Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 April 25

< April 24	April 26 >

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 speedy deletion (G7). -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Social rejectardo

Completely made up neologism. asenine ^t/_c\^r 10:24, 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 Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ΜIU

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article is redundant to the articles Micro- and International unit. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 23:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the nominator said it well. -Icewedge (talk) 06:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Duplicated content. RGTraynor 18:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivia combination of Micro and International unit. Not even worth a dictionary entry. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:16, 2 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 all.--Kubigula (talk) 03:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cedric (Dragon Demon Trilogy)

Fictional character from what appears to be a non-notable piece of fiction hosted on a website. I can find nothing to indicate its notability with a Google search. "Dragon Demon Trilogy" only shows up as Wikipedia hits. Corvus cornix_talk 23:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Add Zolo (Dragon Demon Trilogy) and Clyra to this nomination. Corvus cornix_talk 23:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete utterly non-notable. JuJube (talk) 03:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all three. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school (or on Myspace, etc.) one day. Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 22:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as there is no evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - the trilogy doesn't even have an article, and the individual characters are not notable. nneonneo ^talk 23:16, 28 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 Rlandmann (talk · contribs), non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meme language

per WP:MADEUP and WP:NEO; article appears to be mainly nonsense without sources. Beach drifter (talk) 23:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think the user supplied reference for this article tells you everything you need to know. At best, WP:NFT, non-notable language. At worst, vandalism. Rnb (talk) 23:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as vandalism, the only citation in the article goes here. WillOakland (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as vandalism, per endorsement of speedy tag (hangon tag notwithstanding; nominator still hasn't proven that this is even real). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:28, 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. — Scientizzle 00:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Memian

per WP:NEO and WP:MADEUP Beach drifter (talk) 23:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment or redirect to meme language? Beach drifter (talk) 23:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think the meme language article is going to fare very well, given that it's unreferenced and suffers from the same WP:NFT problem that Memian does. Rnb (talk) 23:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Now that I have actually read the meme language article, I can see that it also is pretty much nonsense. Beach drifter (talk) 23:16, 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.-Wafulz (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hironori Higuchi

More blowgun non-notability. No sources, there are tons of blowgun articles created by User:Blowgun whose notabiltiy are susptect. This is one of them. Corvus cornix_talk 23:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources, no notability. Huon (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: 65 Google hits, no reliable sources, for this nonentity. RGTraynor 18:41, 1 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. None of the keep comments address the fundamental issue of notability, one of the basic requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia. --jonny-m t 04:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Audi Navigation Plus

A brand of sat-nav. No independent references or demonstration of notability. Violates WP:NOTADVERTISING (promotional in tone - multiple external links to shops; unit prices of item mentioned). Also many parts of it violate WP:NOTGUIDE. Chryslerforever1988 (talk) 23:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It doesn't to be written like a promotional piece at all and it certainly isn't written like a manual. In fact it's a well written article, however notability is not demonstrated. --neonwhite user page talk 00:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OBJECT to the request for deletion! What a draconian action by Chryslerforever1988 !!!!

Whilst it may be a brand of SatNav - it is a "standard fit", or "optional factory fit" of an official OEM manufacturer product. The article itself (ie, "Audi Navigation Plus") is NOT an advert of any kind. Yes, it does have links to external shops, but these are merely for mapping updates, and for ongoing product support, outside the "official" dealer network. These are included in the article, because anyone who has actually owned any of these units will vouch for the extreme difficulty in getting the correct info on mapping updates from the official Volkswagen or Audi dealers! Indeed, there seems to be considerable misunderstanding of the in-depth functions of these units (and I am not referring to any secret engineering modes - just standard funtions which appear in the not-very-well-written user manual!).

If you wish to delete this by following Chryslerforever1988s' angle of attack, then every single commercial product on Wikipedia should be deleted, including stuff like, say: Multi Media Interface, Audi A4, Microsoft Windows, Tramadol - and heavens forbid - everything to do Chrysler or Volkswagen!

Independent references - what, exactly are you seeking. Audi Nav Plus is NOT something anyone can "purchase over the counter", and it certainly isn't a product which you can compare against another. I don't ever recall seeing in any Audi brochure the option to choose from the "Audi Nav Plus", or say a Lexus nav system, or maybe I missed Audi offering to factory fit a Nissan Nav system, or even a Pioneer Sat Nav - therefore, it is not likely to be subject to any kind of "independent reviews"!

Notability - I've looked at the relvent article, and this seems to be a grey area. It certainly is not black and white. Therefore, instead of nominating the article for deletion Chryslerforever1988 should actually suggest ways of improving the article, particlarly as he/she (???) is a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles. He/she certainly hasn't had the decency to raise the issue on the discussion section of that particular WikiProject! Nor did he notify me of his actions on my talk page - extremely bad manners in my book (unless he/she has something to hide) Therefore, what, exactly, is the area of concern regarding Notability?

As User:Neon white states, it is NOT written like a manual, and it IS a well written article!

78.32.143.113 (talk) 09:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per notability concerns; no "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." I disagree with the nominator about the promo/guide claim, although I do see sections which need improved to remove peacock language (#RNS-E to car integration, #Retrofitting RNS-E) or instructions (#RNS-E Engineering mode). These could be improved by editing if there was any content which was sourceable, but I can find none. IP-based user above seems to admit that no independent coverage exists? If that is the case, a Wikipedia article should not exist either. Perhaps redirect to Automotive navigation system? Llamasharmafarmerdrama (talk) 10:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability. The other problems could be solved by editing, this one can't. Huon (talk) 12:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that it is not a promo; but notability a problem. King Pickle (talk) 01:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP IP editor has found independent references, and it is a well written, balanced article. I disagree with the redirect to Automotive navigation system, on the grounds that CARiN is suggested as being split into a separate article, and the BMW iDrive has its own article. Furthermore, virtually all portable car nav systems have their own articles, so why not OEM? -- Teutonic Tamer 11:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 78.32.143.113 and Teutonic Tamer may be the same user. Please refer to their contributions for evidence. Chryslerforever1988 (talk) 17:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP This is a valuable reference source for many owners who are told by the manufacturer "our sat nav system cannot be retrofitted". If a reference to http://www.navplus.us was added (and if Wikipedia check out this link you will see there is NO manufacturer advertising, it is solely the work of enthisiasts) this would PROVE the presence of a significant body of INDEPENDENT information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.202.59.151 (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Refs 1,3,6,9 & 10 are all online stores of some kind. These would not be needed if genuine sources could be found. 14days (talk) 21:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the notability guidelines and as per the above delete points. Razor flame 01:08, 3 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 summary deletion per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff#Summary deletion of BLPs.

Expanded justification: the arbitration committee decided that Any administrator, acting on their own judgment, may delete an article that is substantially a biography of a living person if they believe that it (and every previous version of it) significantly violates any aspect of the relevant policy. The specific aspect of WP:BLP violated is simply the directive that they must strictly adhere to the neutral point of view policy. This is not an issue about sourcing; I could see no prima facie problem with the sources.

Short justification: It's a hatchet job.

CIreland (talk) 01:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Lloyd

Non-notable person. Fails WP:BLP1E, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Corvus cornix_talk 22:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a person only notable for one event. Bfigura ^(talk) 23:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable as chief of a large police force, and would have been notable even without the circumstances that led to his resignation. --Eastmain (talk) 23:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 23:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure that being the Chief Constable of the Cambridgeshire police is inherently notable. The sources added don't seem to mention him in more than a trivial way. (Each of the recently added articles references him in at most one or two sentences.) I still think this is a case of WP:BLP1E. --Bfigura ^(talk) 00:00, 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. Tiptoety ^talk 23:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paeiz Azmi

Insufficient claims to notability Aparhizi (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BIO, no independent sources. Huon (talk) 23:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an autobio that fails WP:BIO in general and WP:PROF in specific Bfigura ^(talk) 23:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See Google Scholar at http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Paeiz+Azmi&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search Is there an article on him in the Farsi-language Wikipedia? What do you get when you do a Google search for the Farsi spelling of his name?
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 23:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 23:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No article in fa.wiki, and google search for both پاییز عزمی and پائیز عزمی : one hits: 1 , 2.Aparhizi (talk) 13:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not having an article in Persian Wikipedia is not important. Also for the notability of people in academia (specially science and engineering), search results from "Google Scholar" (for the English spelling of the name) are much more relevant tan searching the original name (in this case Persian). Alefbe (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An associate professor whose PhD dates from 2002 would have to have done something special to meet WP:PROF, and I see no evidence of this. Google Scholar produces a top citation of 23, with his other papers only having a handful of citations [1]. I take the point about the English language, but the departmental website is in English and his selected papers all have English titles. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Alefbe (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I'm sensitive to the argument that we should try to be more inclusive of academics from beyond the first world, but there's no evidence that he passes WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:56, 30 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) 03:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tag Team Sex

