakthrough discovery. If we were to merge into tuberculosis every applicable science fair winning entry we'd have no room for the important stuff. --Dhartung | Talk 03:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, per nom and Dhartung. Atyndall93 | talk 10:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The text of this document contains unsolicited personal information that was posted without my consultation, knowledge, or approval. My recommendation is that it be permanently deleted from Wikipedia. Prs8765 (talk) 01:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Impressive, though, that anyone that young would be doing this type of research, if you ask me! BWH76 (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SingStar (PlayStation 2)

Consensus was reached in December 2007 - January 2008 on the SingStar talk page that individual articles on each PS2 SingStar game should be replaced by a single List of SingStar titles article. The games -- while notable as a whole -- do not justify over 20 articles detailing the track list in every country. Specific Wikipedia policies that these articles fail include: WP:NOTABILITY, WP:INDISCRIMINATE

This AFD nomination includes the following articles (every PS2 game):

Tntnnbltn (talk) 21:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Tntnnbltn (talk) 22:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge on Per nom and consensus on the talk page, the project would be better with one central article instead of a whole maze of crufty details. Beeblbrox (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like a merge and redirect discussion (which I would support), not a delete and recreate discussion. -- saberwyn 22:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If this is a merge proposal, this should be handled by merge tags, not a request for deletion. Merges need to leave redirects behind, to keep track of edit histories for GDFL purposes. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I've listed this in the wrong place then. I didn't know whether this fell on the side of merging or deletion. (Indeed, I originally had merge tags put up before I moved this onto AFD). I just wanted to go through the proper channels, as deleting the content of 27 articles is no small feat. --Tntnnbltn (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This would be merging, yeah. Follow the instructions at WP:MERGE and you should be good, especially given the consensus you mention in your nomination. Though, now that the AfD is open, you'll need to wait to do the work until it's closed (or you withdraw it). —Quasirandom (talk) 01:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. With the SingStar parent page. Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 00:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, support the merge per Beeblbrox. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the one main article. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 06:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Fattyjwoods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atyndall (talk • contribs)
Keep all as separate articles as it will make a large merged article, the crufty detail should be kept as that is what Wikipedia is great for. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There already is a 'large' merged article at List of SingStar titles. It is only 46kb big, and is easier to navigate than the separate pages. --Tntnnbltn (talk) 04:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all: Notable series, notable games, attempting to throw all the information into a single article would result in split proposals. Articles need expansion, not deletion. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 13:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as astonishingly notable games each of which have had reviews in multiple published sources and which are sold in variations around the world. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per consensus already reached on talk page. There was really no need to bring it to AFD, just be WP:BOLD and merge them. KleenupKrew (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that the talk page discussions are ongoing. Moreover, even if there is any consensus to merge, then we cannot legally delete the articles per Wikipedia:Merge and delete. We would redirect without deleting in order to keep the edit histories public. Thus, if the nomination is a merge proposal, then we do not take merge proposals to articles for deletion, because we cannot delete merged articles. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - May I ask what in the world you are talking about? Where above did I say delete? Also, consensus was reached in January until you added your comments today. KleenupKrew (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - A merge discussion should not go to AfD. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Which is exactly what I said above: "There was really no need to bring it to AFD, just be WP:BOLD and merge them." KleenupKrew (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay, then even if my comments on the talk page are new, that still reflects an ongoing discussion. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Your comments were not new until after I posted the above "merge" !vote, so you could then come back here and claim there is an ongoing discussion. There is no "ongoing discussion", just you stalking my edits. Really, I try, but it's hard to assume WP:GOODFAITH about an admitted sockpuppeteer who regularly reports other good faith users to checkuser just because we believe Wikipedia needs to have much of the promo, spam, fringe politics, and fancruft articles trimmed from the project. By the way, I just love your knee-jerk "overturn" on deletion review for John Wesley Rawles. He has a non-notable survival blog and his article should have been speedied as spam long ago. KleenupKrew (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Come again? Before you make accusations, you should consider your own participation here. I never report good faith editors to checkusers and have successfully identified over twenty sock accounts. I would be able to take your stances in AfD with more credibility if you helped contribute to articles as well and do not just go down the list of AfDs voting to delete as many articles as you can, because you personally do not like certain kinds of articles. As pertains to the SingStar articles under question, I have been editing the SingStar articles under question (see [2], [3], [4], etc.) and so even if I only recently commented on the talk page, I posted on this AfD prior to you and I have enough history of contributions to these various SingStar articles that it is entirely reasonable that I would participate in such a discussion regardless of your editing. Plus, there are plenty of articles I argue to delete: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Best of Sonic the Hedgehog, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Smith (musician), etc. I encourage you to stay focused on the articles under question. This discussion is not about you or I. Best regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        There are plenty of articles I argue to keep. Here are a few: List of UK railfan jargon, List of U.S. railfan jargon, operating expense, income statement, various aircraft categories just to name a few. Wikipedia does not have enough attention to creating and improving those kind of articles. Instead it is cluttered with topics that have little notability and no coverage in any traditional media of note. If keep !votes from me are rare there is a good reason: the keepworthy topics hardly ever make it to AFD. This is funny: "I never report good faith editors to checkusers". You reported me a couple of weeks ago and have been stalking my edits ever since. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Considering how many AfDs you rapidly go down voting to delete, I suppose it is hard to not occasionally make a keep argument somewhere after you in those discussions, but before you precede further with making bogus accusations, you may want to re-check all the pages/discussions in which we both participated and in which I argued to keep or edited earlier in the discussions and you voted to delete or edited later, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communist terrorism (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass deaths and atrocities of the twentieth century, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Soviet and Russian leaders by height, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cults and new religious movements in literature and popular culture (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaina Solo (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SingStar (PlayStation 2), Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 23#List of victims of the Columbine High School massacre, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 23#List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre, and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Redfarmer, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wisdom89 3. In fact, you and I have only edited 17 of the same pages total and I have nearly 20,000 edits with edits to thousands of unique pages. So, again, I encourage you not to make something out of nothing and to stay focused on the articles under discussion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - aside from there being way too many items to gage at once at this AfD, there appears to be reviews from reliable sources for most of these games, and that was a cursory search. If local consensus wants to merge them, then so be it, but that's not appropriate for here. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: the discussion about WP:Merge and Delete, I don't think that applies here because the List of SingStar titles (the 'merged' article) was created entirely by myself at User:Tntnnbltn/olddraft2 using external sources. No material from the articles listed were used in any way to make the new page, so I don't think it's necessary to keep contributor history. That said, I realise now that AFD was not the right place to raise this discussion. The end result I wanted was for these articles to be redirected to List of SingStar titles. --Tntnnbltn (talk) 07:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, then, I think you should withdraw the AfD, which should be closed and either be WP:Bold and redirect or continue the discussions. One thing I will note is that when I checked the list yesterday, it did not seem to have all the countries' different track lists, so it did not seem as if the merger was complete. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 11:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Withdraw as per above. Will proceed with bold redirect. The non-inclusion of international track lists is intentional, as is explained in the lead of the article. --Tntnnbltn (talk) 13:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although closely linked in a series, they are all standalone products, each of which will have been reviewed/discussed/rate in computer magazines the world over -independent sources with international distribution. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 23:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Andersen

I do not believe this software developer meets the criteria of WP:BIO. Though the article is referenced, few if any of the references actually demonstrate the notability of the individual, and the most important claims of notability (comprehensiveness and recognition of his website, and the conference presentation) are unreferenced or not supported by the references. And even if they were, they do not, in my opinion, constitute a body of work in the field sufficient for WP:BIO, nor does the individual seem to have been the subject of any significant coverage in reliable sources. Jfire (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nomination statement sums it up. Vishnava (talk) 23:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable individually. Perhaps an article on XULPlanet.com would pass WP:WEB, and he could be mentioned there. I don't think either the PrefBar thingy or WebAim are obviously notable. --Dhartung | Talk 03:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn, per nom. Atyndall93 | talk 10:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, The individual does not appear to meet the ctiteria of WP:BIO. --Stormbay (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. non admin, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Need Your Love (Miami Sound Machine song)

Contested redirect. Article argues against its own notability "the song didn't impacted the charts and a commercial release was not launched." No reliable sources cited either. Beeblbrox (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the related album as a plausible search term. Not-a-keep not-a-vote. -- saberwyn 21:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back to Eyes Of Innocence. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Atyndall93 | talk 10:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that the AfD tag was removed from the article by an anonymous user yesterday. I have replaced it now. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. There is consensus that retaining the information now in the article is considered worthwhile, when you combine the Merge and the Keep votes. The only merge targets actually suggested were Wikipedia and List of Wikipedias. There is hardly any place to put the merged information in List of Wikipedias. Even the fact that Mindong is written using the Foochow Romanized writing system won't fit there since there's only a one-line table entry for each Wikipedia. The option of merging is still available via the consensus of editors and requires no admin action if that's what you guys want to do. EdJohnston (talk) 04:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mindong Wikipedia

Non-notable Wikipedia edition with only 180 articles. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ This makes me feel all funny. But the nom is right, I don't see any coverage in reliable sources. Sorry guys Beeblbrox (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think that all Wikipedias, regardless of size, are inherently notable. Besides, references probably exist in various Mondong-language sources. --Eastmain (talk) 03:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is not notable because in China it is blocked. And I have to confess that there's no reference to it. In mainland China all Wikipedias are blocked, and all media about Wikimedia are silenced, therefore, most people have never heard of such a wonderful thing as a "free encyclopedia". We Chinese Wikipedians, just like the first Christians in the Roman Empire, are under a lot of pressure, but we will never ever give up spreading the gospel. I hope you keep this aritcle, please, so that more and more people will get to know this good news. --GnuDoyng (talk) 04:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wikipedia or List of Wikipedias 70.55.89.211 (talk) 05:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per 70.55.89.211. Atyndall93 | talk 10:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It would be Anglocentric to believe that references to the entity of Wikipedia are only meaning en.wikipedia.org Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 08:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the above, and especially considering there are only a limited number of Wikipedia editions. Gary King (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I sympathize with the impassioned pleas being made here, it amounts to a lot of "I like it" argument. However, it seems logical there be some mention of it somewhere here, so I am changing my vote to Merge per 70.55.89.211. Beeblbrox (talk) 00:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Wikipedias. Fails WP:WEB on its own. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to the album. EdJohnston (talk) 04:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grease Paint and Monkey Brains

Non-notable album track; fails WP:MUSIC. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the album as a plausible search term. -- saberwyn 21:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Saberwyn. Atyndall93 | talk 10:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Astro Creep: 2000 - Songs of Love, Destruction and Other Synthetic Delusions of the Electric Head as above. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to the album.

Creature of the Wheel

Non-notable album track, fails WP:MUSIC. Looks like someone has created a page for basically every track on the album. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the album as a plausible search term. -- saberwyn 21:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Saberwyn. Atyndall93 | talk 10:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Astro Creep: 2000 - Songs of Love, Destruction and Other Synthetic Delusions of the Electric Head as above. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 23:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vernallagra

It is a neologism and basically a copy of an article on another subject, complete with misleading pseudo-references, now deleted. Merenta (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think this article belongs in English wikipedia at all, there are already two pages on MDMA, the other only discussing the effects of the drug on the body. I don't think this page should be merged with MDMA either as it doesn't contain any unique information, other than the nickname of the substance. This page may very well belong in another wiki in some asian language, but I can't see any reason for it to exist otherwise.

Kst447 (talk) 23:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I'm not entirely familiar with guidelines for medicines/drugs but this is not a neologism. --neonwhite user page talk 23:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One unverifiable reference. The sidebar links point either to entries for MDMA itself or go nowhere. No Google Scholar or Google Books or Google News Archive results for "vernallagra" (one hit does lead back to an old Wikipedia mirror). Given a culture where street drugs often trip alarmism wires long before they are actually in wide use this just doesn't seem like a notable drug, even assuming that the article is correct that it is a variant of Ecstasy. --Dhartung | Talk 03:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Dhartung | Talk 03:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dhartung. Atyndall93 | talk 10:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have never heard of this term for MDMA. Even if it really is a term for a preparation containing MDMA, it is incorrect to say that this preparation is in clinical trials or has effects that are actually due to the active ingredient (MDMA). And the reference at the end is actually to an article about MDMA ((http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/mdma/mdma_article3.shtml). This suggests the entry is malevolent and deceptive in intent. The article should definitely be deleted.

--69.3.233.44 (talk) 06:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect. Done. Rjd0060 (talk) 03:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blur the Technicolor

Non-notable album song, never released as a single. Closest claim to fulfilling WP:MUSIC would be a solitary cover on a White Zombie tribute album by a non-notable band... thus fails WP:MUSIC. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the album as a plausible search term. I leave it to more intersted people to decide if the claims for the cover album and incusion in a movie are worth merging. -- saberwyn 21:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back to Astro-Creep: 2000. I'm also guessing that nearly all the song from this album don't warrant their own articles either. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Saberwyn. Atyndall93 | talk 10:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Astro Creep: 2000 - Songs of Love, Destruction and Other Synthetic Delusions of the Electric Head as above. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. EdJohnston (talk) 04:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Leim

Unreferenced article on a prominent but apparently non-notable studio drummer. Even if he does have his own model of snare drums, and even if he does have a rather impressive résumé, he doesn't seem to be the subject of any reliable third party sources, which would mean that he seems to fail WP:MUSIC. On top of that, the article reads almost like a copyvio or promotion piece. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, google search turns up results but no news articles and no reliable third-party sources. Atyndall93 | talk 11:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable session musician. His list of credits, while impressive, is not that unusual for a career session musician. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 23:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original Vindicators

Google finds 44 unique hits for "Original Vindicators" and the only source is the originator's website (which, incidentally, does not work for me either in Firefox or in IE). The originator is called "Rodcom". The author if this article is User:RODCOM. Guy (Help!) 20:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete This look like advertising to me. Beeblbrox (talk) 22:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, no good third-party references. Atyndall93 | talk 11:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This shouldnt be deleted - I don't see the difference between this entry and the Avengers or the X-men entries. What makes this advertising and those entries not. And there are third party sources at The Museum of Black Superheroes.RODCOM (talk) 03:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, because your comic is a household word like Avengers and has spawned a major movie franchise like X-Men, yes? Guy (Help!) 18:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More third-party reference listings for the Original Vindicators are appearing regularly and I didn't know it had to be a household word or have a major movie franchise to be listed here. Your complaint sounds unduely bias.RODCOM (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find that WP:BIAS applies more accurately to, say, writing articles about your own work. Incidentally, now you've fixed your site, I have a suggestion for you: before you attempt to launch a career as an animator, learn to animate basic movements like walking. Also, that music is not original is it? The performing rights people don't like copyright music being used without release or payment. Plus, people aren't going tot ake you seriously when your image galleries have "Web gallery generated by Web Gallery Wizard™" and the like all over them. Guy (Help!) 19:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I said "unduly bias". My site is as it always was, you system couldn't handle it so you searched for another way in and found a beta version of my site. You can tell the truth now, you already got the entry deleted. And the animation you're ripping on so hard was done by my then 9 year old son on his Lego cam, I think his career as an animator is safe for a while. You have absolutely no idea what agreements I have with who regarding anything. And who cares who or what generated my galleries.

If you spent this much effort creating instead of hating you wouldn't have time for this. Again I said "unduly bias", and you just proved my point.