Unsourced article on a game some guys made up one day. Prod was removed by author without explanation or improvement. --Finngall ^talk 22:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable social phoenomenon, and possibly a hoax. Pundit|utter 22:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. WP is not for things made up one day. -Juansmith (talk) 22:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of sources.Huon (talk) 23:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as something that was just madeup. Bfigura ^(talk) 23:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless reliable sources can be found for this. If none can be found, then it is likely WP:MADEUP. Vivio Testarossa^{Talk Who} 23:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete more bored frat boys making shit up. JuJube (talk) 03:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete As per earlier comments. Somebody get the hook!Ecoleetage (talk) 10:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't need an article about frat boys having sex with each other. What you guys do is your business, not ours. Mandsford (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Careful. It may be time to break out the WP:SNOW shovel, but let's not let the snark get out of hand, OK? --Finngall ^talk 17:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:MADEUP. No g-hits, unsourced, created by an SPA. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, completely inappropriate for Wikipedia. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 21:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT. Mm40|Talk|Sign|Review 13:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:HOAX--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:39, 30 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 Speedily Deleted (non-admin closure). Per Wikipedia:CSD#A7, group/band/club/company/ not asserting importance/significance. WilliamH (talk) 01:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since it had already been speedily deleted when I checked this discussion since discussing it, I'd just like to clarify that this was for housekeeping purposes. WilliamH (talk) 01:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solace red

Also their release:

The Horror Show Ep (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

NN band, fails WP:MUSIC per self admission that their only release is "very rare, only one copy." A quick google search, only comes up with this article, their Myspace page and a few videos on youtube. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 21:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:MUSIC, no sources. Huon (talk) 23:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A7 No notability asserted whatsoever, and unlikely to ever do so. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As outlined by the nominator, subject clearly does not meet notability criteria. WilliamH (talk) 23:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:58, 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 Keep per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). Clear consensus discusses that the subject has had non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, asserting notability. WilliamH (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Myron Sharaf

Fails WP:BIO. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Notable biographer of Wilhelm Reich. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And what makes him notable as opposed to any other biographer? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read Wilhelm_Reich: He is the biographer :) Cited 27 times in that article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So is every biographer of a notable person notable by default? Are there any secondary sources about this person? Has anybody written about him beyond cursory mention? Can we source anything from his professional or private life that is notable enough for inclusion besides the fact that he wrote Wilhelm Reich's biography? ScienceApologist (talk) 23:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Wikipedia is a better encyclopedia with it than without it. Why are we now destroying the encyclopedia in blind allegiance to what someone wrote in some notability guide? "Notability" should be replaced with "usefulness". WAS 4.250 (talk) 02:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ScienceApologist asks a legitimate question, "is every biographer of a notable person notable by default?" My answer is: not every biographer, but if the biography is a significant one (so that some readers might want to know about the author) and if we can provide enough reliably sourced information to benefit those readers, then the biographer is notable. JamesMLane t c 03:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly notable without clumsy inherent-notabilty-of-biographers-of-notable-persons bungee cords. A book reviewed in the NYT will have been reviewed elsewhere, and in 150+ Google Books results, some citations but others in sufficient depth analyzing Sharaf's own motives and limitations as an observer. --Dhartung | Talk 03:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung. The g-books results demonstrate wide mention and citation of this biography. Biographers aren't notable by writing a biography of a notable person, but he's notable as an author. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deletion not necessary. Chimeric Glider (talk) 21:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep New York Times obit. Zagalejo^^^ 21:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per jossi. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note For some reason editors who are participating in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James V. Downton are also participating here. Since the subjects appear unrelated it seems like it's due to the involvement of one or more editors. I hope that each article is judged on its own merits. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Jossi and Dhartung made good points. Also I checked google scholar and saw something like 10 pages of results. One is a book Jung and Reich: The Body As Shadow by John P. Conger that cites or quotes Sharaf on around 8 pages. Another is a review of Sharaf's Riech bio that appears in the Psychoanalitic Review where they wrote: Myron Sharaf's Fury on Earth is far and away the finest book both on Reich's work and his life. It is a work of scholarship that may well, until the Reich Archives are finally opened, remain definitive on the subject. That's notability - non-trivial coverage in a scholarly journal. --Tikilounge (talk) 08:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see no reason to delete this. Sharaf wrote a definitive and notable biography of a notable thinker. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 19:08, 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 keep per near-unanimity of respondents (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 23:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me and the Orgone

Fails WP:BK. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Orson Bean's affiliation with Reich was (in)famous at the time. --Dhartung | Talk 03:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm undecided about this one. The Orson Bean article states that he wrote the book but merely gives its title. The information from the book article could be merged into the Bean bio, which isn't very long. Is there any objection to doing that? Is there any reason to prefer a separate article to a merge? JamesMLane t c 03:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. When I wrote the article, I did so because I read that it is a very significant part of the orgonomy lore. I did get the impression, as Dhartung alludes to, that it was the object of much attention when it came out, which means that there is likely to exist several notable newspaper articles and op-ed pieces centering on it. Obviously I have not researched this (partly because I'm in Norway, and although I have access to both the national library and the Oslo university library, I don't know that they archive many foreign language newspapers. I could perhaps make an effort to find out about periodicals.). This conjecture would tend a good-faith editor towards concluding that the book probably does satisfy WP:BK, but that the article presently doesn't substantiate this, and such an editor would most likely deem it sufficient to add an appropriate maintenance tag which would give other editors generous time to provide the lacking references. __meco (talk) 04:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Dhartung is correct on the book's fame and its possible place on WP. This would fit well into the Orson Bean article. (Question: is the book still in print?) Ecoleetage (talk) 10:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is available at online bookstores (not used). __meco (talk) 11:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep g-books and g-scholar show numerous citations of this book. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The book is by a notable person and it's been cited in several other books. When I looked for references, a bunch showed up pretty quick, so I added some to the article. There's plenty of room in Wikipedia for a book like this one that's not a major bestseller but is notable enough that other writers have quoted it. --Tikilounge (talk) 07:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The author is notable, the book received substantial press coverage at the tie of its publication. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 02:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very readable book on a famous and controversial subject, the book itself is a high point in explaining what was happening from a patient's point of view. Better to expand the article than to dump it, IMHO.User:Jim Redman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.41.208.210 (talk) 00:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a book by a famous TV personality about a famous person - reviewed in Time magazine - article has multiple reliable sources. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable. Some people have an energy flow problem. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:49, 30 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.-Wafulz (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hollenbeck

non-notable film; crystal ball article - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seeing as I cannot find any independent sources in accordance with WP:MOVIE, the article is a crystal-ball of a non notable film. WilliamH (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per crystal and future film notability standards Collectonian (talk) 22:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable movie by non-notable director and starring non-notable actors with such recent credits as "Boxer," "Cool Guy," "Basketball Teammate" and "School Girl #2." RGTraynor 18:43, 1 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.-Wafulz (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kindred Moon Paranormal Society

insufficient claims to notability: highly acclaimed TV show is cable access and ref. for it is one sentence long. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Added Kindred Moon Productions to this AfD. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Slash & Burn - Nothing even remotely notable to be found here. Delete with extreme prejudice. Gromlakh (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable. Kindred Moon Productions seems to be made only in support of this article. Prashanthns (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wow frist off Prashanthns the kindred moon productions page was created last October and the kindred moon paranormal page was created today. look at the dates and get your facts strait you hater —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorddeathbane (talk • contribs) 21:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Lord. If you read above, I have said that Kindred Moon Productions seems to be made only in support of this article. By this, I meant that notability of both this article and Kindred Moon Productions is in question, because, they are standing on each other rather than on their notability.Prashanthns (talk) 10:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

how are you saying there is no notoriety here Gromlakh when there are references and articles supporting that it is? have you been in multiple news articles and have produced your own movies or tv shows and have fans world wide? i bet not. i think you may be nothing more than someone trying to put people down saying they are nothing or that they arnt big enough to be listed here when you are nothing yourself and cant or wont do anything as big as kindred moon has done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorddeathbane (talk • contribs) 22:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment while general notability is a major issue, this one is quite well sourced, at least. Pundit|utter 22:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'm afraid. I removed a speedy tag from Kindred Moon Productions some time ago as it asserted some notability, but meant to get round to doing this. Evidently it dropped off my radar. Google turns up 49 hits, and Google News a solitary one. The nearest thing to significant reliable independent sourcing seems to be this local newspaper article, which points to its non-notability: "Kindred Moon Productions' films are available for rental at 9th Street Video and Blockbuster, are shown on Columbia's local access channel and are for sale on the company's Web site, kindredmoonproductions.com." I don't think this one source alone can sustain an article. I'm slightly less certain about Kindred Moon Paranormal Society, as it looks better sourced at first glance, but still inclined to say delete as once blogs, TV listings and duplicated references are discounted we're still left with at most two semi-reliable sources [2] [3] - Both are just local newspaper stories, and I don't think that this level of sourcing is enough to overcome the general lack of notability. 23 Google hits for KMPS or one on Google News doesn't point to much potential for improvement either. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle}
Delete as non-notable for both. The production company's films haven't even made it on IMDB; individual paranormal societies aren't notable on their own- making it on television may satisfy this (e.g. TAPS), but the television exposure in question won't suffice. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that Society article looks okay at first, but after digging, the sources are poor. Non-notable. King Pickle (talk) 02:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both: Wannabee ghostbusters which fail WP:ORG, WP:N and so on, with a nod to Balderdash's research. Also a WP:CANVASS violation [4], which was tried with a notable lack of success. I'm sure they'll be happy over on Myspace. RGTraynor 18:48, 1 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 speedy delete as a copyright violation. It contained no original prose, just a "publisher's summary". - Bobet 00:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Republic 68: Armor