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

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

The result was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Helicon Systems

Helicon Systems does not appear notable, article has been around since 2003 and has no references. It is me i think (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. About the only pages I could find through Google referring to Helicon Systems are mirrors of either this page or Unisys ICON. Would also support a redirect to Unisys ICON since the only products they made seemed to be for the ICON. Blair - Speak to me 23:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in favour. It is me i think (talk) 01:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Unisys ICON, next to no information that couldn't be easily incorporated into the Unisys article. Atyndall93 | talk 11:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable tech company. While I wouldn't object to a redirect, I think it's a bit of a stretch topicwise between this and Unisys ICON. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - this two sentence article cannot stand on its own. Redirecting to Unisys ICON is not advisable as there is too much "distance" between the two (manufacturing a component of a larger system does not mean that the company is linked directly to the system to an extent that merits a redirect). B.Wind (talk) 03:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, consensus is that the article is notable but suggest that unless reliable secondary sources are added to the article it will get nominated for deletion again in the future. Davewild (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Secta Del Mesias

This sports grouping is not a team, as near as I can make out. It has only 21 Google hits, so I am pretty confident that it is non-notable. Creater of page removes speedy tags without comment, so it would be better to explore this issue at AfD. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the AFD notice to a article that contained the proper name of the stable, the one that was first brought to AFD was a copy, in this case "Mesias" is capitalized since its the name of a wrestler. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now as far as the article goes, I say keep, anyone that is familiar with Mexican wrestling can tell you that AAA is one of the two major promotions in the country, this was the top heel (that is "bad guy" in professional wrestling) stable in the company troughout 2007, Mesias even won a national "Top heel award" for his performance with the group last year. The problem here was obviously that the article's author botched the article's title (naming it Secta de mesias), there are certainly more search hits for the proper name [5]. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Yahoo search gets 262 hits if you go to the end. And there already is an article for Asistencia Asesoría y Administración. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 00:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem, read above, that page is displaying "251 - 258 of about 5,150" hits. Anyway, that's not the point, the stable has been receiving a lot of media attention in Mexico, which should be enough to establish notability, its a matter of looking for it, particulary in written magazines. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's because the search engine returns are considered to be so marginal that they are not reported. In any case, there are no "reliable third-party sources" as Atyndall points out below. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 04:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so I guess all of the printed material published in Mexico isn't reliable? professional wrestling in Mexico is even covered in some mainstream magazines, these include corporate giants such as Univision [6]. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure Mexican professional wrestling is covered in Mexican media. However, this article is not on Mexican professional wrestling, but on Secta Del Mesias. If Secta Del Mesias is covered in some media, the thing to do is prove it. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I you take some time to look into that link you will realize that Univision is already providing us a source for Mesias' return to AAA after competing in TNA, that is one reliable source, I can recall coming across at leadt three of those when working with Mesias' article a few months ago. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That article is a short notice that El Mesias, an individual wrester, is up to something. This AfD is for Secta Del Mesias. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability in reliable third-party sources. Atyndall93 | talk 11:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I says keep this page. That way more information about this AAA group could be known. talk) 17:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone actually followed AAA you would know who these people are. The leader of the gro Mesias has not only been in the headlining feud for the title but with one of the top face for the company. Also Mesias is Judas Mesias on TNA wrestling. if you do a search on YouTube or any mexican wrestling site you will see that this group has grown in popularity. I did correct one error that I had with the Spelling of the name but other that that I have the information just shy of one major event in the storyline. All members now have their own bios up also.Ldeffinbaugh (talk) 01:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marginal Keep Looks notable to me, but better references would help. Plvekamp (talk) 03:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - AAA has not only national reach (Mexico) but in fact has international reach in Latin America. One of the members was Ricky Banderas; El Cuervo/Dark Cuervo and Ozz were tag team champions for AAA (and precedent per WP:PW is that title holders of major wrestling promotions are themselves notable). Articles could use some improvement, but that barely misses the point. B.Wind (talk) 15:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2060s. Sandstein (talk) 06:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2060

This year is too far in the future to have an article on Wikipedia. Note that we don't have articles for the other years in the 2060s decade, e.g. 2061, 2062, 2065, 2069. RightGot (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2060s, to sit alongside the other examples given. -- Roleplayer (talk) 20:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2060s per nomination and Roleplayer. Some content may need to be merged. -- saberwyn 22:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect seems like a good idea in this case. Maybe in another fifty years someone can write an article with more content. Mandsford (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2060s. (Sorry, nominator, but deletion is problematic if we are to include the relatively well-sourced data in the target, so Redirect is not precisely correct.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2060s per Arthur. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 07:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per Roleplayer and Arthur. Atyndall93 | talk 11:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely merge and redirect to 2060s. That kind of a decade article has good leeway for adding specific details about each year. Merging and then redirecting is the best way to consolidate the info, IMO. --JamieS93 13:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to 2060s as above. We can recreate this article in about forty years or so =) Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 03:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Córdova

This professor does not seem to meet any of the criteria of WP:PROF. I can find only one review of his book, a 117 word capsule review in Reference & Research Book News. His faculty bio isn't any help in establishing notability, and I can't find much on Google except his blog -- the domain name of which suggests that the article is an autobiography by Kilayeomi (talk · contribs). Jfire (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete -- It pains me to vote this way, since ethnic studies is one of the research fields HUGELY underrepresented on Wikipedia, and the article contains no problems except notability. But even after uncovering some additional articles ("Undocumented El Salvadorans in the San Francisco Bay area: migration and adaptation dynamics," CB Cordova - Journal of La Raza Studies, 1987; "Hispanic-Latinos: Diverse People in a Multicultural Society," C Cordova, J Del Pinal - Washington, DC: National Association of Hispanic, 1995; "Organizing in Central American Immigrant Communities in the United States," CB CORDOVA - Community Organizing in a Diverse Society, 1992 - Allyn & Bacon), it just seems still under the notability guidelines, even if we stretch them a bit for developing fields. I hope others can find some more sources or awards, because I'd love to change my !vote. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though I do agree with Myke Cuthbert above that this field is rather underrepresented. It just seems that this guy probably isn't a good example of an article that could change that as he's really stretching the concept of 'notable' as per WP:PROF, though I wish luck in finding sources if there are any.Also note that the creator is a WP:SPA. ~ mazca ^talk 07:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mazca. Atyndall93 | talk 11:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 03:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Postmodernism

Breaching normal standards of wiki-manners by nominating this for deletion while it's still under construction, but this is clearly never going to be appropriate content. A totally unreferenced piece of original research and to make it valid would involve wiping it completely and starting again. — iridescent 19:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV essay. Get a blog. WillOakland (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete speculative original research, useful content already covered in post-modernism.Nick Connolly (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok guys, don't worry; please delete my contribution on the subject if you wish. I just wanted to make a sincere contribution on the subject, while there is lots of confusion out-there, see also the discussion about the article on post-postmodernism. You are right, a blg is a better forum for this! Thankx! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erasmus2000 (talk • contribs) 20:56, April 20, 2008

Delete no references, essay-like content, non-encyclopedia. Atyndall93 | talk 11:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources. Yahel Guhan 02:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Original research. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 09:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SIMagine

This developer conference contest does not seem to rise to an encyclopedic level of notability. I can't find any significant independent coverage -- only coverage in press releases by conference sponsors or other affiliated organizations. Jfire (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I prodded this article before Towel401 (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, per nom. Atyndall93 | talk 11:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Editors may trim-out promotional spam as they see fit. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 16:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Helter Skelter (rave music promoter)

This company seems to fail WP:CORP. No evidence of notability is given, no sources have been added in over 2 years, the text seems promotional. CSD in 2005 and PROD in 2008 were contested however. B. Wolterding (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. From my limited experience in the rave scene I have definitely seen the name Helter Skelter many times. It certainly seems to me that it is in fact a notable organisation and that sources probably do exist to demonstrate this, but I haven't been able to find any. ~ mazca ^talk 16:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stubify Has many releases [7][8][9] and [10] review by Ministry of Sound i'm pretty sure i recall at least the last one of those charting so i dont doubt it's notability but the article has seriosuly neutrality issues so i suggest it is stubbed to a basic description. There are some sources with unknown reliability [11]. --neonwhite user page talk 23:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stubify per Neon white. Atyndall93 | talk 11:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stubify - since I first looked at this article two and a half years ago, very little has been done with it. I think there's a degree of notability, but not much. It certainly needs all the promo material chopping out.Bedesboy (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Although the results are mixed here, the delete opinions carry stronger policy based rationales. Non notable fictional character, unreferenced article. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cassie Keller

Non-notable fictional character. Was previously prodded and deleted, but recreated. Stifle (talk) 19:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete if possible. Obviously fails WP:FICT. Eusebeus (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stubify Removed all the stupid stuff like "is a reject" and tag as a stub. Atyndall93 | talk 11:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (main character in recognizable movie) or merge and redirect to The Haunting Hour Volume One: Don't Think About It without deleting. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - to The Haunting Hour: Don't Think About It. Not notable but a viable search option. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, very minor fictional person, unlikely search term. If there's no consensus to delete then keep, though I think it should be deleted. Wizardman 17:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Although a merge might be appropriate, there is no consensus as to where a merge should happen (Mazda#Marketing v. Only the Strong). Should be discussed. Also, the article should be renamed per Dhartung to the proper title of the song, as originally recorded, with "Zum zum zum" being a redirect to that, per MOS. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zum zum zum

Non-notable song. Visor (talk) 19:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Only the Strong. Stifle (talk) 19:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC.--RyRy5 (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Visor (talk) 19:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. —Visor (talk) 19:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Visor (talk) 19:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Although I agree this does fail WP:MUSIC, the fact that this song has been sampled in Mazda commercials leads me to believe that some type of mention is appropriate either in Mazda or Only the Strong. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 19:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per above and per ghits showing the phrase has some currency, e.g. [12]. JJL (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Although using a search engine like Google can be useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is, a large number of hits on a search engine is no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." Please read WP:GHITS. Visor (talk) 19:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I have. It says in part: "...using a search engine like Google can be useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is..." which was my goal here. That formed a part of my reasoning, as did the nature of the pages I saw (one of which I cited) and the reasoning of Mr Senseless to which I referred (prominent use in both a movie and a commercial). JJL (talk) 19:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move to Capoeira mata um ("capoeira kills one"), the actual name of this traditional/folkloric song, for which there are Google Books sources among others. --Dhartung | Talk 21:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Only The Strong due to little notability on it's own. Atyndall93 | talk 11:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mazda#Marketing as all the important information is already there. A reading of the Only the Strong talk page convinces me that it is unlikely that it would be an appropriate merge target (and it seems highly likely that any material that would be merged there would be quickly deleted). B.Wind (talk) 03:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 03:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The True Black Essence

Bootleg release with no independent notability. Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:V and WP:N Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Stifle (talk) 19:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Therefore, it's non-natable.--RyRy5 (talk) 19:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to seeming lack of notability and references to prove track names, put a mention of album on Artist's article. Atyndall93 | talk 11:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable and fails WP:MUSIC as above. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 20:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 09:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Briscoe

As it currently stands, this article is an advert (probably an autobiographical one, created by an SPA). The artist claims two albums, but at least one of them is self-released [13]. I'm sending it here to see whether someone finds is salvageable, otherwise I suggest deletion. Tagged with {{notability}} since last June. B. Wolterding (talk) 18:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, needs more references. Stifle (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of references, particularly in sections with what seems to be POV (Critics are unanimous in their praise for Patrick Briscoe's Colours Will Fly album., and 2 out of the 3 "praises" aren't really praises at all) and partial copyright violation of information here. Atyndall93 | talk 11:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete RS coverage is all false positives and ghits just confirm he exists. No evidence he passes any criteria of WP:MUSIC TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 15:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy under G3 as a blatant hoax. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Thomas Mally Experience

Not notable. No sources. Not a single Google hit outside of wikipedia, not listed on the site of the label that is supposed to represent them. Not found in searches of the People or Blender magazine sites, or the Today show site, in spite of claims of having appeared in all three. (I suspect that some of these claims are false) Dawn Bard (talk) 18:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because if they aren't notable, neither is there forthcoming album:

Dawn Bard (talk) 18:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G3 both as fairly blatant hoaxes; no proof that this band even exists. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge and redirect to 2004 United States election voting controversies would appear to best satisfy (or least dissatisfy) concerns raised in this discussion. I've redirected the articles, and suggest interested editors recover whatever content is recoverable therefrom - David Gerard (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2004 United States presidential election controversy and irregularities

Magic Sing

Seems non-notable and borderline spam. I have removed some spam links to this company added by the user. BananaFiend (talk) 10:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is a very popular brand in the Philippines and the term "Magic Sing" has entered the colloquial parlance as shorthand for "karaoke". Have no opinion whether those facts in themselves merit the article. The entry as written is worth deleting, but if written properly, it might have a case for retention.--Anyo Niminus (talk) 03:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, then edit. Written as spam, but the subject is notable in the Philippines (very popular actually). Starczamora (talk) 08:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Who will edit it? Punkmorten (talk) 21:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment — that should not be the concern of the AfD discussion. After closure, if the decision is keep-with-cleanup, Template:Cleanup-afd should be affixed; if clean-up/expansion/revision has not taken place in a "reasonable time", the article can be brought back to AfD, where the outcome should not again be keep-with-cleanup (though in principle it could be). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge → Karaoke#Technology. If the popularity of the brand in the Philippines can be established via reliable sources, then the article could be kept-with-cleanup. However, I am not confident that such sources can be found easily or in a timely manner, which is why I suggest merger to the broader-topic article, where it is at present not mentioned at all - which seems unusual for purportedly prominent brand. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per this minimal news coverage. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Starczamora and Martijn Hoekstra, definately needs work though. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 18:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 18:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with cleanup per Starczamora and Martijn Hoekstra's statements and articles presentation and content. Atyndall93 | talk 12:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 09:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AN (band)

Non notable band that fails WP:MUSIC. No tours, no notable label, and only one full length release. Look at the sources given too, only a home page and the metal archives. Delete Undeath (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 14:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There might not be much in the way of multiple non-trivial mention in independent and reliable publications but there are at least three: here, here and here. I suppose three should be enough for criteria 1 of WP:MUSIC. --Bardin (talk) 06:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've changed my mind. Three mentions are just not enough in my view. --Bardin (talk) 06:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if there are no good mentions in non trivial third party sources, then the band is non notable. Metal obsever and rock detector are both trivial. Undeath (talk) 11:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. All above references are trivial. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reviews are not usually good enough for WP:MUSIC. --neonwhite user page talk 23:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC criteria and does not cite any reliable third-party sources. Atyndall93 | talk 12:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Carioca (talk) 00:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Callahanistan

A fictional country that is a contested PROD. A grand total of four Google hits are found, meaning no coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. ~ Eóin (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Anturiaethwr 18:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete, made up in school one day. WillOakland (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete due to extreme lack of notability.--Fabrictramp (talk) 19:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "It's influence has been widespread, as it's creation has sparked numerous clubs for students throughout the D.C. metropolitan area. Members of each club establish a country, create its culture, climate, history, and other factors. Students utilize this club in order to understand the structure of a country and carry out its processes, all while having a good time." And it keeps kids off the street. No evidence at all for any of those claims. Mandsford (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no references, seemingly no notability. Atyndall93 | talk 12:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, no evidence (in reliable, third party sources) of notability. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-Fly

Non-notable producer. Has worked with a couple of notable artists (claimed—nothing from a reliable source) but no hit tracks/albums, etc. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 13:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 13:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Hi-Fly is probably among top 10 most listened musicians on the Internet with only instrumentals and also among music producers. According to SoundClick he has over 5 million song plays. You have to remember that doesn't not include the final songs. Over 200 000 people visit his sites yearly. He has produced tracks for 1000s of small artists which makes him know as much as producing couple tracks for very known artists. Not that Hi-Fly hasn't, since his productions credits include artists like the grammy winner Bizzy Bone. As far as hit songs go, he did produce "Wybacz" by DKA which is a well-known song in Poland. The music video can be found on YouTube with 440 000 views. It's almost impossible to have a solid source for production credits because the source would be CD booklets and those aren't on the Internet. This unreliable source problem is common to almost all music producers in Wikipedia. Jingi (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)— Jingi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment None of those stats (SoundClick/website visits/YouTube) count toward notability per WP:MUSIC. If you can turn up verifiable references from reliable sources that he had a chart hit in Poland then by all means add it to the article. That would likely pass WP:MUSIC. And if you can find anything verifiable+reliable that shows notable artists he worked with, that might help too. Everything I could find traces back to his own self-promotion or the Wikipedia article. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Well, those stats suggest that he is clearly known throughout the world. There's YouTube and MySpace "celebrities" listed on WIkipedia so how could those not count? Hi-Fly is #1 on MySpace's Hip Hop chart in Finland. I can't really search the info of how "Wybacz" did on the charts since I don't know Polish. You can find the album on Polish Wikipedia at http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stawiam_sobie_pomnik but I don't know what it's saying. I do personally have some of the records he has production work on and that are listed on his production credits but I'm not really sure what should be the reliable source. Even Just Blaze's discography seems to have same kind of problems here in Wikipedia. You can find the records online but the productions credits are only inside the booklets, not on some Amazon.com info where they sell them for example. What I have found is an interview of Patriarch about his album "Son Of A Refugee" and he mentions Hi-Fly and also an interview of M-Eighty about his album where he mentions Hi-Fly. Both of these independent albums did very well but I'm not sure it's very relevant. I can get the links if needed though. The point of my previous message is that Hi-Fly is a bigger name than the artists or records he produces even though has has produced notable artists. Even Allhiphop.com asked him out about carrying Finland in his back hip hop wise. I've also read that Hi-Fly's future releases include Axl Smith's debut album. He is a huge star in Finland; the main host of MTV Finland. I simply don't see the point in deleting this article since he is known and doing bigger and bigger records. I understand that there's not too many sources but that's just how it is for most music producers. Media's interest is in the artists and not the producers who contribute even more. Jingi (talk) 07:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Media's interest is in the artists and not the producers who contribute even more. This would suggest he isn't notable. --neonwhite user page talk 23:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you're suggesting all music producers should be deleted from Wikipedia? Come on. Jingi (talk) 10:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not all music producers—just the ones who don't produce hits or garner media attention. To use your own example, check out the Google News archive results for Just Blaze. See all those articles? That is a notable producer. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 10:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was not the point. He based his opinion on the sentence Media's interest is in the artists and not the producers who contribute even more. This is getting side track. On another note Hi-Fly is the kind of name that is really hard to Google. Jingi (talk) 10:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's what he was saying. And it's not too hard a name to Google if you add the word "producer": example —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 11:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to these comments. I understand that there's not too many sources but that's just how it is for most music producers. Media's interest is in the artists and not the producers who contribute even more.. You seem to be defending this subject's notability by explaining exactly why it's not notable. If there aren't sources about a subject and there is no interest in it, then it's not really notable. --neonwhite user page talk 00:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I added couple sources to the article Jingi (talk) 10:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He has a few claims, but there aren't any reliable sources to back up those claims. Therefore, he fails WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right now I see 4 sources in the article. You don't see any? That's weird. If you think they aren't reliable take them off. Jingi (talk) 10:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources show notability. The claims he's referring to are unsourced. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 11:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny how you keep putting words into other people's mouths here. Jingi (talk) 11:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just went trough a lot of hip hop record producers here in Wikipedia and almost 90% have one or no sources at all. Production credits have even far less sources than that. If this article is deleted, I think a lot of others should be too. Jingi (talk) 11:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Don't see how this meets WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to keep an article and if some of those need to be deleted, then they can also be nominated. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Of course it's known and reliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.9.245.72 (talk) 23:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 09:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Big Boom Band

Barely notable (if that). So Prepple Houmb played bass in 1987 in a pre-cursor to Betty Big Boom Band, and left before it became Betty Big Boom Band. None of the extensive list of members of Betty Big Boom Band have articles. Google only finds self-promotion URLs. Delete - or maybe redirect to Prepple Houmb. Kingturtle (talk) 13:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 14:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the redlinks speak for themselves. Punkmorten (talk) 21:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge → Norwegian rock. A link that might serve to to establish verifiability (not notability) is http://www11.nrk.no/urort/Bio/BettyBigBoomBand/default.aspx (in Norwegian). I think that outright deletion is unnecessary, but it certainly is not a full-article topic; rather more like a one-line mention in a broader topic article (as suggested). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 18:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC, no mention in notable publications that I can find. Atyndall93 | talk 07:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Consensus is small here, but combined with the other spammy deletes from this same vein, both deleted, the consensus is that there is nothing notable here. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ciiv