This page contains nothing but prod and has no references and is only four lines long, therefore it should be Deleted. Gman124 ^talk 19:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete If I'm seeing what I think I'm seeing in the page history, this is a re-creation of previously deleted material with no improvements. Even if it's not, delete anyway as it has no context, is written in-universe, and is fancruft. Beeblbrox (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G4, repost. Also violates WP:FICT and WP:N. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 21:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy (A1) Almost no context to identify what it's talking about. Vivio Testarossa^{Talk Who} 23:25, 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 merge into Margaret Thatcher untill WP:NFF is satisfied. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher (film)

A forthcoming drama on British TV (see [5]) that may or may not become notable in time. If it does, we can have an article then. Nom under WP:N, WP:NOTCRYSTAL, WP:NFF AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That IMDB link doesn't connect to any information on the film. Ecoleetage (talk) 10:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There was actually a good source on the article of the actress set to play Thatcher; not sure why it wasn't put in this article. I also added a source from The Guardian that was linked to by the nom's EL. I fixed the IMDB link BTW (they used the wrong template), though it doesn't show much. I think the sources are sufficient to pass WP:CRYSTAL. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Margaret Thatcher. Editor of the wiki^{review my edits here!} 10:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Is sourced. There is no speculation. WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply. Sources provided satisfy WP:N. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- merge and Redirect to Margaret Thatcher. There are sufficient sources to avoid WP:CRYSTAL, however, a stand alone article is not yet appropriate as per, specificially, WP:NFF "Sources need to confirm the start of shooting after shooting has begun." (original emphasis). Also, a critical failing is that what I think should be the most reliable source, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1007029/, contains only "More information for this In Development project is only available on IMDbPro. To sign-up for a 14-day free trial,"
Delete. A future film that hasn't officially started filming (let alone announce a release date) explicitly fails WP:FILM and WP:CRYSTAL. Lots and lots can now, and production, and eventual release. No prejudice against recreation when production starts and/or release date announced. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree about WP:CRYSTAL, but just noting here for the record that WP:FILM is a sub-standard link to a mess of circular referencing, involving Wikipedia:WikiProject Films, Wikipedia:Notability (films) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Future films. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Margaret Thatcher. Razor flame 01:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Margaret Thatcher until either a) there has been a more definite set of details as to airing on BBC2 or b) further details on cast, production, taping, etc., come to light. The article in question is utterly devoid of information, even though the two linked "newspaper articles"/press releases have much more. WP:CRYSTAL still applies as there was a definite lack of detail as to production and/or airing. B.Wind (talk) 04:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF. Frank | talk 06:38, 3 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.-Wafulz (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raheny United F.C.

Non-notable amateur football club in Dublin. No references to reliable sources, let alone any substantial coverage therein, so fails WP:N.

(Note: I had PRODded this article on April on 20 April, but the tag was removed today with the comment "is notable"). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, not a fully professional team with no supplemental non-trivial coverage. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 21:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 12:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BanRay 11:56, 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. Not much participation at this AfD, but this probably qualifies for speedy deletion.--Kubigula (talk) 03:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aameer Mian

A good faith effort to find references has failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources in order to comply with notability requirements. The search for references has included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals Oo7565 (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A clear example of attempted self-promotion that was previously tagged for Speedy Deletion, but had the tag removed by the article creator. Edward321 (talk) 23:27, 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 keep. Consensus is that the list needs work, particularly in terms of better defining its scope, but not to delete it.--Kubigula (talk) 22:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Airlines in Alaska

Unencyclopedic sampling of the thousand or so air carriers in Alaska. Discussion on talk page to determine what criteria are for list went nowhere. The bigger carriers have their own articles, the smaller ones are not notable. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't understand the "point" of this article. If someone needs to know where an airline flys, they can check that airline's article or its website. Tavix (talk) 20:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the creator's comments on the talk page, the point is to serve as a clearinghouse for Alaska related aviation articles that have been or likely will be deleted. That is something more suited to userspace. Beeblbrox (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's also menant to be informative about such air lines. In the meantime, I have another article I'm going to work on. ----DanTD (talk) 22:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suppose in the interest of full disclosure I should point out that I PRODed the now deleted article about Skagway Air Service, a defunct, non-notable air taxi, and this list came to my attention because the air taxi article was still on my watchlist and I noticed it had turned from red to blue. Beeblbrox (talk) 21:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC
Comment. If cleaned up this might be a weak keep for me. While normally I would consider a state plus an industry to be a non-notable cross, Alaska has greater dependency on air taxi and short-haul airlines than any other continental state. At least it doesn't seem to be a list of airlines that once had Alaska as a small part of their service area. --Dhartung | Talk 21:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Although I'm willing to accept any clean-up job that takes place, as well as an expansion. One of the airlines(Denali Air) got my attention when I was scanning for uncategorized articles. I thought it was a shame to have this deleted, so Obina recommended this list. The revival of the Skagway Air Services article was supposed to be temporary, so that I could add the info to this list. If you don't want that one, take it away. But trashing this one is an idiotic move! ----DanTD (talk) 22:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It just occurred to me this might be better as a category, and the individual air lines that meet the notability guidelines would retain their own articles. Beeblbrox (talk) 18:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If they all had their own pages, I might agree with you. Many of them don't however, some of them justifiably so. But deleting this makes as much sense as deleting pages that are currently listed in the Category:Lists of railroads by US state, or any other list. ----DanTD (talk) 18:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's nothing wrong with this list and its encyclopedic value stems from the fact that air travel is the primary means of transportation throughout most of Alaska. --Oakshade (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But that is just the problem. What are the criteria for inclusion? There are literally hundreds of small airlines in Alaska, every tiny town with an airstrip has one or two, but they are no more notable than local land or water taxis, which there are also lots of in Alaska. It's basically akin to listing every cab company in New York. Sure, they exist, but Wikipedia is not a directory. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking actual airlines that this list includes, not "the village pilot." The WP:NOTDIRECTORY guideline is frequently incorrectly cited to remove encyclopedic lists. This list is discriminate and not a repository of loosely associated topics, as which WP:NOTDIRECTORY discourages. --Oakshade (talk) 19:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as all the the airlines but one (Denali Air) are listed in either List of airlines of the United States or List of defunct airlines. MilborneOne (talk) 20:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- MilborneOne, this isn't just for defunct airlines. And major commercial carriers like Alaska Airlines, aren't even based in the state. ---DanTD (talk) 01:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I think you find that List of airlines of the United States has all the active operators apart from one that is on the list, the second link is for the one defunct airline on the list. MilborneOne (talk) 18:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment to Oakshade: how is the list discriminate? Era is scheduled passenger service, Denali Air is a flightseeing trip, Flight Alaska is a cargo service, Pacific Alaska was a unit of PanAm, Wings of Alaska is a charter service, Skagway Air was an air taxi. It is an indiscriminate collection of loosely associated subjects. Beeblbrox (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It specifies actual air companies specifically based or that have major operations in Alaska. That is not anything near the description of "an indiscriminate collection of loosely associated subjects." --Oakshade (talk) 20:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to filibuster this debate, but this point goes right to the heart of why I nominated this list. In a state the size of Alaska, with a large number of airports, naturally there are a great number of different aviation operations, and this list samples each of them. If it is kept, it really needs some criteria for inclusion, as probably 85% of these operations (in total not just the ones on this list) are local in nature and no more notable than which taxi you take to work, or who delivers your pizza. If coverage in reliable third party sources per WP:NOTE is the bar for inclusion, most of the "airlines" in Alaska don't come close. Beeblbrox (talk) 00:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:LIST, there's no requirement that all items included in lists must be notable enough for their own articles. That's one of the reasons why we have lists. --Oakshade (talk) 07:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Where is it written that an incomplete list or one lacking consensus about what should be included should be deleted? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oakshade and Vegaswikian Mathmo ^Talk 08:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Too many of the arguments advocating deletion are unimpressive. Not seeing the "point" of a particular list? Sheesh, Wikipedia would be a tenth the size if every article for which I couldn't "see the point" was flushed. There is nothing in either policy or guideline prohibiting a smaller, more inclusive list where a larger, less inclusive one already exists, and I'm amused at the concept that this list might propagate out of control where a List of airlines of the United States already exists, presumably without being AfDed out of such fears. To suggest that the list is indiscriminate because the various carriers serve different functions make as much sense as claiming List of classical composers to be indiscriminate because the people listed were not all Caucasian, male, British resident and composed Baroque music. RGTraynor 19:05, 1 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.-Wafulz (talk) 19:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accidental Music

article may fail WP:Music : also no indy sources Oo7565 (talk) 19:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as it doesn't seem notable. One the artists seems to be well-known, although the others don't have articles. Even after spending some time Googling the label, I can't find many third-party refs. --JamieS93 19:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I could find none with a search of Google UK, somewhat muddled by the fact that there was a recent release of an album in the UK called "Accidental Music." Ravenswing 19:10, 1 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 all. Sandstein (talk) 09:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Fax Machine Monster of Basildon