Part of a string of recently-created non-notable articles involving Dwight Tom and his enterprises. References 2-3 are first-party, whereas references 4-6 are forum posts. Finally, Reference one states that this product hasn't even been released yet: "Consumer models to arrive in Spring 2009." So Awesome (talk) 17:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no good references, google search/news turns up nothing. No indication of notability. Atyndall93 | talk 07:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect to NCR Corporation. Dreadstar † 17:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NCR 5xxx

To me, the product series described here seems non-notable; the article is entirely unsourced. PROD was contested with comment: "seems notability, there are almost certainly references". I'm not so optimistic in that respect. Automated teller machines are not really consumer hardware, they're not typically subject in the main stream media, and substantial coverage about the series or individual models seems unlikely to me. Using Google, I found a number of vendors' sites, but these do not confer notability. B. Wolterding (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep [15] is an academic thesis on one of the models. [16] is a peer-reviewed article about these machines in general; as this was a major machine in the period covered, it's probably included, especially since google brings it up in a search for the model number, though I have not read the article. I wouldnt oppose a suitable merge into a broader range of products. DGG (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I can't access the second link, but for the first one, I do not think that the topic of the thesis is one of those models. The thesis describes ATM deployment strategies in general. Where does it even mention NCR? --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect → NCR Corporation#Automated Teller Machines and tag with Template:R with possibilities, the template tag noting that the topic has the potential for expansion given proper reliable source support. I think that there are references out there that would support verifiability of a portion of the information in the article as it stands, but neither of the links provided by DGG satisfies this; the former does not seem to mention the model (based on searches of the text) and the latter may mention, but I can't verify that myself (the working URL for the latter is http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/114073129/ABSTRACT). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into NCR Does not seem to have any notability on it's own, google search/news yield nothing . Atyndall93 | talk 08:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines at this time. Davewild (talk) 09:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting elvis

Contested PROD. Non-notable record label launched last month, none of its current artists have articles on Wikipedia, no sources in article to illustrate its notability. Google search for "Shooting Elvis" with record label gets 93 unique hits. Roleplayer (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the artists on this label are notable; Tommy Four Seven is a red link, and there is otherwise no assertation of notability for this label. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no reliable sources that would establish notability, and none of its artists are notable. Bláthnaid 18:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable --Pustefix (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is non notable. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 20:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete James Kronier has only had said one release so isn't currently of much note but other acts signed to label are definitely of note... See http://www.discogs.com/artist/Remute for remute's long list of releases etc. All artists bar James Kronier have releases on beatport, Tommy Four Seven has many releases on itunes etc... These guys are established (t47 has released on about 6 labels etc) - the fact Steve Bug hasn't even got a wikipedia entry questions whether moderators should be striving to delete knowledge or share it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akgc414 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also consider checking out mark broom's discogs page which is huge but still incomplete: http://www.discogs.com/artist/Mark+Broom —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akgc414 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this label is pretty cool, got the first release - i agree about the steve bug point. there definatly needs to be more articles on techno —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.68.169 (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - first release only one month ago and no artists that apparently comply with WP:MUSIC indicate that this organisation has a problem meeting WP:CORP as well (people who have posted without signatures, please note: 1) deletion discussions revolve around Wikipedia policies and guidelines such as the two with blue links in this post; and 2) please sign all posts here and on article talk pages with ~~~~. Thank you!). B.Wind (talk) 03:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 09:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Associated Students of the University of Hawaii

Not notable local student government association. No real reliable sources (just links to alumni pages and school site.) Makes no assertion of notability. Original research. SevernSevern (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —Noetic Sage 18:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Section 6.2.1 of ~~University of Hawai'i~~ University of Hawaii at Manoa. This article is not notable on its own. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 21:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 19:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails organizational notability guidelines by not supplying secondary sources. It doesn't appear that there are many potential reliable sources on the net either. The content of the article isn't worth merging because it is poorly worded and deals with alumni that are most likely already mentioned in the main article.—Noetic Sage 22:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:ORG. The organization does not achieve notability just from some of its former officers becoming prominent people. Two of the external links, which describe the careers of two of those former officers, don't even mention this organization. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by me. J Milburn (talk) 18:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Josiah leming

Someone who was eliminated from American Idol and has since set up a myspace profile. Totally unreferenced, the claim that he is rumoured to have a record deal with Warner Brothers in unsubstantiated. Roleplayer (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. This article has already been deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josiah Leming. So Awesome (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't see that because of the different capitalisation. Duly tagged for speedy deletion. -- Roleplayer (talk) 18:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Once more information is released as it goes into production then it can be recreated. It doesn't meet our standards right now though. Wizardman 17:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manson Girls

Future film that is in the real early stages. Doesn't meet the requirements of WP:NFF. brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable film starring notable actress(Lindsey Lohan). I changed the source to a reliable one. Searching lohan+manson on brings up 95 google news hits. --Smashville^BONK! 19:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFF requires a source that shooting has begun. Until then, everything should be merged to Charles Manson or Linsday Lohan. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's listed on IMDB; I've added the link to the article. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge → Charles Manson#Manson and culture and tag with Template:R from merge. Echoing User:Brewcrewer, general consensus as reflected in guideline is that future films are not sufficiently notable for stand-alone articles until they have started shooting. Included in the reasoning behind this is that once shooting has started, contracts are in place and money is certain to be on the table and actors are committed and must (should) decline conflicting offers, so that terminating the film or going forward with it each have documented and notable outcomes. However, there is little reason to deleted the content, which is why I suggest the merger. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge relevant content as per WP:NFF and above comments. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Lindsay Lohan per Brewcrewer. In this case, IMDB simply states that Lohan's participation is "rumored" (and no further), thus it cannot for the time being be used as a "reliable source" here (some would argue that IMDB is not a reliable source at any time, but that's beside the point here). The Herald-Sun article is the only one shown in the article; independent, multiple sources are needed. The merge will be best until there is enough to satisy WP:V without making a crystal ball article. B.Wind (talk) 04:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect is the most policy based option here. Nothing really to merge. However, the page histories of all three articles of the singles (all of which I'm redirecting in a minute here), will be intact per GFDL and if anyone wants to mine the contents to expand the album article. ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cause to Love You

Non-notable single, fails WP:MUSIC ukexpat (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the Catharsis (Fingertips album) article. Same goes for the other 2 singles off that album, "Move Faster" & "You're Gone". They don't even have references, at least "Cause to Love You" does, showing some sort of notability, even if one link points to the bands own website. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - not sure what there is to merge. The album article already lists them as tracks. – ukexpat (talk) 00:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, clearly fails WP:MUSIC. Paste (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aww, mindless rubbish really, like the order of the single releases, and the info on the fact this one made it to the charts, just to fill out the album article more I guess. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect → Catharsis (Fingertips album)#Tracklist and tag with Template:R to list entry. The R-template suggested includes the statement "for subjects not notable enough to have separate articles", which applies in this case. The references associated with the article are problematic. The Radio Comercial link leads to the homepage and I was unable to verify that the song is even mentioned on the site at all (a link should be provided to a specified page and not the homepage). The other link is to the band that produced the song, thus not an independent source. P.S. this could have either gone through WP:PROD or been subjected to bold action to redirect (the latter based on the weakness of the supporting references). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 09:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maribato

I'm concerned about the notability of this game. It is dojin soft and only gets about 1100 google hits. Google hits aren't everything, (which was the reason why the proposed deletion was removed) but I believe they indicate that few further reliable sources could be found for the game's development and reception, for example. I believe the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (toys and games), provides some food for thought on this issue. Malkinann (talk) 20:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Maria-sama ga Miteru as part of the media section. Fails WP:N on its own. Collectonian (talk) 00:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, games aren't too hard to make notable, but it may be difficult for this one. Either keep or delete though, no merge. Wizardman 19:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine that any "merge" would end up being a redirect to the main series article for reasons of notability and undue weight, with about as much detail there as for the other doujin games - a name, genre and developer. -Malkinann (talk) 01:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of notability aside from its existence. No apparent evidence of independent coverage by media. Google search turns up mostly forums and blogs, not reliable sources. B.Wind (talk) 04:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This game is not notable like Melty Blood. Zero Kitsune (talk) 02:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:N as it stands. I don't see any material to merge to Maria-sama ga Miteru, but that is ultimately left to the local editors. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N, and also, the developer is not notable. This doesn't bode well for this article. Gary King (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 09:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dwight Tom

Self-promotional article lacking any third-party sources. Users involved in creating this article have also created spammy articles such as Ciiv and CLUXc. So Awesome (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any reliable secondary sources that even mention this person (searched LexisNexis and Google). -- Sleepaholic (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, sorry. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 23:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Och aye the noo

WP:DICTIONARY and it is a very non notable term Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 16:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dicdef, lacking in notability. No proof that this is "oft quoted" or notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Colonel Warden's improvement. May need a rename as to something like "Stereoypical Scottish expressions" or something tho. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge I have started improving the article and have added a citation to show its common usage. The point of the article is or should be that this phrase and phrases like it are archetypal, being used to portray Scots in a humorous and parodic way. I'm not sure if there is already an article on this general subject which we might merge this into. Anti-Scottish sentiment is not the same thing. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment I wouldn't say it is non-notable, as Colonal Warden says it is used as something to comically portray scots. 31 Google news hits [17] But I don't know how much it can be expanded. Merkin's mum 18:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wherever it is that dictionary definitions belong, Wiktionary most likely, and then delete. There's no encyclopedia article to be written under this title. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are thin sources, there are less thin sources for braw bricht moonlicht nicht (as a stereotype). Optionally redirect to Harry Lauder who seems to have had a hand in popularizing their use. --Dhartung | Talk 21:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename to "Stereoypical Scottish expressions" or perhaps better still "List of Scottish expressions" - they are not all risible. Jings, crivvens, help ma boab etc. the existing title is borderline offensive and it is hard to see how an article worthy of the name could focus purely on this single expression. "Anti-Scottish sentiment" is certainly not the same thing as many of these expressions are/were promoted by Scots. See, for example The Sunday Post. Ben MacDui ^Talk/Walk 07:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus by editors who do not have a conflict of interest about the subject is that this is not a notable publication. Sandstein (talk) 06:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Stinger Report

Article written like a puff piece; most of the sources are either just text from the report (not information about the report itself) or interviews with the founder. None of them are sufficient to establish notability. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the author of this page I do take offense to the claim of it being a 'puff piece'. I have taken information from our own sources - but also from trade websites (1up, SPONG, Insidecoinop, etc) that use the report so giving information of the work - making it available to others. I included the interview with the founder as it describes the market and the formation of the Stinger - if this is felt to be puff then it will be removed. What should be kept in the piece to full fill the Wiki requirements? Stingerreport (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been gone over again looking for any claims and repetition and edited. I need to know what more can be done as I seem to find that this page is like others and not unusual? Stingerreport (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A general rephrasing of a lot of the article, for starters. Compare the first few sentences to the introductory paragraphs of, for example, Time magazine's article. Time's article has much more neutral, encyclopedic phrasing, whereas the one on The Stinger Report reads more like something you'd find on an "About Us" page, if you get what I mean. Same goes for the 'description' section. It's not something I can really put into words, but it's a general 'non-encyclopedic' feeling I get from it, like the difference between reading a newspaper article and one of those big full-page advertisements that looks like an article and has 'advertisement' in fine print on the bottom.

As for the references, here's my evaluation of them one by one: the Arcade Renaissance links are pretty short and doesn't really say anything about Stinger per se, it just passes on information. It'd be like if we used Microsoft press releases to write the article on Microsoft. The first two spong.com references are both written by the founder, leading to a clear conflict of interest; to continue the Microsoft analogy, it'd be like if we wrote the Microsoft article using stuff that Bill Gates wrote. Not to mention the fact that, again, they don't even mention Stinger except for in the line at the very end. As for the interview, it might be useful for an article on arcade machines in general, but as with all the other ones, it doesn't provide any information about Stinger. And finally, the 1up article you linked to just has a quote from Kevin Williams; again, no information about Stinger.

The common thread here is a total lack of information about Stinger. For example, looking through all the references you provided, I couldn't even find out when Stinger was founded or when the first issue was published. Ultimately, this means that it'll be pretty much impossible to write a good, encyclopedic, neutral article about it. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't see solid notability and there is obviously a serious COI problem too. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Veinor for your information and observation. If I read this correctly you would need the description changed, and links found that are not written by Stinger, but are about Stinger for the reference. I propose to undertake this now and when completed need to know if this is in a direction that Wiki can support Stingerreport (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Page has been paired down of reference about the founder, the interviews, and uses references only talking about the Stinger Report and not written by the Stinger. Also details on the service operation and areas of coverage have been extended - with a re-write of the start and description as suggest. Please can you confirm this is more in keeping with Wiki requirements? Stingerreport (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that this is, at the very least, a step in the right direction. The issue of the article's tone, while still somewhat advertorial, is not so bad that it would warrant deletion. However, the links are still, at least in my opinion, not enough to warrant inclusion. The insertcredit.com one seems to be mostly about the mustache in the picture, and the GameSetWatch link, while providing some information, appears again to be more meta-commentary on the issues the report covers rather than the report itself. And as I said before, the 1UP link doesn't really say much about the report. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn. Fails WP:N as I see it i.e. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." The references supplied are in the main from industry blogs. No mention of how many actual "subscribers" the e-Newsletter has? I hope they are subscribers or this amounts to email spam?--Sting au Buzz Me... 23:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Veinor for your support in helping us understand the requirements of what is quite a different process than we are use to. I would however request Sting that he dose not allude to The Stinger Report as "amounts to email spam", not matter meant as a question this can be taken the wrong way. In answer to your last points:

Writing Style / Tone - we were accused of being to 'advertorial', so the page has been nearly completely re-written and toned down

References - we were asked to change the quotes to reference about us, and not written by us. This has been down, with the insertcredit.com reference removed - replaced for a interview with our founder that dose explain the service and inclusion of a bio written about us for the GameDeveloper Conference session

Links - all links were re-drafted and presented as requested

You have to understand that we created this page as a number of Wiki pages / categories (Exergaming, Simulator Rides, Video Arcades etc.,) are using quotes, links or direct cuts from the Stinger Report and we felt a pages was needed - it would seem weird that they can use our material but we are unable to have a page.

Finally I am concerned that because of the size of the amusement media scene we are used widely by the trade and have a established track record, but are limited to references other than our work being used by everyone. I notice our industries largest trade journal (RePlay) has not been given a Wiki entry because it only has its reference. Is this the case for Wiki entry, as I feel uncomfortable to a possible exclusion of amusement trade? Stingerreport (talk) 01:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article claims that The Stinger Report is "a free subscription service with subscribers from around the world." How many actual "subscribers" are there?--Sting au Buzz Me... 03:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Stinger Report is circulated to over 10,000 subscribed and verified email addresses over six times a month. Subscribers can sign up at the web site or approach the Stinger directly. This is stated in the Page, though the circulation number is not as it was claimed that this would be 'puffing' us up if we reported our numbers?? Dose this address your question? 84.9.85.219 (talk) 10:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that answers the question thank you. You have also left this message on my talk page. There is no need to message me there as I am now watching this AfD.--Sting au Buzz Me... 22:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:COI, no apparent notability. KleenupKrew (talk) 01:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second time that some one has just turned up made a sweeping statement, then asked for Deletion. We entered this Page after a number of Wiki sites used information or sources from The Stinger Report - I can not see how creating an entry is not going to promote ANY service or business. Though I do not see a order for deletion from the Computer Games magazine entries or the other Newsletters? Is there a specific area of this page that could be changed that would not be seen as claimed promotion - or was this comment just made as a simple sweeping statement rather than a way to be constructive. We have done EVERYTHING asked to change alter or add to made this site suitable! Stingerreport (talk) 12:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again much appreciation in taking the time to supply us pointers in the coverage of the page in question; I have read the sources you pointed me towards and have this issues:

Notability – You will notice that the Stinger has been mentioned in a number of the references supplied. You will also notice that the coverage is used by media sources to cover the sector. I would say that the WP:Notable (People) is covered by the Stinger entry “worthy of notice” – we are using a ‘Primary source’ to support the inclusion and as a creative resource the Stinger falls into other aspects of this inclusion.

Reliable Sources – I have worked to only use three external links of ‘Self-Published’ sources, the rest are sources that have though the coverage worth of inclusion. I am uncomfortable with the way that Insidecoinop, 1up.com and SPONG.com were dismissed recently by one critic, though I notice that entry has ‘disappeared’.

Advice by subject – I have just noticed that in this reference that trade association and accreditation from ‘business and commerce’ can be used. I have not seen one comment in all the criticism to The Stinger Report entry on our association accreditation? Why is this ignored as a reliable reference?

I notice that some of the criticisms of the Stinger page have swapped, as if some who originally claimed that it was ‘puffing’ now say it is not informative. It also has been edited to address the requests, and I have even supplied subscription information to address a unfounded claim of being internet spam! I would be interested in what else I am going to have to supply – especially as I notice that equivalent pages of similar services (xx) seem to have gone unquestioned into the site? Stingerreport (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, let me say that your argument based on other pages' existence is fallacious; many pages exist that should not, and many pages do not exist that should.

Again, the issue at heart here is not the promotion of the page. If I felt the page was biased, yet about a notable subject, then I would support keeping it (although of course rewriting it would be good). But here I quote from the general notability guideline: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable...."Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." I ask you, which one of these sources provides coverage about Stinger itself? Here is my analysis of each link in the References and External Link sections:

The 1up.com reference doesn't say anything about Stinger itself, it just has a quote from Kevin Williams which doesn't even talk about Stinger. And the quote is short when compared to the overall length of the article; the notability guidelines generally caution against using brief mentions like that.
The Kevin Williams interview doesn't really show him talking about Stinger; he mentions it once near the end, and that's it.
The biography is short, one paragraph long, and again barely mentions Stinger. It also reads like a press release or something, not like a neutral, objective article.
The Arcade Renaissance link again doesn't provide any information about Stinger, merely quote it. The point of having sources is so that we can write an article based on them; what information does this link provide about Stinger?
The other spong.com link also doesn't mention Stinger except for in a brief blurb near the end, which provides next to no information abou t it.
The videogametopics.com link is just a repeat of the Arcade Renaissance link and so doesn't add anything new. Literally; the text was lifted word for word.
The Inside Coin-Op link doesn't say anything about Stinger, just host some articles written by it. What information can we derive from these articles?
Finally, the GameSetWatch link. It as well doesn't really supply much information about it, just a couple of quotes that the author found amusing, each of which has a one-sentence commentary.

As for the claim of accreditation, the only one of the links you provided that had any information specifically about Stinger was the TEA link. And that barely contains any; just some contact information and a short, two-sentence profile.

I think part of the confusion is that it hasn't been made clear that the purpose of the sources is to provide information about Stinger so that we can write a multi-sourced article, not just for their own sake. So a source that barely mentions Stinger except for once sentence is next to useless in this context, even though it might be a very well-written article. I hope this helps your understanding. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 15:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I have taken them on board and propose to look at the situation with a final re-write. I am concerned that first I was asked to add references that we worked in the sector, then about the Stinger, now in great detail about the service (which seems to go back to the Puff allegations at the beginning). As time is limited I have undertaken the following:

SPONG interview – This offers a view of the contributor mentioned in the page and dose state how the views covered in the Stinger are shaped (it has been worded thus in the page now)
Develop Bio – I have moved this into external links
Arcade Renaissance – I have included this quote as an example of Stinger coverage used in reporting
The other Spong coverage – this seems a unusual comment by you, it was written by the Stinger, it actually says that? It has been retained in the new page

GameWatch coverage – I have kept the page, I think it dose explain the reason behind the Stingers interest – HOWEVER it is still felt inappropriate it will be removed

CasBox coverage – I have been sent the early coverage of the Stinger from the start and have added this to the links
Trade Accreditation – I think you dismissed the trade association stuff off hand. The TEA coverage is the same for ALL members, no more no less and describes the company and its addition as a member. I have totally redressed the association part as it seems that it is being sidelined

Finally, I have to take umbrage with your comment about ignoring other sites treatment – I am not asking for special privileges, just a level playing field. I have actually undertaken this re-write emulating Evil Avatar, which seemed to offer a good comparison to what TSR is. I notice their lack of a need for reference to survive and so have used the same approach. I look forward to the reaction! Stingerreport (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your 'umbrage' as mentioned above; I wasn't saying you were asking for favoritism; I was saying your statement that "Though I do not see a order for deletion from the Computer Games magazine entries or the other Newsletters?" wasn't really relevant, because each article is handled on a case-by-case basis. Anyway, let's look at the new links:

Inside Coin-Op: as pointed out before, this doesn't have any informatoin about Stinger on it, just a collection of columns.
The GameWatch link: it doesn't really say much about it other than "sometimes they write funny or interesting things." It doesn't describe, as a hypothetical, Stinger's instrumental role in uncovering the Great Coin Box Scandal of 2003. It merely gives two sentences the author thought was amusing.
The Kevin Williams interview, as I have mentioned repeatedly, doesn't give any information about Stinger itself. While it does provide information on Kevin Williams's viewpoints, those don't necessarily translate into anything related to Stinger; people can have biases separate entirely from their publications.
The other spong.com link doesn't mention Stinger at all except for that one bit near the bottom; if you didn't know that it mentioned it there, what was the point of linking to it, and how does it help establish notability?
As for the links that quote Stinger, my question to you is: how do we use these links to provide information about Stinger? Not about issues that it's reported on, about Stinger itself.
The trade association comment was not to impugn Stinger, it was meant to point out that nowhere is it said that accreditation itself is enough for notability. It's merely evidence that something is probably notable and would merit further research.
Finally, the CasBox link. I like it, but the problem is that it looks like the majority of that was written by somebody at Stinger; reliable sources have to be people uninvolved with the subject they're writing about. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 19:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable and blatant conflict of interest Nakon 16:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is becoming near impossible to understand the official statements for the spurious individuals who appear, make a statement and then vanish without want to discuss the situation. The Stinger Report page originally was entered with NO names. We then had complaint that we should attribute its coverage. Now we have done EVERYTHING to ensure that it meets requirements the goal post has been moved. You will see that we have removed the creators name - but will not remove the interview as it is valid (unless the Wiki team feel that it has to go - not just by anonymous comments). Stingerreport (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am GREATLY concerned by the method of moderating a page, we have done everything asked, and worked with those that requested change. But after doing more than asked we then suddenly find our account closed as if to try and stop us questioning some statements. This seemed to come after we proved that one complaint was incorrect about the page created. Is this Wiki's policy to smother questioning? Or is this a miss use of power? Kwp729 (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was somebody blocking that account for violating the username policy; usernames are not allowed to be the names of websites, organizations, etc. However, the standard procedure is to wait until any disputes the user is in before doing so. I guess the blocking admin didn't check. It's not a conspiracy, simply somebody being overzealous. If it was a conspiracy, then you wouldn't have been able to make a new account. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Veinor, it is this 'overzealous' behavior that I was concerned by - rather than a 'conspiracy'. It seems with the whole process of creating this page I have met 'overzealous' attitude. Be it the complaints of Puff, that then suddenly changed to complaints of lies, then when it was found that the pages info was based on fact, I managed to strike up a understanding (thanks in part to your appreciated information), then a sudden attack for deletion with no reason, and finally after doing EVERYTHING asked I am instantly blocked - now only to find out that this is not how it should happen. You must see from my point of view that there is a lot broken with the way information is added to the Wiki. I need to know:

the status of my accounts (why sudden closure)
the status of the page

and what can be done to address any outstanding issues. Again I thank you for your help on this. I am just unhappy that 'overzealous' individuals have such power (now I have said this will this latest account be blocked??) Kwp729 (talk) 00:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Stinger Report account is blocked and will probably remain so indefinitely, due to violation of the username policy. The account you're currently using won't be blocked unless you do something extra to warrant it, and I don't think even the most zealous of our administrators would consider what you're doing to justify blocking. If criticizing administrators was a blockable offense, I think half the people we have now, including a good deal of the administrators, would be blocked themselves. The page itself still exists and will remain so until all 5 days of the Article for deletion process are done, which will be sometime Friday.

As for the issues, that's basically what this entire debate is: me confronting you with issues and you amending them (or at least attempting to). Oh, and I don't recall any accusations of lying, at least none made by me. Of course, my memory could be faulty. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 02:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again Veinor - without your information this process would have been a dud. Regarding the accusations, you were not one of the individuals - I had to go to the 'talk' of one of the critics of the page to be told the reason for their claim for instant deletion only for that comment to be removed from their page (assumed they checked the facts and saw they had made a fool of them selves). I await the next stage in this process. Kwp729 (talk) 11:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 08:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Viewable With Any Browser

There are many "viewable with any browser" campaigns. This one is hardly notable. Plrk (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Aleta ^Sing 02:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However, anybrowser.org is pretty darn old and has been, like, forever. I'm not sure if it has gained any wider significant notability-proving coverage, so I'm not saying anything yet. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:RS and WP:WEB Gary King (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Directorate of Military Intelligence; I see nothing to merge. Sandstein (talk) 06:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MI13

MI13 entirely hypothetical, no evidence for existence Bazonka (talk) 16:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No verifiable info seems to exist on this hypothetical... whatever. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Directorate of Military Intelligence - [18] seems to verify it, but no notability for a separate article.--Beloved Freak 16:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Directorate of Military Intelligence 70.55.89.211 (talk) 05:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the purposes of the template, Template:UK Intelligence Agencies it's confusing if you miss it out. Doesn't hurt to leave it in. ninety:one 16:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Directorate of Military Intelligence - I've altered the template. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 08:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ananda Kularatne

This article was originally nominated for A7, but I was on the fence about deleting under A7. Possibly still ripe for deletion as a non-notable biography, but I want to make sure I'm not off my rocker here... SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 15:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 15:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see anything here to indicate notability. Scog (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete - This is a article on one of the few Ceylonese RAF pilots of world war 2, therefore I think we should keep this. However I do agree it must be edited.Nitraven (talk) 13:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nitraven may have a point, but he is not notable in Wikipedia terms, though it may belong at some Ceylon-related website somewhere. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, interesting but no assertion of enough notability to warrrant inclusion in an encyclopedia. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re-edited the article. Nitraven (talk) 11:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted, WP:SNOW Nakon 20:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rajon

Non notable protoglism/neoglism. Was incorrectly tagged for speedy, so I bring it here instead. J Milburn (talk) 15:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 15:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete - the article looks like a hoax to me. JH (talk page) 16:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nonsense. Andrew nixon (talk) 16:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Rubbish. Johnlp (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, as originally tagged by me - non-notable neologism or hoax. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense.--Berig (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 05:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:HOAX as a hoax. Gary King (talk) 20:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no way that this falls under WP:NONSENSE, nor any of the speedy criteria. It is generally worth reading guidelines before you cite them. J Milburn (talk) 20:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to prenatal development. Sandstein (talk) 06:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prenate

The article is only a definition, and duplicates content of similar aerticles like Embryo. The page should be transwikied to Wiktionary. EncycloPetey (talk) 15:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:STUB says "a "definition" may be enough to qualify an article as a stub". I'm sorry that I don't have enough information to add, but surely someone else does. What if there were articles for tree, bush, flower, etc., but none for plant. ☺ (talk) 15:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that an article on plant would (and should) contain much information that could not be placed on an article about tree, flower, etc. I can't imagine that an article on prenate could ever include much information at all, at least not that wasn't able to be better placed in other articles. The term is seldom used in scientific literature, textbooks, etc. precisely because it isn't a useful grouping in terms of what meaning it carries. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or transwiki. Is there any evidence that this grouping is in fact a useful one? We have no article on humans and chimpanzees, even though that's a legitimate clade.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that nobody has/had made it yet does not mean it shouldn't/shouldn't've be made. This is different because it is a life stage. What if was an article for every person on earth, but none for humans? Someone doing a report on prenates should not have to look through 4 different articles. ☺ (talk) 15:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Prenate" is an interesting word that I hadn't heard before. It seems to be synonymous with the more common term "unborn" which doesn't have an article either. So, delete or transwiki.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to prenatal development or something similar. That article can appropriately contain just about anything that would go in prenate. So Awesome (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to prenatal development or soemthing similiar, as per So Awesome. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above.--Berig (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki I added the stub template, assuming that someone could add more to the article, but seeing that there is no more to be added, it belongs in Wiktionary. J0lt C0la (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: author and only major contributor has been banned. (Just an FYI). J0lt C0la (talk) 01:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete due to the lack of reliable sources which would show it meets any of the criteria of the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 08:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Moon Is Not the Son

Non-notable book. No reviews cited. The only reference used for the article is a college catalogue. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 12:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 14:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 00:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not defined or presented. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article is an essay and original research. Davewild (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing 2.0

Essay, neologism, no peer-reviewed sources. Tons of blog hits on Google, but obviously those are of no use. --- RockMFR 14:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unverifiable essay. WillOakland (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - OR essay or perhaps just a copyvio. Jfire (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears essay-like now, but the term is indeed popular among the business crowd online. Gary King (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essentially unsourced, since linked pages don't define term, and therefore original research. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G4.

Tisdale's Second Studio Album

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Tisdale's Second Studio Album

Apparently, so little is known about this album that it has no title, no definitive release date, and a single confirmed song. It's fine if this article exists once more is confirmed, but an article named "Tisdale's Second Studio Album" can't be expanded much more unless we start crystal-balling. So Awesome (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a repost. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voices (Ashley Tisdale album) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Tisdale's second studio album. Please salt as well, as recreation of this thing is becoming a problem. Kww (talk) 15:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 23:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Blue Paint Killer

This is un-notable and has no secondary sources. Lizzie Harrison 13:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is your justification for calling it un-notable? I agree more secondary sources are needed, however. Editus Reloaded (talk) 13:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is very in-universe and the only google results for it are wikipedia related or CSI forums. Lizzie Harrison 13:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems to be a fork of List of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation characters done solely because of the length so notability is not an issue. --neonwhite user page talk 23:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely; the list page is meant to be a summary which then leads off to separate character articles if is is unnecessarily long - as in this case. Attempting to shoehorn character detail into list pages is messy; see parts of this prior version of the character list page. KeepEditus Reloaded (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and allow a bit more time for sources. This article could be written in a more "out of universe" manner, but this fictional concept is important to understanding the series. Ursasapien (talk) 06:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 23:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Miniature Killer

This is un-notable and has no secondary sources. Lizzie Harrison 13:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to be very important and notable to Season 7 and the first episode of Season 8 of CSI: Las Vegas (I personally haven't seen these episodes). This would be too long if put into List of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation characters. It looks like the character is connected to at least 8 episodes of CSI: Las Vegas (that I can tell from the article). Much more then any of the other repeated villains (like Paul Millander's three episodes). The fact that this character is interlinked into so many Season 7 episodes, it would be a chore for a Wiki-reader to have to jump from article to article to pick up all of the pieces about this character.

Regarding references/sources: Yes, references are needed...on almost every CSI episode article on wikipedia (most only contain external links to "CSI Files", "CSI Episode Guide" "Internet Movie Database" and/or "TV.com"). "Good Guy" character Teri Miller was only in five episodes, and she has a sperate article (also without refernces, just an external link to her CBS's character profile). Antmusic (talk) 15:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and give the rescue squad a chance. Surely some references can be found for this notable fictional character. Ursasapien (talk) 04:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for reasons others have given. Needs more references though. Tilefish (talk) 10:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by me. J Milburn (talk) 14:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Village People Football Club

Questionable notability... I don't think such a football club playing at this level meets our notability guidelines. Crazy Boris with a RED beard 13:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 03:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Home for Incurables

There are numerous such homes across the world and there seems no point in highlighting just two, particularly since nothing notable has been identified. In the light of the discussion here, I think the page should be deleted and it can be recreated if at least two such homes get pages. TerriersFan (talk) 13:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment, as I said I'm fine with deleting them; since they're hospitals, they're obviously notable in and of themselves, so I would point out that your motivation in deleting this page is aesthetic, not a matter of notability; the page is disambiguating two entirely notable things. But deleting it out of aesthetic concern is perfectly fine, and probably trumps any concerns about future link integrity I might have had in creating the page, so carry on. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 13:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the page is pointless, since is disambiguates two pages that don't exist. Atyndall93 | talk 13:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete- even if they did exist, there's no need for a disambig page for just two artices, a disambig link to the other article would just go at the top of each. Merkin's mum 13:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete disambiguation to non-existent articles --Pustefix (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Berig (talk) 18:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - since nothing links here. I'd suggest that if either of these hospitals is notable, that the articles be created, rather than this dab page. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as a copy of F.C.Vitoria Cacheu. The title translates to :What is the name of the club". Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Какое название клуба

I prodded it, and this article seems to contradict itself in so many ways. The title is in Cyrillic, and spells "Kakoye nazvaniye kluba", but then the original author said it was about the "Estrela Negra de Bolama", but someone changed it to "F. C. Vitoria Cacheu". There is already a page "F.C.Vitoria Cacheu", but I may as well speedy that for being non-notable (googled, and it came up to only the article). – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 12:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This doesn't seem notable, it plays in no league, etc. Noble Story (talk) 12:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per absence of delete preferences (non-admin closure). The possibility of merging/moving the article requires further discussion on the talkpage to reach consensus. Skomorokh 01:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