Hoax article about a series of novels, plus articles about the first novel and the author. Although the first of the series was allegedly a best-seller, published in 2002 and translated into twenty languages, it is quite unknown to Amazon and Google Books, as are the three others said to have been published since. Note that no ISBN numbers are provided. The author may be a real person, and indeed may have had something to do with SSADM, but even that looks spurious ("not revealed until 2008") and is unsourced; and since his article is mostly about the novels he has no sourced notability and it should go, too. Delete all. JohnCD (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all no attempt to indicate notability; search for person/books failed to find any mention. Agree it's a probable hoax. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete All as hoaxes, although I must admit the fake book covers made me laugh. Beeblbrox (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki somewhere--but I'm moving this to my user space. This is too good to let go--there has to be a home for this somewhere. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's an even better idea, I believe Uncyclopedia is part of our little family now, and this is just the kind of silliness they live for. Beeblbrox (talk) 21:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy DELETE or move to WP:BJAODN Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 21:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the result is delete or speedy delete, could the admin responsible please move this to my userspace? This is too funny to let go. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a hoax. Also, now on BJAODN Bfigura ^(talk) 23:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - title would be good on WP:DAFT, too. Grutness...wha? 00:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete this hoax and block the hoaxer. Qworty (talk) 04:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoaxes (I suspect the Hinds article is the realname of the SPA creator). BJAODN needs its own website for this stuff. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They have one. See my link above. (It was moved off-wiki after BJAODN was stopped here). --Bfigura ^(talk) 20:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks- I knew BJAODN was shut down, didn't know it existed off-wiki. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 05:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G3. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 21:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The forecast calls for snow Beeblbrox (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax. I'm surprised these articles are still here 2 days after the nomination. 23skidoo (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoaxalicious. Edward321 (talk) 23:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as hoaxes due to inability to find sources and the unbelievability of the articles' content as well as their presentational style. Funny, though! Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:19, 29 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. Horologium (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Green Crisis

Disputed prod. I allowed a few days for this article to come up with some references or sources and then went looking for them myself. I found some Google hits for the phrase "the green crisis" but nothing that defines the phrase as precisely as it's defined here; I have to think this is original research. I bring this to the community for further comment; maybe someone knows something about this phrase I don't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accounting4Taste (talk • contribs) 19:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources, probably not-yet-established neologism. Huon (talk) 23:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources. WillOakland (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost certainly WP:MADEUP. Creator is an SPA- only edit was article creation. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:18, 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 Speedy Keep (non-admin closure). Clear consensus on the notability. Moved to Ang Rita. WilliamH (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sherpa Ang Rita

Article has no references despite a request for such dating from Sep. 2007. While only two sentences long, the biographical article manages to make the questionable (unref.) claim that "[h]e has climbed all the major mountains and is accepted as one of the best mountain climbers of the world".

Keep Seems legit: [6]. Zagalejo^^^ 20:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move to Ang Rita; Sherpa is not part of his name, it's something closer to a title. Bio. --Dhartung | Talk 21:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as Ang Rita. Held the world record for the number of ascents of Everest. Has an article in a paper encyclopedia. How much more notable can you get? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the numerous sources listed by other editors. Edward321 (talk) 23:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Problem fixed. StAnselm (talk) 01:08, 28 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.-Wafulz (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Screaming Vocals

There is no need for another article on screaming in music, one already exists under Screaming (music). TheLetterM (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Already have an article on "screaming". Dwilso 19:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Since we already have an article about it, redirect to Screaming (music); maybe merge some of the content, if there's something that's not already mentioned in the Screaming (music) article. --JamieS93 19:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as a plausible search term for Screaming (music). Beeblbrox (talk) 20:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per last two editors. Inhumer (talk) 00:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup. It seems pretty clear as snow what needs to be done. TheLetterM (talk) 05:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm unsure of the usefulness of a redirect due to the capitalization. Deleting this and creating screaming vocals would make more sense. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge There may be useful content still on the new article and any such should be added to old article. Redirect else though. Munci (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:33, 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.-Wafulz (talk) 19:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accordent Technologies

it may Fails notability for WP:corp also article reads like a ad Oo7565 (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy DELETE G11, directory entry at best, blatant advertising at worst. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 21:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article seems to be adequately referenced, but requires copy-editing. --Eastmain (talk) 01:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there seem to be sufficient good references to show notability. Since it needs editing, it can be edited--deletion is the last resort only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
Weak Keep Adequately referenced now, notability established. That being said, it still reads like an advertisement, someone more familiar with the subject needs to edit for tone and style. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 22:16, 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.-Wafulz (talk) 19:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Smeaton

Some ghits, many false positives, no evidence of RS coverage. He may exist, but no evidence he's notable. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 19:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not notable enough, and also no references, speedy delete. Dwilso 19:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. [7] gives a fair amount of information about him, but no indication that he's sufficiently notable.-gadfium 23:19, 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 redirect and merge. DGG makes a good case for keeping, but the consensus here is to merge to Simsbury, Connecticut which can be done without losing much of the relevant content.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simsbury Public Library

RS coverage is limited to events at the library and construction mentions. The ranking is sourced, but I don't know if that's enough to meet WP:ORG for local organizations. Creator was the librarian TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As fond as I am of names that end in "bury", I have to say Delete, any useful material can be added to the Simsbury, Connecticut article. There are far too many libraries in the world to have Wikipedia have an article (or even a redirect) on each one. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 00:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As per previous comment regarding the redirection into the Simbury article. A well-written article, to be certain, but of no particular notability as a standalone entity. Ecoleetage (talk) 10:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the ranking. "far too many" is not a deletion consideration--it's one of the classic NOTs. There are many fewer libraries than villages, for example. In fact, there are fewer than 10,000 public libraries in the US. Not that we should have all of them. But this is in the top 1% by the accepted ranking index and that's sufficient. Its good to have a real criterion in the nebulous field of local institutions. DGG (talk) 00:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was only ranked by some random dude, though. In any case, it is not like the Simsbury CT article is overflowing with information. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 00:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That random dude is the guy who for decades has compiled what are the standard ranking in the field. See Public library ratings. There's a little controversy, but it's still the standard & there is no other similar ranking. They're published in American Libraries, the official publication of the American Library Association. DGG (talk) 01:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry DGG, but on what basis do you describe Hennen's ranking system as "the standard"? I note that his rankings are self-published. 152.3.51.23 (talk) 15:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: to Simsbury, an article that's none too large. I note that the HAPLR ratings DGG describes are tagged in the very article discussing them as highly controversial, indeed so much that the section on the controversy is several times larger than the single paragraph citing their existence. That scarcely seems to me to represent a "standard" measure. RGTraynor 19:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are controversial--and they are nonetheless the standard that continues to be used by the American Library Association and published in their official journal. That the accuracy is disputed doesnt affect it. We go by V. DGG (talk) 17:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind sourcing the assertion that the ALA considers these rankings the standard? It seems, at the very least, that many people disagree. RGTraynor 01:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Simsbury, Connecticut. No independent secondary sources. The HAPLR rating reference is merely directory information, not commentary or coverage. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per SmokyJoe. This article by itself doesn't have enough references to enable this article to be a stand-alone article. Most of the current references are not suitable for this kind of article. Razor flame 01:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as it is ranked highly, but is not otherwise notable. –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:04, 3 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 keep per unanimity of responses (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 00:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All Night Fuji