African pope

Doesn't really deserve its own article, like an essay, though might be an idea to merge a bit of the info into Pope Phoenix -wiki 11:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Pope: Lacks sufficient context to warrant it's own article, would be better suited in the main article. Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 12:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Convert into a disambiguation page. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 12:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Pope per Steve Crossin. Atyndall93 | talk 13:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak comment I agree with Aqwis that this probably needs to become a disambiguation page, since it appears to be trying to be describing several things related to both Pope and Africa: (1) A Roman Catholic pope born on the African continent; (2) The strong feeling that there will someday be a black African pope from the continent where Catholicism is having its fastest growth; and (3) A Greek Orthodox patriarch known as "Pope of Alexandria and all Africa". The case has been made that it's a legitimately ambiguous term Mandsford (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant content to separate articles and redirect the title to Pope. The Eastern Orthodox don't use the title Pope. The Coptic Patriarch is called Pope, but I've never heard him called the (or an) African Pope. I don't think there's enough ambiguity here to require the dab page. -- BPMullins | Talk 14:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 15:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 15:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This article attempts to cook together too many things that have hardly any connection at all.--Aldux (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- After observing the useful edits made by Dhartung, I still can't help feeling the article mixes two elements with only weak ties: the popes from Roman Africa on one side and on the other the future prospects of a pope from Africa south of the Sahara. I think this last issue should be better merged with Roman Catholicism in Africa, also because the issue of where the next popes could come from has made in similar ways also for Asia, US and Latin America. Focusing on the African popes may risk give the issue an excessive space respect other options discussed even hotter. I must also add that my concerns are also due to the Pope article being already too big, with 77K.--Aldux (talk) 12:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to List of African popes (on the model of List of French popes and List of German popes. I've put the Coptic and Eastern Orthodox stuff into hatnotes, where it should be. A brief mention of mooted future popes from Africa should be acceptable if it is now a list of only Roman Catholic popes from Africa. --Dhartung | Talk 22:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nicely done, Dhartung. Your solution works very well. May I suggest a speedy close on that basis? -- BPMullins | Talk 01:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move as Dhartung suggests. Speculation on what African cardinals might be elected Pope should however be remvoed. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why? The papabile are widely and openly discussed by reliable sources. Here the National Catholic Reporter discusses Arinze. --Dhartung | Talk 02:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Pope Obviously doesn't merit its own article, however, it is related to the article "Pope" sufficiently enough to warrant a merger.¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 04:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have rewritten the papabile section with references from a broad variety of sources including Desmond Tutu and an obscure Catholic scholar named Ratzinger. There has been much discussion in the form of not if, but when there will be another African pope, and it isn't just ethnic solidarity. --Dhartung | Talk 08:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move (i.e. Keep and Rename) to List of African popes and papabile. It is encyclopedic but does not belong in the main article Pope. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Pope per above Yahel Guhan 02:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still Merge with Pope none of the content needs to be cut away, the references now seem better, it just doesn't warrant it's own article (made in response to requested review of opinion) Atyndall93 | talk 10:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The additional editing (done by Dhartung) makes this a viable article. There were, indeed, three Popes born on the continent, and we live in an era where a black African pontiff is a something that is likely. A mere thirty years ago, there was a centuries old streak where all the Popes had been Italian. This is preferable to merging this back to "Pope", or creating a d.a.b. page. Mandsford (talk) 19:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Pope is already 75K long. --Dhartung | Talk 00:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the possibility of an African pope has generated quite a bit of speculation in recent years, and Wikipedia should cover that comprehensively; on the other hand, the issue is not of anywhere near the significance necessary to warrant inclusion in the main article Pope, considering what an enormous and important topic that is. I think it works perfectly well as a standalone article, although merging into Roman Catholicism in Africa could be an acceptable alternative. I don't think the article should simply be a list. Everyking (talk) 05:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article could be titled as a list (see suggestions above) but retain its current content. A list article does not have to be a bare list; see WP:LIST. - Fayenatic (talk) 08:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The subject is notable and interesting, but the presentation appears to be a bit wobbly. Perhaps the article's title can be changed to "Roman Catholic Popes of African Heritage"? The Coptic Church, which is based in North Africa, has its own pope. Of course, there is the dividing issue of "African" and "Sub-Saharan African," and it appears the latter is the subject of the article's speculation on a future black pope. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure what's wrong with African pope or List of African popes. It's the head article for Category:African popes (which will have no head article if this is deleted). It's the same format as List of French popes or List of German popes 9which are probably the only other lists outside of Italy to have more than one member, e.g. List of Polish popes would be just John Paul II). We have the hatnote to disambiguate with the Coptic and Eastern Orthodox "popes" (not generally known as such). If necessary we COULD move this to a more specific title, but then we're right back where we started, having this as a disambiguation page, which nobody seems to have voted for. As for the issue of what race any of these popes were or might in future be, that is something requiring a good deal of expansion, as there is no consensus. The Africocentric movement believes all three of the original African popes were black, of course, but historians disagree as to whether they were Roman, Berber, Punic (i.e. Semitic), or even barbarian, and Romans were notoriously agnostic about skin color to the point that it was rarely recorded. We just don't know. Certainly some of the current calls are about race, and it's more likely that a future African pope will be black just because of the limited presence of Catholicism in the non-black parts of Africa. But very few of the serious sources calling for an African pope actually discuss race. --Dhartung | Talk 19:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 03:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bean to cup machines

Contested prod, but advertising spam. StAnselm (talk) 11:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cautious keep but only if it is rewritten. It almost looks like an advert, except it is mentioning a number of different manufacturers. The prose is unencylopedic, and does contain a lot of POV. However, if it could be rewritten to describe in better detail how the coffee is prepared and brewed, and in a more technical manner (maybe like Chocolate#Production) then it could be kept. As it stands though, deletion is required. StephenBuxton (talk) 11:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyviolation of [19]. Also agree with nom that this is spam as presented. Ros0709 (talk) 11:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Ros0709 and nom. Atyndall93 | talk 13:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as copyvio without prejudice to recreation if someone were to write a NPOV sourced article about this topic, which is a valid one. ~ mazca ^talk 15:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if this is a copyvio. But a rewritten version could be useful at some stage. Ashton1983 (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Once I have time I'll try to rewrite this as a non-copyvio. The concept is likely notable, but the POV and copyvio need to be removed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy for TPH. In the meantime, delete - this appears to be the marketing equivalent of a white paper. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete copyvio --Pustefix (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete for failing WP:MUSIC and WP:HOAX. —dima /talk/ 03:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prostytutka

Claims of a hit record make this ineligable for speedy deletion (despite earlier deletion as such) but there is no verification of notability and I can find nothing to support the claim - this could even be a hoax article. Ros0709 (talk) 10:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable according to Google Search/News. Atyndall93 | talk 13:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The name means "little prostitute" and the article sounds like a hoax.--Berig (talk) 18:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "¿Viva Ukraine?" doesn't seem to exist, at least as a song by this band. Not only does that raise huge "hoax" flags, but it takes away their one source of notability, as without that they do not meet WP:MUSIC. Anturiaethwr 19:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete. I have seen this band in concert in several locations including porvo/orem, eastern washington, several locations across ukraine and the former soviet union, and most importantly khazakastan. All over khazakastan. Mscottchristensen (talk) 04:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should have been speedy deleted. Dorftrottel (criticise) 08:05, April 21, 2008
DO NOT DELETE I am doing what i can to gather my sources to prove this article's credibility. However, I do have a job, so it is taking longer than I initially thought. I didn't realize how serious wikipedia was about deleting articles it didn't deem worthy. I appreciate that quality control, but I beg that you give me a few days to gather my sources and prove that this is a great band that deserves to be on wikipedia. Since they are from Ukraine, it's hard to find credible information on them on the internet. I know that have a myspace page, and a few music blogs mention them, so that is a start, but I'm trying to find something more official. Patience would be greatly appreciated, and within a week, I should have plenty of evidence to have you keep "Prostytutka" up.--Rachael6 (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately myspace and blogs are not reliable sources. If the band has had the hit tracks the article claims then it is notable and the article can be kept - but in that case it really shouldn't be hard to find some sources that are reliable that confirm it. As a starter, [20] has links to 13 Ukranian chart sites. Of course, the lack of any sources being found tends to suggest that there haven't actually been any hits at all, and in that case the band would appear to fail Wikipedia's notability criteria. Ros0709 (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inventive hoax, but hoax. Sorry neighbors, the encyclopedia is not a toy. Sorry Wikipedians, you are being played. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eritain (talk • contribs) 05:57, 22 April 2008
- Шкода вам дівчатам, що ваш сусід і може перевіряти будь-які заяви про Українську поп-музику, і любить цілисність Википедії більше, ніж лубить такий гумор. (It's too bad for you girls that your neighbor both is able to check any claims about Ukrainian pop music and loves the integrity of Wikipedia more than he loves this kind of humor.) You can hate me later. Everyone else: There is a place for process on Wikipedia, but Prostytutka isn't it. eritain (talk) 03:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, barring sources are found to establish notability and that it is not a hoax. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What's the Russian word for WP:HOAX? Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone finds evidence of the band's existence (and notability, but let's start with existence). Tuf-Kat (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fast. Ostap 03:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Possibly a hoax even. --Irpen 05:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:SNOW. Experienced, Ukrainian speaking editors say this is a hoax, new apparently single-purpose editors say keep... duck test say hoax, too :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete for failing WP:BIO and WP:PROF. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yu Taishan

Is this professor sufficiently notable? Based on the publication list, I don't think so. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, no third-party sources.--Aervanath's signature is boring 21:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 22:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure I am unsure about this one, although, with the current state of the article, I am leaning towards delete. Aside from the fact that the article is in a pretty bad shape in terms of providing references, a GoogleBooks search returns 21 hits [21] (although some may be false positives) and a GoogleScholar search returns 25 hits.[22] Granted, that is not much, but since GoogleScholar is very bad in tracking citations in humanities and since we are dealing with a scholar who primarily publishes in Chinese, these hits are an indication of something. I may be inclined to cut some slack here, if the creators of this article add some verifiable sources regarding the claims made in the article (e.g. regarding 92 papers and 6 monographs). Incidentally, the link to his personal homepage given in the article appears to be broken. Nsk92 (talk) 22:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep apparently U of Penn has thought enough of them to have them translated--see [23] for an example. DGG (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, per nom. Atyndall93 | talk 13:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not independent sources to support WP:BIO or WP:PROF. Article asserts that he is an authority on Central Asian history, but there nothing there demonstrating it besides the titles of his publications. B.Wind (talk) 04:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Rove (TV series). No indication of notability for these sketches. Dreadstar † 17:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring Rove sketches

I redirected this, and was reverted. I have given an extension of my reasons for redirecting here—the reverting user failed to respond. I'll say it again; I see no real world assertion of notability, or no need for this to exist outside of a section in the main article. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect, definitely not notable enough on its own. A list of some of the most notable sketches is definitely appropriate on the main programme page, but I think that Wikipedia could get by without having unsourced information on, say, "Who's in the Swivel Chair?". Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect He's barely a household name in his own household. Nick mallory (talk) 10:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Rove (TV series) not worth its own article. Atyndall93 | talk 13:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Rove - theres no need for a seperate page. Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 22:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as appropriate X Marx The Spot (talk) 07:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge whatever is relevant, and redirect. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to big to merge also is a good list another example is Sketches from Late Night with Conan O'Brien —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.137.201 (talk) 09:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - there is no evidence of any reliable secondary sources for this, which also means that there is nothing appropriate to merge. Kevin (talk) 10:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This sort of non-notable drivel belongs on a fan site, not here. - Shiftchange (talk) 13:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 08:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Filip Skutela

The article has several issues. He hadn't released any album under more important label. The article lists three soundtracks released by him and Google has only torrents. Therefore, it fails criteria of WP:MUSIC. Also lack of reliable & verifiable sources. No third-party source. Visor (talk) 07:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —Visor (talk) 07:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Visor (talk) 07:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no notability. --Stormie (talk) 08:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per the above from User:Stormie, Does not meet the WP:MUSIC notability criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Better references needed to estabilish notability, per nominator.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge and Redirect to School District 36 Surrey as no independent notability has been established. Davewild (talk) 08:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Senator Reid Elementary School

non-notable elementary school, Wikipedia is not a directory Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 07:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 08:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 08:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to School District 36 Surrey per WP:SCHOOL. No evidence of notability found in search. • Gene93k (talk) 08:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above, no indication that this school is notable on its own. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Merge/Redirect to School District 36 Surrey, obviously. TerriersFan (talk) 11:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per the above and WP:SCHOOLS, these don't need to come to AfD as I think I can count on one hand the number of schools that have actually been deleted. M/R is almost always the outcome TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 23:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to School District 36 Surrey per Gene93k. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as usual. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 08:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atlag united methodist church

Fails to establish notability of the subject and lacks sufficient reliable sources which could verify such notability. JodyB_talk 07:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Plenty of links, but none of them reliable third parties. No more notable than any other church. Anturiaethwr 14:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable local church, per Anturiaethwr. -- BPMullins | Talk 14:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 15:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks bad, searches in google and google books using the church's name and its alternatives did not give reliable sources that mentions it more thoroughly.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:V, which consensus cannot supercede. The level of sourcing for this story is so poor that it does not appear that a verifiable article can currently be written about it. Sandstein (talk) 06:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2005 killings of Christians in Nigeria

This article is written in a POV manner, and on attempting to rewrite it with NPOV, I was unable to find any news articles that mention this event in either international news sources or domestic Nigerian news sources (including a thorough search of Allafrica.com). Google turns up many pages that reference the event, however they are all on Christian persecution websites that seek to advance a point of view.

It appears that the event may not have actually occurred, or if the event did occur, it is not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Rjhatl (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is common knowledge, among Christians involved with missionary support, that such events do occur on a regular basis in Nigeria. But this article singles out one specific occurrence and does not cite reliable sources. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 14:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article contains the link ti web pages of news agency that cover the fact Why Delete?User:Lucifero4
- The sources in question make no mention of this particular event, and they are about other instances. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 14:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a brief mention in the first link, and I think the second link is relevant... but... the two links in the article are not reliable non-biased sources. The first is a link to an editorial with a clear POV, and the second is a link to a Christian persecution news site. There are no news agency links. Googling the quotes in the Compass news story turn up only two hits, both to the same story. Rjhatl (talk) 15:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I finally found a non-biased mention of the event from the US State Department [24]. According to them, what happened is that: The Adamawa State governor dethroned the ethnic Bachama traditional ruler for his role in inciting violence between ethnic Bachama Christians and ethnic Hausa Muslims in Numan in June 2004. Later the governor named a new traditional leader for the Bachama. In early February 2005, police killed at least two persons and arrested at least 30 others who were protesting the appointment of the new ruler, claiming that he had no mandate to rule over them. I think this shows the bias of the article and its sources (only two killed, and by the police, not "Muslim militants"), and also helps establish that it is not a notable event. Rjhatl (talk) 17:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 15:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is written with bias and cannott be verified. Gtg289m (talk) 13:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 07:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; one source seems to describe nothing about this article, and neither are from reliable sources. It seems unverifiable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rjhatl's research. So Awesome (talk) 15:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After trying to find contemporary reports of a massacre in Desma, Nigeria, the only one that I can see made at the time was from the Nigerian newspaper The Guardian. After that initial report, there is no indication of a followup report, no call for investigation, no comment from any government, etc. An incident where 3,000 people were displaced would attract a response of some sort, even if people were indifferent about 36 persons being killed. The story gets repeated, as one might expect, on websites that collect reports of atrocities, persecution, etc., but other than that first report in the Nigerian paper, there's nothing. Finally, there are Christian missionaries regularly sent to Nigeria, and one would think that the murder of 36 Christians would at least lend to a warning from missionary organizations, and I don't see that either. I think that this is a case of an oft-repeated story that has never been confirmed. Mandsford (talk) 15:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Human rights in Nigeria --Pustefix (talk) 18:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge to Human rights in Nigeria Yahel Guhan 02:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: POV and soapboxing. Merge any useful information into Human rights in Nigeria. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 02:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The article cites two sources, including the Canadian Free press which seems reliable, to back up its claim. A simple google search will show that this type of violence against Christians by Muslims has happened on several occasions. I refer you to the following New York Times article. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950CE3D8113CF930A25756C0A9629C8B63 another rundown is found at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/nigeria-1.htm There is no indication or reason to believe that this event is being made up just simply because it is Christians who are talking about it. Of course, Nigerian Muslims aren't advertising the events but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. The article would probably be better served by inclusion in a larger article on Nigerian Muslim and Christian Violence or some similar topic but until such an article is found it should be kept. I do not believe it should be filed under Human Rights in Nigeria since mob violence is not sponsored by the government or technically a violation of Human Rights by a government organization. Acts of violence are not so rare that such an event would trigger mass media coverage and the event should not be discounted just because it is only reported by a few organizations. Blahblah5555 (talk) 05:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Canadian Free Press does not seem reliable; it ends with "God protect all Christians in Muslim nations everywhere.", which makes clear that its goal is not unbiased reporting. And in fact, it covers this event in one line, citing Compass Direct, which is clearly not a reliable source. If we don't have reliable sources covering it, not just sources wearing their bias on their sleeve and quoting each other, then we can't make an article on it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I reiterate that just because the reporters are Christians does not make them liars. As verified by the NYT, a very reliable source, there have been several events of this nature in Nigeria. The Canadian Free Press does not have a history of simply making things up and there is no evidence that they did so here. Mandsford has stated that The Guardian has made a mention of the attacks, providing additional evidence that they did in face occur. Absent evidence that the reports have been fabricated they should not simply be dismissed because the writers are Christian. The reports are fairly detailed providing names and numbers of people injured something that is not easily made up. However, like I said before a larger article on Christian/Muslim violence perhaps using the NYT article as a starting point would be more useful in my opinion. Blahblah5555 (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with the CFP isn't that it has Christian reporters or has stories talking about Oprah is the AntiChrist [25]. The problem is that it's an editorial article that makes a very brief mention of the event. Nobody is arguing that Muslims and Christians in Nigeria fight from time to time. The question here is about a specific incident. Your NYT article makes no mention at all of the incident in question. Please see the earlier research I did on this topic- the particular event in question is only reported by one news/advocacy organization in a biased news article. And the US State Department tells a very different version of this story from what the advocacy article reports. I still believe that the incident itself isn't notable. As for merging it into Human Rights in Nigeria, I still think this incident isn't verifiable enough for inclusion, but that there certainly should be some mention of clashes between Christians and Muslims in that article, and have made a note to work on expanding that article. Rjhatl (talk) 21:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - On review, I think I agree with Blahblah5555 that Human Rights in Nigeria may not be the right place for this sort of thing. Maybe an article on religious and ethnic conflict. :) Rjhatl (talk) 22:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A source where the authors wear their bias on their sleeve and make no pretense of objective reporting is rarely a reliable one. It's not about lying; it's clear that the CFP is passing on a report from someone else uncritically, and we don't know anything about who passed the report on to Compass Direct or how critically they looked at it. The game of Chinese whispers tells us just how reliable honest people can be when they repeat something that someone else told them. And even if the original reporter, who we know nothing about, was entirely honest, that doesn't mean they're accurate; it's frequent for estimates of things like the numbers of refugees and dead to vary by an order of magnitude for official estimates, and more than that for people estimating on the run or in a panic. There is no evidence that this isn't just some rumor or misunderstood story or some echo of some other event. It's not about lying; it's about fact checking and skepticism.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Blahblah5555. --Shyamsunder 15:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
New Articles Found that disprove the story. Thanks to Ankimai who searched for articles about clashes that were not religiously motivated, we now have three articles that do indeed reference conflicts in Demba Village-- however the conflicts were not religious, but were issues between Fulani herders and farmers. This is a common issue, as herders have to move farther and farther south to find grazing areas. The articles are dated on February 7, on February 8 and on February 9. Rjhatl (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

~~The result was delete. Content available for transwikification on request. Sandstein (talk) 06:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Deletion overturned per discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 26. The result is now no consensus per the DRV. Arkyan 20:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Magic: The Gathering keywords

AfDs for this article:

This is simply a guide to the keywords used in Magic: the Gathering. The last AFD was based upon WP:NOT#GAMEGUIDE, but as was mentioned there, this article goes beyond just describing game effects, but a little into the development history of them. However, I don't think that the Magic keywords have any outside notability. All of the sources are "first-person" ones that were pulled from the Magic website and from the Magic developers.

Delete (or merge if anything is ov value); essentially a glossary that serves as a game guide. JJL (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Might be useful to transwiki to the Magic Wikia. It seems that they don't have this page there.--Lenticel ^(talk) 22:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Keep. The references provided may be from a source that aren't exactly "third-party", but I doubt that any truly third-party sources would be anywhere near as useful as those from WotC itself for this information. As far as outside notability goes, I'd pretty much have to agree; they don't have notability outside of MTG. However, the content itself is good as far as sourcing goes (assuming we agree that WotC works as a source for the development of their own games). Also, no realistic merge targets exist. Anything you try to merge this into would be too big imediately afterwards; especially the MTG article itself, as it's already pretty huge. I'm not really oposed to a merge, supposing that any real target can be found, but I highly doubt that that's a workable solution here. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not really sure how you're justifying a keep...your argument pretty much supports a delete. WotC is not a third-party source, so it can't be used to establish notability. I admit the article is well done for what it is, but the subject simply isn't worthy of an article in Wikipedia. As for where to put it, the MtG Wiki seems like a great place, and some of this stuff (along with several other things in several other MtG articles) could be put into a History of Magic: the Gathering article...both of which seem like good ways to spend a 3rd shift coming up. But I agree, no merge is really possible (unless Magic: the Gathering Rules is kept). --UsaSatsui (talk) 00:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't say this well enough, but I'm pretty sure this is a section that grew large enough to need its own article, or at least can be considered as such. And I don't see why out-of-game notability is required in this case at all, or why references outside of WotC would be; both would be nice, yes, but not required. Besides, in the absence of all else, it's useful (note that this arguement is only to be avoided without context). The article contains good content not just on the keywords themselves but also information on their development, you admitted that in the nomination. This is useful and encyclopedic stuff as far as I can tell. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Useful, perhaps. Encyclopedic? I really don't think so. --UsaSatsui (talk) 01:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and Delete useful on a Magic Wikia. Not wanted here. JuJube (talk) 03:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and delete this spinout of an article that shouldn't exist. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Lists (disrciminate and verifiable) and Wikipedia:Five pillars (consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on Magic The Gathering of which there are multiple published versions. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How is this verifiable under WP:V? And what does the MtG Encyclopedia have to do with anything? --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Multiple published sources = verifiable. Multiple MTG Encyclopedias has to do with the fact that such topics are consistent with our first pillar on being a collection of specialized encyclopedias. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no reason to reprint the large sections of the comp rules when that stuff is available for free to anyone. Anything that links to this should link directly there. Keep it simple. IanCheesman (talk) 07:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I went to this article to find out want I needed to know about the history behind a few keywords, namely Sweep and Banding. If it wasn't for this article, it would have been a nightmare looking through archives. The note that says what set a keyword appears in is good for a game that's over 10 years old and still producing new content. I'm not fully versed in Wikipedia's policies, so I don't know if my arguments can be used to support keeping the article or to support deleting it. 24.125.236.215 (talk) 11:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 07:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is a game guide, and Wikipedia is not a gameguide. As was stated in the previous AfD discussion: "The bulk of the article requires an understanding of how to play the game, and offers no benefit to readers other than explaining how to interpret rules text on cards in that game. This fundamentally violates WP:NOT#GUIDE, and has little potential to ever be anything but a guide." --Stormie (talk) 07:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki then Delete. I can see how this would be immensely useful to someone, but alas, it stretches into gameguide territory. Transwikification to the aforementioned MTG wikia would be the best choice here. So Awesome (talk) 14:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Magic Wikia and delete - very useful list to people who actually play the game (like me), not even understandable to others who don't. -- Roleplayer (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no need for this level of detail in a general encyclopedia. --Pustefix (talk) 18:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and delete, but make sure that a link to its new home is included on the main page for Magic: The Gathering. This genuinely useful, but Wikipedia is not necessarily the right home for it. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've said it before and I'll say it again. This is a guide to playing Magic: the Gathering. The bulk of the article requires an understanding of how to play the game, and offers no benefit to readers other than explaining how to interpret rules text on cards in that game. This fundamentally violates WP:NOT#GUIDE, and has little potential to ever be anything but a guide. Transwiki if anyone wants it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no reason why in even an extreme worst case scenario we couldn't redirect this to Magic: The Gathering without deleting in order to keep editor's contribs public. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, AMIB, several of the entries discuss when the concepts were first introduced, what common language they evolved from, or how they have changed over time (e.g. Protection)... additionally, i see no actual instruction, as in "how-to" use these keyworded abilites - it's like saying a glossary of anatomical terms is teaching someone how to operate. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 17:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a glossary. It is perfectly encyclopedic (check a real one) to have glossaries of terms for technical subjects in order to aid in comprehension. In fact, we have tons of glossaries already on various subjects over at Portal:Contents/List of glossaries. This is a useful and non-guide addition that can help readers understand some of the jargon. While, yes, jargon should be explained in the text when it is used, there are three cases when it's usually avoided: when stopping midsentence to explain every word would make the article harder to read; when the word was explained in a previous paragraph (this causes problems though when the previous paragraph is in a different section and the reader was brought to the non-explanatory paragraph by a redirect); and (in this specific case) when jargon is being used in images. "Game-guide" should be interpreted as guidance for the game, there is nothing instructional about this article, merely informational. Are we seriously considering that if a reader is interested in learning what Trample means after seeing it in the text of a picture on the main MtG article, that they must then leave wikipedia and navigate through a fanpage, or worse, the official site (it can be daunting). Finally, this goes beyond what it needs to do, by providing context as much as possible for the specific keywords, providing insight to how the game has evolved over time, while a little too-technical sometimes, this can be fixed and is never grounds for out-right deletion. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 17:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- also, in direct response to the nomination, while WP:FICT is still under debate, the idea that lists of fictional elements from a notable work are perfectly acceptable as being notable themselves, is a fairly stable consensus - otherwise we would need to delete every List of minor characters in X article out there. I offer up the page in question as both a glossary as per my above post, and also a list of fictional elements from a notable work. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 17:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: New to this, don't know all the rules on wikipedia & other wikis, but the article should be kept. The article might not be up to the standards of wikipedia & people are having difference defining the actual role of the article, but isn't this why the article should stay on wikipedia so it can be edited? If it looks like a game guide, make it not so. If it's not up to the standard, make it so. Also, just made a link between the article and an orphaned article. If the article in questioned should be removed, then the orphaned article and all other related articles should be removed as well. Futhermore, if all the articles are thusly removed for some pesky differences, then Wikipedia simply loses its most foundamental principle: an all encompassing encyclopedia which everybody can edit. Ndhuang (talk) 20:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the above, is useful information to related articles. Gary King (talk) 20:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, article fails the relevant notability guideline and is a crystal ball violation.. Davewild (talk) 08:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Past Due

No information or sources here... really there is nothing here. Editor has a history of introducing inappropriate pages. SOme serious expansion will need to be done; otherwise should be deleted as non-notable. - eo (talk) 06:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsourced crystal ball article. --Stormie (talk) 08:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 15:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sheer crystalballery, no sources cited, nothing about this album other than that somebody says it's going to be released. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no source --Pustefix (talk) 18:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article does not have the significant coverage in reliable sources in order to meet the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 08:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KMLE Medical Dictionary

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:WEB. This is a Search aggregator, not a dictionary. Has a few links but they seem to be unreadable, press releases or merely trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines. Google news yeilds nothing. Part of a larger spam campaign that seeded WP with spamlinks. Seems to be nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT.Hu12 (talk) 06:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am the admin of the site. Anyways, if wikipedia editors think it should be deleted, we are ready to accept the deletion/bans/etc, but of note I would like to point out I searched every medical dictionary (stedman, dorland, tabers) on google news, and none are noted. Also our site officially licenses the American Heritage Medical Dictionary and is not just a meta-search. You mentioned trivial coverage, but I can note over 5 books that reference our site, that are still being published. As for the "spam" please see my comments at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Request_unlisting_of_kmle.com The site was bookmarked enough to go to the main page on de.lico.us, so "normal" people do find the site helpful as well. Digirave (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per my nom. Spam spam spam. fails WP:WEB. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising"--Hu12 (talk) 05:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Conflict of interest since I am the admin, but I have explained my points many times already, and the "spam" in the articles were edited to try to be more accurate and not just senseless advertising/spam, which stopped anyways without any intervention from wikipedia... Digirave (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:N, WP:WEB, or WP:CORP. Probably could be a speedy as spam. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB, and verging on WP:ADVERT territory Gary King (talk) 19:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JustCarmen

Non-notable singer who fails WP:MUSIC. The only reason anyone has ever heard of her is because of her producer. If anything this should be redirected, there is no assertion of individual notability. EconomicsGuy (talk) 06:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ see below but with what? The perfect article would be Seriously Single but that article doesn't exist yet. By the way, that album is notable for the very reasons stated in JustCarmen. You could potentially merge this into a section about the album in Giovanni di Stefano but that could get awkward. I'm okay with Delete. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 11:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per davidwr. --Ave Caesar (talk) 13:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 15:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 15:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as we need better coverage of Italian related subjects, NPOV demands we cover Italy as well as we cover America or Britain and this is going in the wrong direction for that. Plus we have reliable verifiable sources. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote from merge to NEED MORE INFORMATION We should look at how other one-hit wonders are treated: Do albums get an article, does the band or singer get an article, or both? I'm going with precedent on this, whatever that turns out to be. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you planning on investigating this, I am certainly worried about inconsistency in deleting this when we keep similar stuff from the US and UK, including many articles about singles. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually SqueakBox all you need to do is explain the nature of the coverage you cite. At least provide the names of the articles in question. She utterly fails every criteria in WP:MUSIC which makes her subject to the same requirements as any other biographies. You've been here longer than me, you know this stuff already ;) EconomicsGuy (talk) 18:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this particular case, you can easily argue that she meets the following criteria for entertainers: Has made unique, ~~prolific~~ or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Well, one unique contribution. What she may or may not have done is have her achievement noted in independent, secondary sources. It's hard to tell since neither reference is really independent. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSIC covers both one-hit wonders and those who had more than one hit recording. I see no such compliance with this notability guideline. Did her record chart on the Italian record charts? No such evidence is apparent... Delete. B.Wind (talk) 04:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The contribution in question was innovative because of the purposeful mix of established people and an unknown. This innovation was noted by sources. This makes it covered by WP:MUSIC even if it didn't hit the charts. The question we have to answer is just how innovative does it have to be to WP:MUSIC-innovative, and is it really notable or is it just a curiosity that happened to make the newspapers? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's more than a decade and a half since Unforgettable and King of Hearts and a quarter century since "There's a Tear in My Beer". All three of these are electronically generated duets between a live artist and a deceased one. I have seen no such evidence of "innovation" stated in the article. Where are the citations documenting the innovation, and how do these electronic "innovations" on a recording that apparently had no charting success augment her notability? B.Wind (talk) 17:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the article: It was Stefano's idea to put a relatively unknown singer into the studio with recordings of big stars from the past. The claimed innovation was putting a relatively unknown singer up with big stars from the past. It's hard to check with paper-based references but presumably this statement came from information in the references in the footnotes. Again, as AfD reviewers it's our job to determine if that meets the notability criteria when WP:N is in doubt. I think you can make a case for it, although if the article for the album existed, I would recommend redirecting to the album. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closing admin this is very thin and needs more comments before there is a consensus one way or the other. I recommend "no consensus" and revisit the issue in a few months and/or after someone writes Seriously Single. I wouldn't at all be surprised if this article is merged into a Seriously Single without opposition. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm okay with a redirect or merge but until notability is properly asserted it fails notability guidelines. I've explained above what the easiest way for the creator to assert notability would be. Are we talking about non-trivial coverage or 3 lines on the bottom of the page? Relisting is prefferable to no consensus as the creator has still not responded and may have been too busy to do so with such short notice. EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Rename as Seriously Single, all it takes is to switch the initial sentences. Person is notable (if it is...) only for that one event - Nabla (talk) 03:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hollywood Republicans

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of Hollywood Republicans (2nd nomination)

This should almost be a speedy, as it basically a recreation of the article deleted here, but it sort of survived a convoluted AFD before, so here we go again. This article is completely unsourced, and doesn't define either the Hollywood or the Republican aspects. Is it only actual members of the Republican party? Anyone who's expressed right-of-center views? Anyone who has ever voiced support for a single Republican candidate? Anyone who has voiced opposition to a Democrat or a left-wing cause? If it were to clearly define that it is only actual members of the Republican Party, we might have something (assuming we could also define who is "Hollywood" and who isn't), but in that case we'd need a reliable citation for each and every entry being a confirmed member of that party. Right now there are zero such citations. Even if it could meet that criterion, the article is still of questionable usefulness, and another one of those potentially endless lists. There's a reason why there's no List of Hollywood Democrats page. Anyway, the new name aside, this article has all the problems of the earlier deleted article, without any of the sources. I fail to see why it's here. R. fiend (talk) 06:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced, many entries likely speculation, re-creation of previously deleted material under a new name, and questionable encyclopedic value. KleenupKrew (talk) 08:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks reliable sources and some falls into original research territory Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 11:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "This is a list of known members and/or supporters of the United States Republican Party from the Hollywood entertainment community. This list includes actors, actresses, directors, writers, and famous support personnel. Genuinely questionable entries may be deleted." This actually is a silly, name-dropping list of celebrities whom the author is pretty sure are Republicans. The comments after each name aren't made to prove that someone's a Republican, but to prove that these are famous names. Yes, we know that Desi Arnaz was Ricky Ricardo, and that Hugh Beaumont was the Dad on Leave It To Beaver; the rest, however, is probably based on "I read somewhere that they donated to Ike's campaign". I'm pretty sure you're right about Ronald Reagan and Nancy Davis. Unsourced, uninformative, and uncertain list. Mandsford (talk) 15:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 15:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete speculation --Pustefix (talk) 18:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, notable, and verifiable). Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable.--Berig (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CLN. If it lacks sources now, they can be added. I find it extremely difficult to believe that there aren't at least 3 or 4 entries that can be sourced in this list. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 19:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How does adding sources for 3 or 4 make the 100+ others any better? Or do you want to limit this to 3 or 4 sourced entries? The problem is, as we saw with the previous incarnation, that marginal statements of "support" for a Republican does not make someone a member of the Republican Party, which is what this is supposedly a list of, according to the title. The only people who really should be on this list are people who can be clearly established to be members of the party, and that is not easy to do. Are we to have one for the Democrats as well? -R. fiend (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's possibly a decent topic, although I have to say possibly, because there are thousands of Hollywood celebrities, some of whom are Republican, some who are Democrat, and most of whom don't do anything newsworthy in politics. This, however, is a good example of what "original research" is, and why O.R. isn't acceptable in an encyclopeda. There are 100 names on this list, and not one lousy source. It's not good enough to assume that everyone knows Charlton Heston was a Republican or that everyone knows that Buddy Ebsen did a commercial for a Republican Congressman. If only 3 or 4 entries can be sourced our of 100 names, then it's not going to be a reliable list. Mandsford (talk) 22:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Good idea for a list, but poorly executed. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Since most of the people on this list are alive, the list has to adhere to WP:BLP. I'd say that means that every entry on the list has to be properly referenced, and there are currently no references at all. I suppose references in the linked articles would be OK, too, but I did a spot check of about half a dozen people on the list, and only one (Drew Carey) had such a reference. If this list was replaced by one that had an appropriate citation (either in the list or in the linked article) for every living person listed, I'd change my !vote to a "Keep". But as it is, I think the list contains at least as much speculation as fact (and sometimes the speculation is explicit, as in "blue dog Democrat [but] still a supporter of Republican Policies."), which isn't appropriate (particularly for living persons). Klausness (talk) 11:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely unsourced, potential WP:BLP minefield and also impossible to maintain as people do change political affiliation, believe it or not. If Democrat, Libertarian, etc. versions also exist, bring them to AFD and I'll support deletion of those, too. Discussion of one's political beliefs could be considered a viable part of a biographical article, but in this form it's too easy for someone to add a name willy-nilly, or misinterpret information (opening WP:NOR issues). 23skidoo (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is a precedent and some good arguments here. The political affiliation of any celebrity is best mentioned just in their biography. Vishnava (talk) 16:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Nakon 02:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Zongian Royal Family (2nd Era)

The author removed the PROD tag after it had expired, so here we are. Article describes the family tree of a royal family inside the game Second Life; however, since notability is not inherited, this article fails the notability guidelines and doesn't back up its assertions with reliable sources establishing either its notability or significance. The article is also very much in-universe. I think this info should be maybe partially merged with Second Life. Any comments? GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 05:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per non-notability. Madviolinist (talk) 05:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have no idea if this would actually merit inclusion, but we might want to consider a List of Second Life people or something to that effect. I don't believe we should merge these to the main article on the game, though. --Dhartung | Talk 05:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, virtually incomprehensible nonsense. Certainly there is absolutely no claim or evidence of notability. --Stormie (talk) 08:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find no evidence whatsoever of notability. Anturiaethwr 14:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete - no significant coverage in reliable sources; unverifiable. Does not meet any notability guidelines.--Beloved Freak 15:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 15:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 15:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable --Pustefix (talk) 18:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what is useful into the main article on the game.--Berig (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is entirely the author's invention, there is nothing to merge. WillOakland (talk) 19:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If so, it should be deleted.--Berig (talk) 06:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsense about a gaming clan. WillOakland (talk) 19:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above; it seems like we need a Second Life expert to make this article more comprehensible? Gary King (talk) 19:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All you need to know is that Second Life is a blank-slate virtual reality that has no "mythology" other than what users choose to create within their own simulators. WillOakland (talk) 02:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Woody