it may Fail notability for WP:N and non notability japan tv show Oo7565 (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Aren't all tv shows on national networks generally considered notable by defauklt? —Quasirandom (talk) 20:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe the above remark is accurate, but what we don't know is if this show was on a national network. Google wasn't much help, but that's not surprising since the show went off air so long ago. I think we may have a verification problem on our hands if we can't find some sources. Beeblbrox (talk) 20:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The extensive Japanese Wikipedia article looks like it can provide some guidance here. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG Keep Wow, this nomination boggles the mind. This was a notorious and popular TV show which ran on network television in Japan for nearly a decade (1983-1991). Yet English-language sourcing isn't readily available, so we delete it? Meanwhile every episode of Family Guy gets an article? Certainly the article needs a lot of work. Also, certainly, language and geography (in Japan, I'm sure there are many print sources on this) are going to make it a difficult one to source. But if the rules state a network-TV show which ran for nearly a decade in a foreign country/language is not "notable," while every individual episode of a (current, adult-oriented, U.S.) cartoon show are, then there's something very wrong going on here. Dekkappai (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Japanese Amazon lists two books on the series: 私たちはバカじゃない―オールナイトフジで~す translates to something like "We're not Idiots, This is All Night Fuji", and オールナイトフジ・メモリアル・フォトみんな大好き "All Night Fuji Memorial Photo" Dekkappai (talk) 18:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that we seem to have sources. And, Dekkappai, it's funny that this "boggles your mind" since the article was tagged as unreferenced as possibly non-notable when you edited it way back in October of last year. Not everyone can read Japanese, so not everyone has access to the sources you do. Beeblbrox (talk) 18:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Always nice to trade a little bitching, Beeblbrox. :-) I get by in Japanese, but I'm far from fluent. When I edited it in October I poked around a little, but couldn't find anything very useful, and left it. I'm still not sure the above books would count as sourcing, but I'll put them in if it'll help. Dekkappai (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the above--yes, the Japanese Wikipedia article's existence should have served as at least a hint that an expert was needed to find references. One of a string of careless nominations. DGG (talk) 00:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, given sources confirming it is a national, and therefore notable, TV show. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Show is (in)famous. Remove original research ("As the show went on, it seemed to remove all the sexual stuff (perhaps due to censorship or changed in the laws that occurred at that time). This caused it to lose viewership and eventually it went off the air.") and irrelevant fluff ("The name All Night Fuji has been adopted by a musical group.) There's not much left, but it's a start. Fg2 (talk) 10:08, 28 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.-Wafulz (talk) 19:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Durwin Dean

Delete nn local DJ. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: this is a hoax. Dwilso 19:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If he is in fact a DJ for this station, they don't think he's important enough to list on their site.--Fabrictramp (talk) 22:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. Looks like he was a DJ for the station in 2006 [8], but it's unclear if he still is. He does have a page on the station's web site, but he's no where in the current programming listings. He got a quick nod from the Baltimore City Council, but that is the full extent of any notability in a gsearch.--Fabrictramp (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, per nom. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 22:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's clearly not a hoax but it is a poorly formatted stub of a non-notable local disc jockey from a single-purpose account whose name ("magicmusicfan") is too close to "Magic 95.9" (Dean's station) for coincidence to be at work here. Dean had been the subject of some coverage (here when he was robbed, here when he was promoted, etc.) but only enough to prove existence, not notability. - Dravecky (talk) 22:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update I've done quite a bit of formatting and fix-up to this stub plus added a relevant reference. My opinion hasn't changed but unless some enterprising editor were to beef this up with significant references and a proof of notability then, well, at least this stub will die pretty. - Dravecky (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a hoax [9] but also not notable. Fails WP:BIO.--Rtphokie (talk) 01:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot find any verifiable source that asserts meeting WP:BIO Dloh cierekim 02:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — The subject of the article clearly exists. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How is that reason enough to keep the article?--Atlan (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You've used that cut-and-paste answer for a few in AfD that, in fact, didn't exist, Kurt. Care to cite the basis for your belief? Ravenswing 19:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a notable DJ by the looks of it.--Atlan (talk) 17:39, 1 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 as non-notable and promotional. Sandstein (talk) 08:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Sword of Swords

Article seems to be a page about a sword that was created by the sword maker. The only notability is that it claims to be in the book of records however I cannot find anything to reference it. It should be noted that the user has removed unreferenced and notability tags added to the page since it was created, which is why I didn't prod it. Google only turn up references to the sword by the author on his own website and over all it seems be NN. --ImmortalGoddezz (t/c) 18:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see why we need it.-- Barkjon 19:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems like a made up fictional idea. Dwilso 19:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Keep' This article is notable. A quick google search for "Most swallowed sword" turned up this page: [10]. Seems notable enough. It might need a little wikifying but it should stay. Nevermind. I just realized all the sources I looked at were invariably the same person with several domains, usernames, and self-references. Delete due to lack of notability.--Dustinmacdonald (talk) 21:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
did you mean to write <s></s>? I'm confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Protonk (talk • contribs) 05:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find this hard: while I was prepared to have the article edited unmercifully, I wasn't prepared for the continual attacks on it's notability. It is true that there is not much on the internet about this record but the internet is not the source of all knowledge, it is just the source of all knowledge that people have taken the trouble to put on the internet.

I have provided links to the official sword-swallowers' association (SSAI) and to the Guinness World Records site. It is depressing to see how many of those who attack this page cast a cursory glance at the links, don't find what their looking for and gleefully race back to cry "destroy!" So far, neither the SSAI or Guinness World Records have received any requests for confirmation. (Not to mention the 33 sword swallowers, most of whom are easily found on the net, that would be proud to attest to their involvement.)

Quick aside to IG: The original article did not claim that the sword is in the book of records. In fact you changed it to say that: the original article claimed that its record status was recognised by Guinness. They are not the same thing.

Being the owner of the sword and the original poster of the wikipedia article I am being accused of providing self-referencing information but that's exactly what you're doing by saying "I can't find it on the internet so it can't stay on our part the internet". Have any of you thought to follow up off the web? Emails? Phone calls?

While I am sure that ImmortalGoddezz's action is driven by a desire for accuracy, what on earth am I to make of those asking for deletion on the grounds that it "sounds fishy to me". Is Wikipedia governed by hunches? Do your research.

Would a jpeg of the Guinness Record certificate satisfy you, or would it be ruined by the fact that it was provided by me?

I feel I have provided ample evidence for the validity of this article (for anyone serious enough to do some real research) and whatever the wikipedia community decides about the sword-swallowing community's article (not just mine) I urge all of you to ask yourselves if you have done all the research you can before destroying other people's contributions. SwordSwallow (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - those who want to add information to Wikipedia are responsible for providing independent, reliable sources, both to make the article verifiable and to show notability. Notability hasn't been shown. Of course offline sources (such as newspaper articles) might be used, but I wouldn't even know where to look for them. Emails and phone calls obviously don't count as reliable sources. Huon (talk) 13:12, 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 --JForget 22:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gram Sarvada Award

Delete no sources to indicate that this award is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Notability is not apparent. Ecoleetage (talk) 10:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This !vote was placed by Ecoleetage on the article. I moved it here. Huon (talk) 13:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't establish notability, no sources. Google produces no non-Wikipedia hits. Huon (talk) 13:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:57, 30 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of magazines of anomalous phenomena

WP:NOTDIRECTORY. These are loosely related magazines. What constitutes an "anomalous phenomenon" anyway? Should we include the National Enquirer or Weekly World News or Mad Magazine since those quirky, off-beat publications often discuss ostensibly "anomalous phenomena"? I guess my point is that there is no way to select this list without applying original research value judgments about what the magazines are "about". ScienceApologist (talk) 18:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. List is clearly of use and of interest, and provides valuable information that, at a glance, appears accurate. The questions of what should and shouldn't be included are definitely significant ones, but they do not seem to me unsolvable ones, and the sort of judgments that are required are ones that, to my mind, very few articles can be written without making. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Vague (at best) inclusion criteria. I've seen a lot of "anomalous phenomena" in the New York Times... - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears to be the case that the magazines listed are all primarily devoted to anomalous phenomena. That seems to me to be a clear inclusion criterion. Certainly I do not think it takes a particularly problematic leap of judgment to include the Fortean Times and drop the New York Times. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Weird NJ pops out as the poster child for what's wrong with this article. Are their "anomalous phenomena" in WNJ? Depending on your definition, almost certainly. But is it about whatever "anomalous phenomena" are? Hardly. In WNJ and its sister pubs (WPa, etc.) I've seen stories about a tombstone visible to divers in the footing of a bridge. (Not at all "anomalous", it was used as fill.) I've seen stories on concrete ships. (A failed experiment by the U.S. Navy.) When cell phone towers semi-disguised as trees went up, they went in. WNJ is about "weird" stuff, not "anomalous" stuff. EVERYTHING in a magazine is anomalous to one degree or another: if it didn't deviate in some way from what we expect, no one would write about it. Time doesn't mention the sunrises that occurred since their last issue, just the variations from everything that you knew would happen. Yeah, I "get" what you mean by "anomalous phenomena", but the "I know it when I see it" definition being used doesn't work in wikipedia. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sure it does. Remove WNJ. If nobody objects, problem solved. If someone does object, hash it out with them, since clearly the concept of "anomalous phenomena" is well enough defined to work with. Deletion is unnecessary here. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from original creator: I'm not wedded to this article's existence, but I think the field of anomalous phenomena (or Forteana) is pretty clearly defined, and that the nomination is factually incorrect to that degree - David Gerard (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep this does not appear to be a case of WP:DIRECTORY because it is a list of links to other related wikipedia articles. The addition of URLs is just a benefit of stand-alone lists over categories. The lead selection criteria should be more explicitly defined as per Wikipedia:Stand Alone Lists, but the publications seem to have some sort of relationship, though not being familiar with the field, I can't say what it is. -Verdatum (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, though I'd be up for a broader list on media on the subject. But simply limiting it to magazines, a loose assortment at that, makes it too much like a directory. Spell4yr (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - both for NOTDIRECTORY and because this oddly-demarcated list is more appropriate as a category. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject covered adequately by Category:Paranormal magazines, this adds little beyond a directory of external links. PhilKnight (talk) 23:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This does further sub-divide the magazines with more precision than would be appropriate for a category. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, it could indeed be considered redundant to the cat - David Gerard (talk) 22:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems like a reasonable enough list that goes beyond what a category can provide, so should be kept per WP:CLN. Klausness (talk) 01:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Phil Sandifer ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like a useful list, just needs the redlink entries removed. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, why? The ability to put in red links is an important advantage of list articles over a category - David Gerard (talk) 23:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notability. If they're notable enough to be on Wikipedia, they should have stubs created. If not, they're not notable enough to be on the list. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Notability is a policy for article topics, not for mentioning things. Furthermore, redlinks exist to encourage stub creation. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I suppose, I just fear having to demonstrate notability one by one, but if other editors would prefer that, we can go with it. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are times when we do include red links, as for things of this sort which are not intrinsically important individually, but are valuable content in a more general article. There's considerably more information that could be added to show their relative importance, such as year of founding (and perhaps of ceasing) and, sometimes, circulation. DGG (talk) 00:26, 30 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.-Wafulz (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Unquestionable Truth (Part 2)