Non-notable writer. Google pulls up nothing for his supposed book "Along For The Ride" except unrelated erotica titles and other irrelevant things. Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 04:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Obviously you have never heard of NASCAR. Your ignorance pertaining to sports should not cloud your judgment or anyone else's. Authors of single poems are given Wikipedia articles. This gentleman is a famous motorsports and college sports writer and has more than earned his place here. GeoffEighinger (talk) 05:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please remain civil. --Dhartung | Talk 05:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- With all-do respect, it may surprise you to know I have heard of NASCAR. Furthermore, GeoffEighinger, I have nothing against motorsports, and why you assume I do simply because I nominated this article for deletion is beyond me. Authors of single poems are given Wikipedia articles, but only if the poem is notable. The fact that google returns few hits on this book of his demonstrates that it may not be of substantial notability, and the person himself does not return many google hits, so though the article claims the subject has written for NASCAR, we don't have ample reliable sources to support that. Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 19:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, as he seems to be a known quantity in racing circles, but there's little in Google News Archive about him (by him is a different story). It is not clear that his publications meet WP:BK, either. --Dhartung | Talk 05:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 15:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 15:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If he's notable around NASCAR circles, add sourced content to the article to establish that notability. Otherwise, delete or merge into The Tennessean. --Orlady (talk) 16:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we merge him into a newspaper article? This behavior astounds me. You didn't even understand that "out of Nashville, Tennessee" was describing something in the city. "Outside of Nashville" would have been out of town. GeoffEighinger (talk) 21:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: We could merge his article into the article about the newspaper because his career is (apparently) associated with the newspaper. As for "out of Nashville, Tennessee" (actually, when I saw it, it was "out of Nashville, TN"), I understood perfectly well what you meant, but that kind of idiomatic expression is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Read literally (as noted in my edit summary), its meaning is very different. --Orlady (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you added several book titles to the article. That information is helpful in documenting notability. (If you want this article to be kept, you need to provide sourced information indicating that he is notable. As you probably realize, insulting other Wikipedians is not likely to help you achieve the goal of keeping the article.) I searched for the ISBN numbers and added them. Is he also the Larry Woody who wrote Schmittou: A Grand Slam in Baseball, Business, and Life? I also see that you added a long anecdote about an interaction with Tony Stewart, but that anecdote does not do anything positive for me (not only does it not help to demonstrate notability, but it does not add any useful information content to the article). Has any independent reliable source written about Larry Woody's significance as a sportswriter or his significance to NASCAR? (That would be helpful to have.) --Orlady (talk) 22:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable local writer with a non-notable book. Qworty (talk) 17:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would hardly call him a "local writer" since the man was friends with the late Dale Earnhardt and has been traveling the United States for the last 40+ years covering NASCAR and college sports, not to mention the fact he has received various awards as mentioned in his article. Don't get me wrong, I'm not friends with the guy (I live in Ohio) but the unwillingness to "recognize" established journalists and authors boggles my mind just because administrators or "Wiki bullies" have not heard of the person. I find it odd we base "worth" on the amount of Google hits one produces. GeoffEighinger (talk) 21:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is very simple. What are the reliable and independent sources that have discussed him? If they don't exist, he is accomplished, but not notable. Many accomplished people are not notable. --Dhartung | Talk 04:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Wiki bullies"? Look, please don't take offence just because an article you like or created has been nominated. Now you're just being uncivil. Please lighten up on the personal attacks, and realise that, as Dhartung has said, this man may not be notable enough to satisfy wikipedia standards, regardless of whether or not he has written a (non-notable) book or was friends with Dale Earnhardt. Simple as that. Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 04:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 3 time state sportswriter of the year, ~~2 halls~~ one hall of fame, writer for a big newspaper, author of many books. I see plenty of notability. The HoF reference article backs up these assertions. More independent references should be added - I'm sure that some exist. That's a maintenance item, with templates to deal with {{refimprove}}. Royalbroil 13:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: Be that as it may— as Dhartung and I were explaining to GeoffEighinger— one is not necessarily notable just because one is accomplished. This person may have been a three time state sportswriter of the year, has a wall of fame, writes for a big newspaper, etc., but if there aren't reliable secondary sources, all these claims about him are unverifiable, which is why I propose to either delete the article or merge with The Tennessean as per Orlady. Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 03:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Another reply. Don't just say that more independent references should be added - go ahead and do so! Part of the purpose of AfD is to encourage article improvement so it can be saved. As of this writing, there was a total of one source that was independent of Larry Woody's writing pen. That clearly is not enough. In addition, the one named hall of fame is one of a local scope (a local college as opposed to a greater region or industry) and not cited in the article; not all writing awards are as notable as the national ones, like the Pulitzer Prize; reviews of his books would have helped in WP:V; and - changing the focus a bit - there's no mention of him in the The Tennessean Wikipedian article, which would make it an awkward target for a redirect. It is still lacking in support needed to keep the article (when you reply, note the lines just below the editing window: Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. It's hard to verify if there is nothing to point to). For now, I must recommend deletion of the article. B.Wind (talk) 04:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have now added a few reliable external links to prove Woody's noteworthiness. I also noted his retirement in August, 2007 which is why he is not mentioned in The Tennessean article. GeoffEighinger (talk) 07:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep The new additions and sources help but I'm not so completely convinced of notability at this time. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Recreated as redirect to Blowgun. Sandstein (talk) 06:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blowtube

Non-notable neologism / dictdef. Google returns a smattering of hits, but no significant coverage from reliable third party sources. Action Jackson IV (talk) 04:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neologism, and nothing more than a bit of OR and hoax junk. Jmlk 1 7 05:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like a hoax. It's also non-notable.--RyRy5 (talk) 05:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced neologism at best, juvenile clowning around at worst. --Stormie (talk) 08:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I Googled "blow tube marijuana" as well as "blowtube marijuana". The first query came up with hits on such reliable sources as High Times and The Ithacan. It seems to be more in-culture jargon than a neologism. The current stub is indeed not much more than a dictionary definition, but I can see potential for a more detailed article here. Ashanda (talk) 08:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, could be hoax, could be a non-notable and little used slang term, either way not encyclopedic. KleenupKrew (talk) 09:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources --Pustefix (talk) 18:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, please examine the article- it has been referenced to a reliable source since yesterday. Ashanda (talk) 18:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There needs to be a disambiguation page, because the word is also a synonym for a blowgun, and its the name of the tube used for blowing glass. --Blechnic (talk) 22:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, please. Blowtube is midwest vernacular. This entry will eventually be part of a larger collection of subculture terminology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Octodomus (talk • contribs) 16:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - purported source omits the word "blowtube." Thus it cannot be used to support an article for this neologism. After this AfD is finished, any article for any purported meanings of the term must also be similarly demonstrated by citations from reliable sources covering the term. B.Wind (talk) 04:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't neologisms newly invented words? It sounds like participants in this discussion are not consulting any sources for their claim that this article is a neologism, because this word is in Webster's 1913 dictionary. I guess there is no more a requirement to have valid resources for deleting as there is to have valid resources for creating. It makes the whole enterprise more of a game than a serious endeavour.[26] --Blechnic (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The word as presented in the article is a neologism as it was recently coined in the context of marijuana use. I agree that the word as used in glass blowing is on much firmer ground, but we must deal with the article in hand first (I'd hestitate to recommend a complete rewrite with a different focus because some would believe it to be disruptive of the AfD). I'd recommend waiting until this is completed if you were thinking about writing about glass blowing here; as far as the synonym of "blow pipe", most likely a {{otheruses}} tag on top of the "blow tube" article - old or new - would do the job. B.Wind (talk) 05:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's no AfD law against completely rewriting an article. Oftentimes it seems the nominations are for clearly notable topics, but poorly written articles that someone has the energy to argue for deletion but no will or ability to clean up the article. I see AfD articles get cleaned up all of the time by responsible editors. I see crappy articles get kept with no one bothering to edit them. But so much wheel spinning devoted to deleting the article. I suspect there's a barnstar for "most deleted articles" or something, the way this is run.
  - It is much faster and easier to say "delete" than it is to rewrite, copyedit or source an article. Building is always easier than destroying, and AfD isn't exactly a process built upon rules that are followed. --Blechnic (talk) 05:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 03:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Aguilar

vanity page/no notability asserted. Prod removed previously Paulbrock (talk) 03:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability comes to mind. Basketball 110^{Go Mavs!}/_{Review me!} 04:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No reliable references are provided. Dwilso 04:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity article, no assertion of notability, possible advertisement. KleenupKrew (talk) 09:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 15:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam --Pustefix (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a vanity article.--Berig (talk) 18:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus (default keep). The onus is on those making the recommendation to delete an article, to demonstrate that it merits deletion. In this case, some of the deletion arguments presented were that the books written by this author were self-published; but this has been demonstrated to not be the case. Other statements in favor of delete include various descriptions of how specific websearches fail to produce sources that should exist for notable subjects. However, such websearches are not the sole arbiter of notability, and have routinely been shown to be a poor method of determining notability in many cases. There appears to be some misunderstanding of both the Wicca religion and Witches, which is understandable due to the high degree of fictional material on these subjects. All of that aside, there was no clear consensus to delete. The deletion policy directs that when a clear consensus to delete is not achieved, and is unlikley to be achieved through extended discussion, to keep the article. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 16:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Morningstar

Despite the large number of books to her credit, I can't find significant coverage of her. A Google News search came up with 17 hits but almost all were for other people. She seems to be British and most are obit survivor in Rye, New York, USA. Looking at the WP:BIO guidelines pertaining to authors WP:BIO#Creative professionals, she doesn't appear to meet the standards for inclusion. The article has been tagged for citations since Dec 2007 and I suspect this is because there are none to be found. Pigman☿ 03:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, nn. Atyndall93 | talk 03:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: good article but needs better, format. Dwilso 04:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: More to the point, it needs sources beyond her exceptionally commercial personal website. Pigman☿ 04:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, many books but they all appear to be self-published or from small, non notable presses, and no other apparent assertion of notability. KleenupKrew (talk) 09:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 15:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of her books is from a notable press, and self-published people don't belong on Wikipedia. She completely fails WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep First, an author doesn't have to be in the news to be notable. Some authors neither seek the limelight, nor are in fields that are often featured in the newspapers, but are notable nonetheless. Second, I see no reason to believe that any of the books are self-published. The presses she has been published by are notable ones, especially in her field. For example:

Hay House is one of the fastest-growing self-help and transformational publishers in the world, selling our products to more than 35 countries around the world. They currently publish approximately 300 books and 350 audio programs by more than 130 authors, and employ a full-time staff of 100-plus. Hay House is a medium-sized publishing house bringing in big-name authors, including Diane Ladd, Ben Stein, Suze Orman, Carnie Wilson, Sylvia Browne, Montel Williams, Wayne Dyer, Deepak Chopra, Iyanla Vanzant, John Edward, Marianne Williamson, Barbara De Angelis, Tavis Smiley, Jim Brickman, Stedman Graham and Phil McGraw. New Beginnings Press, Princess Books, and Smiley Books are imprints of Hay House. Hay House is located in Carlsbad, California, with international divisions in Australia, the United Kingdom, India, and South Africa. Hay House launched its own radio station in early 2005. HayHouseRadio.com®—Radio for your Soul™—is broadcast worldwide via the Internet.[27]

Anness Publishing was founded in 1988 and is now the largest independent book publisher in the UK. In their first 19 years they have sold in excess of 120,000,000 books. Each year they produce around 300 new titles on subjects ranging from cooking and crafts to gardening, new age, reference, hobbies and transport plus a lively and successful list of pre-school activity and home study reference books for children. LORENZ BOOKS is their trade sales imprint for new hardback titles, and is celebrating its 14th year in 2007. SOUTHWATER is their trade paperback imprint, which consists of over 700 backlist books and a new programme of 150 titles each year. HERMES HOUSE & PEONY PRESS are their imprints for non-trade sales, promotional sales and customized publishing for major customers.[28]

Piatkus Books are an independent publishing company that has been established for over 25 years. They are a general publisher specializing in the areas of Health, MBS, Biography, Business, History and Womens Fiction and Romance. Piatkus Books has turnover of approximately £10 million and it employs 28 people. It specializes in popular fiction and practical non-fiction. Its authors include the internationally bestselling novelist Nora Roberts, who also writes as J D Robb, and such distinguished and successful non-fiction writers as Patrick Holford, author of important books on health and nutrition, including The New Optimum Nutrition Bible; David Allen, business guru and bestselling author of Getting Things Done; Jon Kabat-Zinn, world-renowned author of Full Catastrophe Living and Wherever You Go, There You Are; Susan Nolen-Hoeksema, author of Women Who Think Too Much; and Sylvia Browne and Brian L Weiss, whose spiritual books have delighted millions of readers.

News Release: Ursula Mackenzie, CEO and Publisher of Little, Brown, is delighted to announce that Piatkus Books will join Little, Brown and Company Book Group with immediate effect. This follows the signing and completion of an agreement between Judy Piatkus and Little, Brown and Company Book Group on 20 July 2007. Piatkus Books will become an independent imprint within Little, Brown Book Group, thus strengthening Little, Brown Book Group’s position in consumer publishing in the UK, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and its other markets.[29]

Rosencomet (talk) 17:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A news search such as the one I referenced at the top in my nom doesn't just find news stories, it also finds book reviews, calendar listings and minor mentions. I believe non-appearance in such a search is one indicator of notability. Pigman☿ 18:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't believe any pagan publications, major or minor, are currently being indexed by Google News search. If publications in the author's field aren't being indexed, then it would seem to be an unfair way to evaluate such an author, leading to an imbalanced representation of pagan authors on Wikipedia relative to religions or spiritual traditions which have more representation in such a search. Valtyr (talk) 05:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don't believe the search I did is the only indicator of notability, just that it is one indicator. Since her (unreferenced) article says "She has appeared on numerous television programs and writes for magazines, newspapers, and periodicals on witchcraft, healing and natural magic," I would expect her name to show up somewhere in that search. Perhaps an interview. If we can't find WP:V and WP:RS to support the info in the article, I find it difficult to accept she passes WP:BIO by Wikipedia standards. I'm certainly sympathetic to the view that Pagan magazines are underrepresented in such searches; I've published or helped publish a handful of Pagan zines myself, some fairly well known in the Pagan community. But we still have to evaluate here by Wikipedia's standards. I've looked for sources as have others in this AfD and come up empty. Pigman☿ 05:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Claim that books are self-published appears to be in error. Valtyr (talk) 04:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's very frustrating trying to find sources for this article. I've searched extensively on Yahoo and Google and GoogleNews and I cannot find any evidence of this woman's notability. Neither does the list of publishers given above check out for notability--one of them is so non-notable, in fact, that the website is down, while another is so non-notable that a website is merely promised for the future. About the most we can say is that a human being named "Sally Morningstar" exists and that some of the books exist, and that she claims to be a witch--but as we all know, witches do not exist, and something that does not exist of course cannot be notable. Unfortunately, the mere fact that this person and some of the books exist is not enough to confer notability. Existence is not the same thing as notability, not by a longshot. There is no evidence or claim out there that she is notable among the community of "witches"--a category of person that does not exist to begin with. Please see What Wikipedia Is Not [30], which clearly states that merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. It is apparently true that a "Sally Morningstar" exists, but it has not been shown that she is notable, or even that she is considered notable by the other "witches." For all we know, the improbable name "Sally Morningstar" may just be a pseudonym anyway, but even that much is impossible to determine through WP:RS. Qworty (talk) 14:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find the statements "but as we all know, witches do not exist, and something that does not exist of course cannot be notable" and "the community of "witches"--a category of person that does not exist to begin with" to be offensive in the extreme, and wholly uninformed. Sally Morningstar identifies herself as a Wiccan, a religion whose members call themselves witches, and a religion that is recognized by the United States government both in its IRS classifications for it's churches and in the Chaplain's Manual for their armed forces. A legal case was just won to allow pentagrams on the graves of Wiccan soldiers in military cemetaries. Please don't perpetuate prejudice against members of this religion. And if "Sally Morningstar" is a pen name, which you would have to provide a source for, so is Mark Twain. As for the notability of the presses, they speak for themselves. If you happened to click onto a website that was down at the time, plenty of notable companies and organizations (including Wikipedia) have had their website go down at one time or another, or replaced by a different website. The existence of the presses and the information about them can be easily established. If you are talking about Piatkus Books, their website is down temporarily while they are merging with Little Brown and Company, a VERY notable press, as you would see if you actually read the provided information. Rosencomet (talk) 19:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I consider these statements from the Stregheria talk page offensive and uncivil as well[31], and I think they should be taken into consideration when weighing his vote on any article about a Wiccan individual, especially the following:

"but the facts are indeed these:

1) People who promote "witchcraft" are either charlatans or severely mentally ill

2) A good number of these Strega folks are Satan worshippers, for whatever that's worth

3) The rest of them are a bunch of New Agers who have gone way, way, way over the deep end, spending too much time sucking on water pipes in Santa Cruz and imagining that their deceased Italian forebears are going to drop down out of the sky (or rise up out of Hell) with advice on imagined medical problems, real financial problems, horrible self-created relationship problems, etc.

Now, mind you, I am interested in improving the article, not in starting a flame war with a bunch of witches who think they can put a hex on me. I am not afraid of witches. They do not exist. Lucifer does not exist either, but if a few Italian-American New Agers on the West Coast want to worship Him in order to get their old boyfriends back, so be it."

And this choice bit:

"If Wikipedia can offer a Holocaust Denial article that lets everybody know a certain group is seriously looped, then certainly it can do so about a pack of aging, overweight, chanting devil worshippers belly-dancing around the redwood trees." Rosencomet (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If this woman were truly a witch--an assertion I don't believe for one minute--then she would simply be able to close her eyes and twitch her nose and magically create all of the missing WP:RS that would establish her notability. Those WP:RS simply do not exist. Even if witches existed, and even if the necessary WP:RS existed for this particular woman, the burden would still be on the article's defenders to demonstrate that she is a notable witch among all of the witches in the world. None of this has taken place for this article. Yeah, Baptists exist, but an article about a run-of-the-mill Baptist minister would not only be deleted, but speedied. So this has nothing at all to do with "religious prejudice" of any kind, and I very strongly encourage you to strike out your WP:NPA against me above. You can't just go around Wikipedia calling people bigots. Remember: Even if witches existed and she was one, she would still have to be a notable one to merit an article--say, the president of a highly influential coven of witches. But this is a silly argument to begin with because witches don't exist except in works of fiction. Qworty (talk) 20:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm afraid you simply don't know the definition of the word witch. You're describing the super-powered characters from the fictional TV show "Bewitched", not the kind of witch Sally Morningstar is. Read up on Wicca and related topics. To use your example, Baptists would be suspect if they can't close their eyes and pray for whatever they need and have it miraculously appear. There was no personal attack: I did not use either the phrase "religious prejudice" or the word "bigot", nor did I characterize you in any way. I simply asked that you not perpetuate prejudice, a word with a specific definition, and by claiming Ms Morningstar can't be a witch because she hasn't magically created the material you think is required here shows that you not only have pre-judged her according to false definitions of what witches do, but believe with no support that she even knows about this article and has something to do with its contributors. You, on the other hand, have characterized a group of people as non-existent, and used the following terms to describe them: 1. "a pack of aging, overweight, chanting devil worshippers belly-dancing around the redwood trees", and as 2. "charlatans or severely mentally ill", and 3. "a bunch of New Agers who have gone way, way, way over the deep end, spending too much time sucking on water pipes in Santa Cruz". Witches certainly exist, and this is verified in respected sources ranging from the historical to the anthropological to the biblical; there are hundreds of thousands in Europe and the Americas (you can easily talk to many of them online or otherwise) - even though you may doubt their ability to accomplish that which they claim they can. Also, to use your example, a Baptist minister with 15 books published on subjects about his religion by non-vanity presses is plenty notable enough for a Wikipedia article in my opinion, and there are a lot more of those than witches with 15 published books. I don't know that Morningstar is a "notable witch", but she's a notable author of books on witchcraft, magic and related subjects (something you can be even if there WERE no witches, just like a notable author on Sherlock Holmes or mythological creatures). It would be ridiculous to create a new standard that authors of 15 books must have been published by more notable presses than Hay House, Anness Publishing, and Piatkus Books (now a division of Little, Brown & Company) to be considered notable.Rosencomet (talk) 21:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) You can try to spin it anyway you like. The fact remains that Sally Morningstar has no notability whatsoever as a witch. If she did, don't you think there would have been at least one news story about her as a notable witch since the beginning of time? And yet the GoogleNews Archive throws up exactly ZERO hits since the beginning of time: [32]. If she was a notable writer, don't you think there would have been at least one notable, verifiable news story about this writer since the beginning of time? And yet the GoogleNews Archive throws up exactly ZERO hits for her as a writer: [33]. You can scream that I'm "prejudiced" till you're purple in the face, but the fact remains that by every guideline regarding WP:RS and WP:BIO, this woman is nothing but a complete nobody. I understand that you appear to respect her personally, in terms of her unestablishable notability as a "witch" and a "writer," but Wikipedia is about following guidelines, not injecting personal views. The article should be deleted. Qworty (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject appears to be a low-grade-notable author of new-agey nonsense, with several books published by notable publishing houses. That ought to be enough to establish notability for Wikipedia purposes, since the wretched quality of a writer's work is not enough to offset notability. Google News is simply unreliable for determining whether a writer is notable, since it covers only a tiny fraction of print sources for news and reviews. For example, Google News denies the existence of major, clearly notable genre authors like Gordon R. Dickson [34] and Fletcher Pratt [35] and Lucius Shepard [36] Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete due to the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 08:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Team Dynasty

AfDs for this article:

Incredibly difficult to find independent reliable sources for verification. I've tried rewriting it and sourcing it, but it's been pretty much impossible. Wafulz (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to have at least some notability through news coverage. It needs moved however; San Diego Dynasty would be more appropriate. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a redirect to Team Dynasty; they appear to have been old duplicate articles. The last version has a little information; merge the two. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Per Jeremy. Renee (talk) 22:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless coverage in reliable sources is provided. They certainly sound notable from the article, but without any independent references, we don't have any proof of that. Terraxos (talk) 05:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Terraxos Jmsloderbeck (talk) 02:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with conditions if good sources can be found and the article is given a good cleanup then Keep, but if not Delete. Atyndall93 | talk 03:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No secondary sources. It has been tagged as needing sources since June 2007—how much more time do the keep advocates think it should get? Quale (talk) 05:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a local San Diego paintball team, non-notable and not encyclopedic. KleenupKrew (talk) 09:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Berig (talk) 18:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:RS, WP:V and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article lacks context (is the team a member of a professional paintball league?). Verification seems almost impossible through independent sources (even the List of paintball leagues is a rack full of external links to each league - only the National Professional Paintball League has an article here). B.Wind (talk) 05:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete — Tivedshambo _(t/c) 13:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dolly Kyle Browning

A WP:COATRACK of an article which violates WP:BLP1E. Lacks refs showing substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent secondary sources. Fails WP:BIO Edison (talk) 02:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with conditions she seems to be very notable over her relationship with Bill Clinton as a google search shows, but the article lacks good sources to show notability, if they cannot be found Delete. Atyndall93 | talk 03:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Basketball 110^{Go Mavs!}/_{Review me!} 04:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Terrible article, but sources are easily found, such as TIME and the NYT. This was, at the time, considered worthy of wall-to-wall coverage, and we only had about two cable news channels then. --Dhartung | Talk 06:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 16:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable minor figure in endless list of alleged Clinton paramours. Unlike Juanita Broaddrick and Elizabeth Gracen, she is non-notable except for one alleged incident (the affair is a single incident, despite her claim of a long-term relationship), and therefore falls under BLP1E. Possible redirect to Bill Clinton#Sexual misconduct allegations, but article should be nuked. Horologium (talk) 03:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between a potential witness against someone in a court case and an actual one. Since she wasn't called as a witness, she can't "use" Clinton v. Jones as a basis for notoriety. Since she didn't testify, all that can be said objectively about her is that he alleged sexual impropriety on the part of Clinton. Without further verification, that's all that can be said here (similar to someone who makes an accusation from a member of the current regime without testifying under oath). Delete. B.Wind (talk) 05:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crisis in the Built Environment: The Case of the Muslim City

Non-notable book, which I cannot find anything reliable on google. Page orphaned and has no context. Authour fails WP:BIO Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 04:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability. Not every book needs a WP entry. WP is not Books in Print. eaolson (talk) 04:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep multiple reviews of the book from academic journals show up on the very first page of google results for "Crisis in the Built Environment"; it thus passes the primary notability criterion. In general I think authors of notable books are presumed to be notable and so Jamel Akbar and this article could stand alone, but if this is his only notable work, I wouldn't object to merging the book article into his bio article.
- Watts, Donald (August 1992), "Reviewed work(s): Crisis in the Built Environment: The Case of the Muslim City", International Journal of Middle East Studies, 24 (3): 509–510, retrieved 2008-04-09
- Çelik, Zeynep (October–December 1991), "Reviewed work(s): Crisis in the Built Environment: The Case of the Muslim City", Journal of the American Oriental Society, 111 (4): 803–804, retrieved 2008-04-09 --- Cheers, cab (talk) 05:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete 19 GS references for a book, and only one or two reviews in specialised journals, is routine, not notable, for an academic book. 130 Libraries in worldcat; respectable, a perfectly good book to count towards someone's notability but not individually significant. DGG (talk) 03:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You have it exactly backwards. Reviews of a book in journals (specialized or otherwise) can be used to write a neutral encyclopedia article about the book. It is less clear how those reviews can be used to write a neutral encyclopedia article about the book's author. So the book may not "count towards" Akbar's notability, but the reviews cited by cab do demonstrate the book's notability. 152.3.246.246 (talk) 21:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cab. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 02:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep cab's got it right. OptimistBen (talk) 02:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per cab. Atyndall93 | talk 03:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 16:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - coverage in independent reliable sources demonstrates notability. --Beloved Freak 16:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 06:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recon Armor

Non-notable fancruft for an armor permutation in Halo 3. I believe it falls under Wikipedia is not a game guide, or possibly even speedy deletion policy A7. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 01:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:Notability, has no citations, and is WP:Fancruft. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Patar knight. Atyndall93 | talk 03:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No references provided, and fails notability. Dwilso 04:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mergeto SPARTAN Project, where MJOLLNIR, SPARTAN-II, SPARTAN-III, etc were merged to ages ago. and the page history redirect should be renamed to Recon Armor (HALO), because Recon Armor is an ambiguous term, used in alot of fiction, and in references to light tanks. 70.55.85.177 (talk) 07:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no point to merge it to SPARTAN Project unless you plan to add a list of all armour permutations for the Spartan II to that article (which would be listcruft and quite pointless). --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would a redirect to either Halo 3 or SPARTAN Project be better? ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 03:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge not redirect otherwise some good text could be lost. Per Th1rt3en comment above. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 12:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What good text are you referring to? ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 16:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One of the most poorly wirrten articles I've seen, does not cite referrences, use proper grammer nor spelling. There is no reason to keep it in my opinion. AP Shinobi (talk) 16:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I abhor straight deletion, but this reminds me of something funny I saw on YouTube. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 16:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - asserts no notability. WP:GAMECRUFT. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Rjd0060 (talk) 03:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Fuhrman

This has been tagged as not having established notability for two months, and for being written like an advrtisement for four. I don't think it's going to improve. But, well, may as well give it one more chance for its notability to be demonstrated. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Four books published demonstrates enough notability to me. His name in quotes generates 300k hits on Yahoo OptimistBen (talk) 02:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The books may be self-published (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Joel_Fuhrman_and_Herbert_M._Shelton.27s_published_books). I dunno. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable according to google search and google news. Atyndall93 | talk 04:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: good article, not sure about notability. Dwilso 04:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; Dr. Fuhrman "is a board-certified family physician in private practice in Belle Mead, New Jersey, who specializes in preventing and reversing disease through nutritional methods. He is an active staff member of Hunterdon Medical Center and provides nutritionally oriented medical care to patients as well as nutritional education to other physicians."

The Foreward to his book is written by Neal D. Barnard, MD, President, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. He concludes, "Dr. Fuhrman is foremost in this new generation of medical leaders. The information he provides in this volume is clear and practical and of vital interest to patients and doctors alike. I am grateful to Dr. Fuhrman for assembling this remarkable work, and recommend it to you wholeheartedly."

Dr. Andrew Nicholson, MD, Director of Preventive Medicine, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, says "Dr. Fuhrman's powerful and practical guidelines apply for conditions ranging from the common cold to serious heart problems. This program provides an alternative to the costly and all-too-common side effects of surgery and drugs."

Dr. James Craner, MD, says, "This is neither alternative medicine nor conservative medicine, but rather progressive medicine. Dr. Fuhrman's approach offers individuals suffering from chronic diseases the only real chance for a meaningful cure. I have been fortunate to observe many of these outcomes firsthand and can testify to the power of this approach for certain diseases."

Dr. Dan Jeret, MD, says, "If you are lucky, you will read Dr. Fuhrman's book before you have subjected yourself to medications and medical procedures. This book is for those who want to take charge over their health and well-being, and for those who want to embark on a journey toward a more satisfying life."

Dr. Fuhrman is an aknowledged leader in his field. Ralphyde (talk) 06:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If he has written four books, he's notable enough for me.--Berig (talk) 18:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - somewhat notable --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 23:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It is notbale WP:NOTE but as is tagged is written slightly as an advert. Could be improved. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 12:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He has published multiple books with St. Martin's and Little Brown, which are major, reputable publishers. Qworty (talk) 20:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as A7 and salted by Jmlk1 (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 06:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One Year Waiting

Delete. This band does not meet the criteria of WP:MUSIC - no album releases on major labels, nothing on the charts. ... discospinster _talk 01:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per CSD A7. Nakon 01:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I feel a bit bad suggesting deletion as they seem like one of those enthusiastic garage bands, and I don't really like putting down such efforts. But for every high-quality, well-written article on non-notable people like this, we get a thousand promotional blurbs, and two thousand written by enthusiastic people who can't really write that will never be seen fit to be improved by anyone else ever. I don't think there's any policy to support its inclusion, and so... suppose we have to go with policy. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, as has been done four times already, three times today. The creator has been blocked for removing AfD tags. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 01:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A7 Absolutely no assertation of notability. I endorse the A7 tag already on the page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, per nom. Atyndall93 | talk 04:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 03:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Augmented Social Network

This article is merely a summary of some random academic paper. No claim of its notablity, importance, external citations, etc. Angrysusan (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 15:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Darkspots (talk) 01:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete needs references, per nom. Atyndall93 | talk 04:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NOTE, relatively minor Internet proposal that was never too widespread in terms of support. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 23:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOTE!. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 11:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely fails WP:N, per above. Gary King (talk) 19:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge/redirect. I ended up redirecting, as the information in Cryptopsy gives appropriate weight to Lord Worm already. The article's sources ([37] [38]) can be used, if anyone wishes. Non admin. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Worm

A former member of a minor band, now working as an English teacher. English teachers now working as rock musicians, yes, but not the other way round, I think. Guy (Help!) 20:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 21:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Cryptopsy. --Bardin (talk) 08:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Bardin. Risker (talk) 04:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Darkspots (talk) 01:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with band, not notable by self. Atyndall93 | talk 04:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with band per Atyndall. At least let's give English teachers that much. Ezratrumpet (talk) 05:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Cryptopsy, consensus is looking quite clear now. --Stormie (talk) 08:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 03:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Year One Muscle Cars

Dubious notability--no reliable sources found in Google search. Delete. ~EdGl (talk) 01:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 01:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: good article, but doesn't qualifies for wikipedia. Dwilso 04:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Atyndall93 | talk 04:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: lacks notability. Zero Kitsune (talk) 16:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NOTE. May be re-created in the future if becomes notable. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 23:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 11:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 03:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laura J. Dahl

Looks extremely borderline in terms of notability, and given the article creator's name and the vaguely advertorial quality of the piece, I have to wonder whether there has been some over-egging of the notability (such things as the "countless art" donated to various redlinked organisations), and the only two blue-links on the article (other than the towns etc) are not to the expected items - there are no articles on the Heaven Sent or Forget Me Not referred to in the article. The linked website does little to stave off those concerns, and a websearch of "Laura Dahl" - Wikipedia and "Laura J. Dahl" - Wikipedia turns up almost nothing related to this Laura Dahl. Grutness...wha? 00:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup but keep. Somewhat notable. Basketball110 (talk · contribs · count) 00:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probable delete. The article was written by an author who shares a name with the subject and has not edited anything else. It looks like a autobiography/vanity article. It needs solid independent references before any notability claim can be taken seriously. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. No notability whatsoever. Nothing but self-indulgent self-promoting spam. Nuke it. Qworty (talk) 01:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:Notability, seems to be a case of WP:Autobiography. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notably. Atyndall93 | talk 04:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to save subject of BLP from acute embarrassment. I'm going to edit most of the really awful crap out for now. It would be nice to get this deleted sooner rather than later. I suppose these things must run their course. --Blechnic (talk) 21:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - clearly fails WP:NOTE. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 23:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is not notable. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 08:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Rockybiggs (talk) 14:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-Notable. It also seems like a spam.--RyRy5 (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Winter's come early - it seems to be WP:SNOWing

Sophmore Album

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Unreferenced. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 00:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note Subject mentioned in article is Keke Palmer, a female. Nate • (chatter) 20:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball - the article is pure speculation (stated in the article). Guest9999 (talk) 00:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pure speculation/WP:CRYSTAL per nom. No sources exist yet on the album. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pretty close to a speedy, really, given the lack of context (which of the many Palmers are we talking about here?). Creator of the article also needs to learn how to spell sophomore. Grutness...wha? 00:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems like a place-holder article. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 00:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aside from the subject being unclear (definitely isn't Amanda Palmer or Carl Palmer, which are the only two musicians named Palmer I listen to), this is WP:CRYSTAL all the way. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 00:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: If the article is so unclear that you can't even tell what it is about (like this is) then surely it has to be speedyable as either "db-nonsense" or "db-context"? --DanielRigal (talk) 00:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy. Per TenPoundHammer. Basketball110 (talk · contribs · count) 00:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL is not a criterion for speedy deletion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no-context crystalballism. I don't even know who the article is talking about. ... discospinster _talk 01:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Grutness. Risker (talk) 04:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Atyndall93 | talk 04:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Got the article subject from reading it; it's Keke Palmer of Akeelah and the Bee fame. Still, the average reader could never understand this convoluted writing, and her first album only came late out last year. Let's wait until she records a few more tracks and gets a title thunk up before we write an article based on a CD:USA interview. Nate • (chatter) 06:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I have no idea who "Palmer" is, but there is no musician in the world so famous that this unsourced crystal ball article would be worth keeping. --Stormie (talk) 08:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Haven't a clue who this guy is... RC-0722 ^247.5/1 14:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. And if the album comes out, it's will be Palmer's "sophomore" album. Unless you expect Palmer to stop after his fourth ("senior") album, maybe it's best not to make an analogy like that. Mandsford (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per above - enough said! --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 23:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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