Fails WP:MUSIC. Unreleased albums are not notable without substantial coverage in reliable sources. No reliable sources provided, none found. Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 07:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An Unquestioned Delete: "There has been a lot of controversy over the album, and some debate whether it will even be released." I imagine. Fails WP:CRYSTAL going away. RGTraynor 19:19, 1 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 Keep Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monster Business

Advertisement article that I can't believe can be saved, due to lack of available 3rd part commentary about this company. Damiens.rf 18:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This is blatant advertising, didn't even need to come to AfD, but for the record,there are no sources to even verify anything in this article. Beeblbrox (talk) 20:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there's a large database of Amiga game reviews online, see [11] for several sources, more than enough to satisfy notability. Someoneanother 05:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, So you have met verifiability, but where is the non trivial coverage in reliable sources? I don't think Amiga ~~online~~ fanzines qualify. Beeblbrox (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those are magazine reviews which have been scanned and archived. Look at the dates, look at the scans. Someoneanother 03:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - still works for me Beeblbrox (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - So if national magazines like Amiga Power, CU Amiga and Amiga Computing aren't reliable, then what is? They aren't fanzines, they're no different to the magazines you could walk into your newsagent and buy today. The coverage isn't trivial, they're reviewing the game in as much depth as magazines cover anything other than triple-A titles. I fail to see how notability isn't asserted by them. Someone another 11:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Someone another's sources. Also, I wonder how the first to participants in this debate saw this article as an advertisement, noting that this is about a 1991 game. User:Krator (t c) 10:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sourcing has been found. The magazine articles are the PC Format, Edge and so on of their day. Gazimoff ^Write _Read 12:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has proper sourcing now. Razor flame 01:12, 3 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. Wizardman 17:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of schools in Thailand

Although the list has been expanded since its previous deletion request, it still fails to serve the purposes outlined under WP:LIST#Purposes of lists. Information provided by the list is severely limited, as the list is and will probably forever remain grossly incomplete. The list contains 126 schools out of more than 36,000 in Thailand, and does not have any inclusion criteria regarding notability or importance, which makes the inclusion of each school in the list next to meaningless to the reader. A majority of the entries may have been advertisement/publicity attempts, as they were added by anonymous users with no other contributions. Since WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a directory any expansion of the list in its current form will probably be in vain. Also, the only navigational benefit this list currently provides is to sort Thai school articles by type and region, but this is also limited due to the fact that the list is not a proper topic list and is predominated by entries without corresponding articles. This function can be replaced by categorization without any significant disadvantage, since the list is not otherwise sorted. Paul_012 ^(talk) 14:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Camaron | Chris (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Information on Thai schools is good, but a list of a handful of (presumably nn) schools just isn't the way to go. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:41, 21 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) 18:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete! This list doesn't do anything for anyone. Fails the critera for lists. Tavix (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per previous comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecoleetage (talk • contribs) 10:31, 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 per unanimity of responses (non-admin closure). Afd is not cleanup, remember WP:BEFORE! Skomorokh 00:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ho Sainteny agreement

Delete barely enough context to identify who may have agreed, but none to say what they agreed to: that Ho would pick up the bar tab? Does every international meeting resuling in some joint communique or agreeemnt sufficiently notable to merit an article? anyway...this one liner does not advance the state of human knowledge or the knowledge of the reader either. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep so fix it! Information available from which to do it TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 19:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. French recognition of Vietnamese autonomy ... seems, uh, significant. --Dhartung | Talk 22:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs expansion, but notable. Yopie 14:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopie (talk • contribs)
Keep or possibly merge with article on History of Vietnam. Certainly do not delete. In view of the post-WWII history of Vietnam, this was certainly a significant event. I am not sure whether it is properly described as a treaty (but unqualified to comment). It is certainly more than a communique (in the sense of a press release. Many articles started as stubs, which is the only obvious problem with this one. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:00, 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. Sandstein (talk) 08:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amphipolis (Xena)

Fails WP:FICT, and is nothing but in-universe WP:PLOT summary. Already covered adequately in Geography of Xena: Warrior Princess, which is also tagged for notability, and the real world aspects are covered far better in the real Amphipolis article. AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Amphipolis. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:38, 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, Davewild (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable out of universe, not a logical search term. (Merge does not make sense. Fictional info to a real location?) - Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just plotty in-universe info. Merging it in full into the geography article would just mean double work when/if the seemingly nn Geo article needs to be trimmed for its own possible merge. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per comments above, non-notable.Renee (talk) 00:11, 1 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 Keep (non-admin closure), Notable subject matter. StephenBuxton (talk) 12:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)"[reply]

Aterballetto productions

non-notable dance productions also article needs sources or references that appear in reliable, third-party publications. Oo7565 (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see no effort to look for sources & no reason for judging it non notable. I'd say the presumption is otherwise, given the clear notability of the choreographer and the other major figures involved. DGG (talk) 23:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added one of the many reliable sources available to the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:25, 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.--Kubigula (talk) 18:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

10 Days Off

This appears to be a relatively minor music event of limited notablity. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – for now. It seems like this could be a legitimate article with some reliable sources. If it has been going for 10 years and attracts 25,000 people, surely there's something written about it somewhere? Tnxman307 (talk) 17:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This [12] page from Time Out 2005, whilst not specifically about the 10 Days Off festival mentions it as "the successful '10 Days Off' festival (July 15-25)". It obviously needs better sourcing, but I would ascribe notability to it. --JulesN Talk 18:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I just did a check on Lexis Nexis, and the results I got refer to 10 Days Off as being part of the Gentse Feesten. I'm now Neutral on the AfD. --JulesN Talk 19:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A mention is not enough, reliable sources have to be written about the event rather than just make a passing mention. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 18:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No substantial coverage in reliable sources provided, none found. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:54, 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 no consensus. I find the two sources currently in this article to be fairly weak, a surprising result after an AfD has run its course. It concerns me a bit but consensus seems clearly divided. Pigman☿ 00:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Micky Rosenfeld

Delete so this guy, on this occasion, was a spokesman for a presumably notable organization. That doesn't make him notable. At least this article has a source, but this guy is so nn, we don't know where or when he was born or anything else that one would expect to read in an encyclopedic biography. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong keep the article is a stub as is, of course, but the subject is inherently notable as being the spokesman of a country's police organization. This does not meet any of wikipedia's criteria for deletion Stanley011 (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Comment - Also, if he is mentioned constantly in the news, (just do a google news searc) he cannot possibly be nn. Stanley011 (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Stanley011. Google and g-news pull up a massive number of hits. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ ~~Weak Delete~~Delete unless notability is asserted by references cited within the article Article is now properly tagged. Sourcing exists (although it is ASSUREDLY less wide ranging than is suggested above, more likely a number of those are listed because his name appears at the top of a press release). ~~Please help to constructively tag wikipedia articles rather than delete them. Protonk (talk) 23:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)~~. Subject requires significant coverage in a verifiable, independent third party source. I'm going to go on a limb and say that press releases from the police force don't count. Protonk (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN, and mostly NN generic position. Please point to relevant cats and other identical articles of police spokespeople around the world. Nothing in Category:Public relations people or even Category:Public relations. If the position is NN, then please point out how Rosenfield is. --Shuki (talk) 23:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It should be noted that Stanley011 is the initial author of the article. I also don't see a mention in that source that Rosenfeld is anything more than A police spokesperson. Not say, the chief spokeperson for the organization as a whole. Protonk (talk) 01:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think you misread the line. It says that he is Israel's police spokesman. That means "one" as in, he is it Stanley011 (talk) 06:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh this line? "'She left the vehicle escorted by the director-general of the Knesset (parliament),' police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said. 'She is going into the Knesset to talk in order to solve her problem.'". The source doesn't include an article, definite or indefinite. YOU claim that he is the chief spokesperson. Your source makes no such claim. Protonk (talk) 07:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, The information is correct, but there's nothing to write about him except his title. Curious coincidence: If you search in Hebrew for "דובר משטרת ישראל" (Israel Police spokesperson), you'll find articles about a completely different guy with a similar name: Mickey Rosenthal. He's not the spokesperson, but a journalist, the Israeli Michael Moore; he's called a "spokesperson" in a few articles, because he presented a program about the police. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 05:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't see how anyone that pulls up as many google news searches as this man can possibly be deleted from wikipedia. He is the chief spokesman for an entire nation's police force for God's sake! Stanley011 (talk) 06:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have some sources showing his notability as a public figure, then why haven't you, the author of the article, added them? there are no sources (Aside from a BBC weblink where he is not the subject) cited in your article. If it remains this way it will be deleted. You haven't even proven that he is the chief spokeperson. All that article says is that he is a spokesperson. Furthermore, police forces are (at least in the US) local and municipal. There is no US chief police spokesperson. We refer to the attorney general as the "top cop" in the press but this only means that he is in charge of federal prosecutors who are actually not cops. I don't know israeli police but I have reason to suspect that their command structure isn't too different from ours. Protonk (talk) 07:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That assumption - that a small non-federal country such as Israel, which has very different policing concerns, would have a similar police commend structure to the USA - shows remarkable insularity. If you look it up in an encyclopedia you will find that the Israel Police is a unified force. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, good day to you too. How about this. the SOURCES in the article don't make such a claim. The only person before you making such a claim as the author of the article, who hadn't seen fit to substantiate it. So why don't you back off a second before insulting me over a very tentative assumption made on the base of priors. Protonk (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why should the sources in this article say anything about the way that the police in Israel are organised? That's the job of other articles such as the one that I linked. I'm not insulting you by pointing out that the statement, "I have reason to suspect that their command structure isn't too different from ours", is an invalid assumption, and that wording is not at all tentative - you explicitly said the you have "reason" to suspect this. Your insularity is underlined by your use of the word "ours" in that sentence - why do you assume that "we" are all Americans? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because otherwise he is just A police spokesperson. The source YOU added suggests that he is a spokesperson for the israeli police force as a whole. That's fine and dandy. The FIRST source just literally say police spokesperson. read it again. And tell you what. Why don't you just cool off before coming in this thread accusing me of being close minded. I tried to let you off easy for what is basically a personal attack and you kept it up. Third times a charm. Protonk (talk) 22:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There seems to be a lot of pointless argument here without supporters of either position backing anything up with evidence. This source shows that he is the foreign press spokesman for a national police force, and the sheer number of passing Google News references shows that he is someone who people could well want to look up in an encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Phil, you're contradicting your keep by saying that the authour of the article has not provided evidence. Please see my comment at the bottom w/r to quantity of g-hits. --Shuki (talk) 22:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Who is the spokesperson for the FBI, United States Coast Guard, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Interpol, etc... and do they warrant seperate articles? Well, I found that Bill Carter fronts for the FBI with millions of g-hits (ok, 1.2mill +fbi), but he has no personal article (or even mention in the main article) and for even such an organization I don't know if one is warranted. The exception is the position of White House Press Secretary. On top of that, if Mickey can be identified as being notable himself, like a distinguished service, not a regular joe, that would suffice. --Shuki (talk) 13:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Feel free to create articles for those individuals as well, IF they pull up millions of sources. This article is now well-sourced and it is obvious that the subject is quite notable. This really should not be up for much discussion anymore. Stanley011 (talk) 16:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands, I still think the article doesn't pass the threshold for notability. Now we have one article saying he is the new spokesperson for the police force. I don't think that is a sufficient assertion of notability. Protonk (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Those people should certainly have articles if sources exist and somebody (how about Shuki or Protonk?) is prepared to write them. Just because nobody has got round to writing them yet does mean that this article has to be deleted. And why should the White House Press Secretary be the sole exception? Wikipedia is not USApedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Why don't you read This on my userspace? One of the first things I put on the page. I'm not making an other stuff exists argument and neither are most of the serious respondents here. Please don't make bald accusations of close-mindedness where none exists. So I didn't know israel had a unified police force. So sue me. the correct response is to explain that misconception (which ought to be common from people who don't live in places with unified police forces), then make some sort of positive claim about notability vis a vis this police force. The second reference in the article attempts that, but doesn't go all the way. I'm willing to come half way on this but the burden of proof for notability is on the part of the author. Protonk (talk) 22:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Israeli Police has a unit devoted to public relations. The head of that unit is Cmdr. Raffi Yaffe (ניצב משנה רפי יפה), per the Police web page at [13] (the penultimate line). I'm sorry it's only in Hebrew, couldn't find its English counterpart. Within that unit, there are different positions. One of which is the foreign press spokesperson, Micky Rosenfeld. His rank, Chief Inspector, is a rather low officer rank, the third of nine (see [14]). I don't really think this justifies an article here, but I'm not voting as I'm not familiar enough with the issue of biographic article in the English Wiki (I'm more active on the Hebrew one). okedem (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for the delete - Stanley011, his existance has been verified, not any notability. Quantity of g-hits is not a sign of notability. Bill Carter might be quoted by one source which is then picked up by thousands of other online websites. It does not make him notable, and I would recommend a delete if an article for him was created as well. --Shuki (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your analogy to Bill Carter is highly disingenuous. Micky Rosenfeld has not just been mentioned by one source that is then picked up by "thousands of other online websites". He is frequently mentioned in the news in a variety of contexts and in a variety of sources. That simply is not the case with Bill Carter. Stanley011 (talk) 00:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the proof is in the pudding. If you have independent sources that focus on Mickey Rosenfeld then please reference them in the article. Please do not accuse other editors of arguing in bad faith. Rather, you should put that effort into improving the article. That will help convert people from delete to keep. As it stands you have one source mentioning the subject in a changing of the guard. The other source has him mentioned in the course of his role, which is to give statements to the press. If you have some wealth of sources heretofore hidden to us, please don't hide them. Put them in the article. Protonk (talk) 02:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Protonk (talk) 03:19, 30 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Slater

Non notable brief existence on reality show. Notability does not come from fleeting TV appearances. Paste (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SAVE THE ARTICLE. If 'fleeting TV appearances' do not cover notability then a large number of articles should then be nominated of which i could list MANY. Jeremy Speight had a very brief appearance of Airport and yet was given an article for that alone! Maz was notorious in the press and this was the start of the "nastys" popularity started at that time by "Nasty Nick" "Nasty Nigel" "Nasty Maz" and later Simon Cowell. The article includes an external link to an interview in which Maz states she has TV presenting roles planned in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KirstySutton (talk • contribs) 17:47, 19 April 2008 — KirstySutton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:32, 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, Davewild (talk) 17:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kirsty, please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and sign your posts by typing ~~~~. As much as I despise reality TV, this lady seems to be one of the more notable persons, so I !vote keep, per "notability is not temporary". The Dominator^Talk_Edits 18:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per notability guidelines and as per the fact that it has 4 good references and has good information. However, it would need to be cleaned up to make it a proper encyclopedic article. Razor flame 01:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article needs some expansion/cleanup, but the references and her being a regular on an entire series of a nationally-aired television program qualifies her in the notability department. B.Wind (talk) 04:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has suitable references. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:08, 3 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 keep. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NASL Soccer

Delete nn video game. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep did the nom actually go as far as do a single Google search on the topic? With a bit of help from WP:VG/M this could go featured. User:Krator (t c) 17:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Relevant-ish links... [15] [16] [17] [18]. There's also a (brief) digitpress.com review, but digitpress is blacklisted right now because someone kept spamming links to it; find it yourself if you're interested. Some current game sites mention it's existence at least (gamespy, ign, etc.), although they haven't reviewed it. Seeing how it's a 1979 release, establishing notability is probably going to be a little harder relative to a more modern release. That said - it was a professional game released by one of only a few video game companies at the time. It garnered some reviews, at least three of which made it into the links above (brief reviews, and by reviewers generally not considered most notable unfortunately). And the article was less than 2 days old when someone AfD'd it; possibly the creator or someone else can find something more relevant. That said - if nobody can find any other sources on this topic, I may change my opinion. I strongly doubt this will ever be able to be more than start class, but who knows. Coanda-1910 (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Coanda-1910. Razor flame 01:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep assuming someone volunteers to expand and source it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:13, 3 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 per lack of notability for this specific list. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

10 Greatest Norwegian Sporting Moments

Highly subjective list whose notability appears to be severely limited Ecoleetage (talk) 17:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It seems to be a list compiled by a non-notable TV show. The show doesn't seem notable; the list certainly isn't. If it's kept as a list that's not derived from this show, then it's inherently subjective. AnturiaethwrTalk 18:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move it to Topp 10 and make the article about the show, mentioning this list. Obviously such lists wouldn't be allowed on Wikipedia, but this is one that has been compiled by an independent source and the show seems to be somewhat notable. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 18:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move per The Dominator^Talk_Edits Mathmo ^Talk 08:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An attempt by me to find reliable sources independent of the subject (i.e. NRK), fails. Since the article lacks independent sources at assertain notability, both for the show and the list, it fails WP:Notability. Uless it can be established, Topp 10 may also fail notability unless sufficient independent sources can be found. Also, it seems rather non-encyclopedic list, since the list is created based on a non-random sampled collection of people, on a highly subjective matter. Arsenikk (talk) 09:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As a standalone list, it needs independent evidence of notability. There is none. If it were found to be notable, it would have to be moved to Topp 10's 10 Greatest Norwegian Sporting Moments --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It does not have any evidence of notability. Razor flame 01:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

broadcast on February 17 2007

Delete for all the reasons above. It can also be argued that the list itself could be a violation of copyright as well. B.Wind (talk) 04:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn and subjective. Additionally, as B.Wind states, might be copyright violation; any Norwegian experts who can say by clicking the external link in the article? Sure seems like it's lifted wholesale. Frank | talk 06:44, 3 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 Keep. Tiptoety ^talk 23:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Starbucks Center

Delete nothing to indicate that this 12-floor building, of which there are many in Seattle, is notable Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added a few sources. Largest building in Seattle, world headquarters for Starbucks and oldest/largest in the country to receive green certification. --Smashville^BONK! 20:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral "largest building in Seattle? Not even close! The Columbia/Bank of America Tower DWARFS the Starbucks center. The Starbucks center is large and internally has quite the impressive campus, but it is not the biggest by any means. I don't know where you got that info but it is waaay off. I have no problem keeping the article however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.68.67 (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sourced it in the article. And I just looked...300,000 square feet larger than the Columbia Center. But here are more [19] [20]According to this, it is the largest building west of the Mississippi. And according to the Columbia Center article on Wikipedia, the Columbia Center is at least 300,000 square feet smaller. --Smashville^BONK! 21:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "largest multi-tenanted building west of the Mississippi" is a somewhat less ambitious claim. See also List of largest buildings in the world#Largest area. The Warren G. Magnuson Health Sciences Building is over three times larger. --Dhartung | Talk 22:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think ~~largest building in Seattle~~ and headquarters of Starbucks is plenty. Not to mention that there are tons of sources...I just don't know enough about it to write it. --Smashville^BONK! 02:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem is that some of those comparative claims are either out of date or incompletely researched. --Dhartung | Talk 03:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sources establish notability. --Dhartung | Talk 22:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sourcing seems to establish notability. Bfigura ^(talk) 23:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The building housing one of the world's most high profile companies is notable in itself. The sources further establish notability. --Oakshade (talk) 16:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The building is quite old by Seattle standards and has housed two Fortune 500 companies in its history. Its size is also remarkable relative to its surroundings. White 720 (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oakshade. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:15, 30 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 unanimity of respondents (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 00:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BCB 106.6fm

Delete is every licensed radio station inherently notable? If so, this should stay; if not, this seems to fall below the WP:N level. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm pretty sure that licensed radio stations are inherently notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I just found proof of license at Ofcom [21] along with their website [22]. I don't have time to clean the article up now, but a UK community broadcasting license means they are considered a credible enough community organization. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TenPoundHammer and Gene93k. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 21:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep yes, the consensus is that every radio station with local content is notable. If this station were nothing more than a rebroadcaster, then no it wouldn't be notable. Based on the schedule posted on it's website, it has local programming.--Rtphokie (talk) 21:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per consensus of stations be notable if liscensed. Also, maybe update WP:OUTCOMES if this isn't already listed there Bfigura ^(talk) 23:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as licensed broadcast stations with local content are notable, article does need some attention. - Dravecky (talk) 02:00, 30 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 ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RUMS Rugby

Uh? The article appears to be talking about Royal Free and University College Medical School (which is notable and already has its own comprehensive article). There's no mention whatsoever of RUMS Rugby, which I'm guessing to be a uni team and ghits are limited to wiki mirrors and forums, the website doesn't work. There is nothing here to merge, and the school's article only mentions rugby as an EL, which is the same dead link. Creator is an SPA with a COI TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 17:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nom. If there was any info sourced to secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources, I'd say merge to Royal Free and University College Medical School, but since there is not, then not. Cirt (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. Doesn't make sense. userfy for the author if he asks, there may be an explanation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:29, 3 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 Keep per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). Clear consensus discusses that the subject is notable. WilliamH (talk) 19:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Poetry Library

Delete nothing to indicate that this library is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of things indicating notability. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hehe, amusing and straight to the point keep by Celarnor (talk · contribs). I also found lots of other potential sources in books and other sources in a quick search. However even if the article is to be a stub it desperately needs some work/cleanup. Cirt (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yeah, it's notable. Article just needs expansion and sources, that's all. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a couple of cats, a reference and a 'see also'. On investigation it is quite surprisingly notable. Still needs more work but there is plenty of scope. Ben MacDui ^Talk/Walk 10:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good God no! Strong keep - extremely notable. How can we have pages of guff on various Z-list celebrities and "reality" tv shows, but not on serious subjects like this? --MacRusgail (talk) 14:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable national library. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 09:00, 30 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 --JForget 22:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel V. Jones

I do not believe the article passes the requirements of WP:BIO and WP:NOT#NEWS. The minimal notability is strictly connected to the unusual aspects of the subject’s death. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-Notable.--RyRy5 (talk) 17:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and WP:BLP1E. JohnCD (talk) 17:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:BLP1E and not encyclopedic. Merely being in the news does not establish notability in an encyclopedic sense. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Hiding T 16:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BLP1E / WP:TABLOID. Guy (Help!) 15:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment no strong opinion on whether or not we should keep it (I'd probably favor deletion per NOTNEWS) but I must register strong objections to BLP1E as a concern. This man is dead. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:14, 1 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 Keep --JForget 22:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malaiyamaan Kaari

Tagged for sourcing for nearly 2 years... per WP:V we need to find reliable sources about this topic to continue including it in Wikipedia, 2 years with no verification this isn't a hoax is long enough. Rividian (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In brief searches unable to find sources. Article could always come back if sourced, but to allow this unsourced WP:OR article for this long is not the best way to go. Cirt (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Loads of sources at Google Books and Google Scholar. I've put a couple in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Phil -- searching with alternative spellings indicates that this is verifiable. utcursch | talk 14:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources have been found to verify the artice addressing the concern raised by the nominator. Davewild (talk) 20:40, 1 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) 20:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Debris (album)

non-notable album per AMG - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC.--RyRy5 (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as unsourced, no useful sourced info to speak of. Cirt (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:03, 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 No consensus, which defaults to Keep. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Play party (BDSM)

Tagged for sourcing for nearly 2 years... per WP:V we need to find reliable sources about this topic to continue including it in Wikipedia. Depending on the content of those sources, if found, the topic may or may not meet WP:N. But first someone needs to find some sources. --Rividian (talk) 16:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per cogent nom by Rividian (talk · contribs), no more need be said. Cirt (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The subject is dealt with in all the online sources I've looked at. I've added 1 reference from a respected printed source, it may not be much but the article is little more than a stub. (I have deleted 1 "fact" that seemed dangerously untrue). It would seem that play parties are an important part of the S&M scene and most of what is written is common knowledge for those involved. A few pictures would be nice! The reason given for deletion no longer holds. --Simon Speed (talk) 22:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- One half page of one non-academic book isn't really enough coverage to base an entire Wikipedia article on. It would justify a redirect somewhere... but more sourcing is needed to meet WP:N. --Rividian (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Remarkable - the nominator (who believed there were no references to be had) has found the reference in minutes of it being added (the half page is correct). The book is the only one I happen to own on BDSM. The subject of the article is neither a neologism nor (in context) obscure. --Simon Speed (talk) 23:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - There's no need to be a jerk... I said we needed to find sources, I didn't declare none existed. You still need to prove your claims like "the subject of the article is neither a neologism nor (in context) obscure" and "play parties are an important part of the S&M scene"... none of which your source does. Being a jerk to me doesn't do that... finding sources does. --Rividian (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oh dear, was I a bit rough? Still, you have made a rather curious choice of safeword:-) --Simon Speed (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a HOWTO guide. The source linked appears to not exactly be a scholarly assessment of the field, but more of a hotwtoguide itself. Protonk (talk) 06:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep standard in the field for a very long time, enough to be known by the less specialized. I dont really want to go poking around in the alt.sex archives but if someone does, the quality of the material could be improved considerably. DGG (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Valid topic, but needs expansion and referencing. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is the referencing? It still needs to be found before we can properly keep the article. So far two years of looking have yielded a half page of a book that's of little encyclopedic value --Rividian (talk) 21:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Most articles of this size have less referencing than this. A quick search on google will show that this not some obscure term. And though the book may be popular, Dr. Brame is an expert on the subject. You were able to check the reference within minutes of me finding it. If you actually want to improve the Wikipedia, I suggest you find a few more references rather than trying to delete the article. --Simon Speed (talk) 23:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Google web results are extremely unreliable and really irrelevent unless proven otherwise. Per WP:V the burden is on the people wanting to keep content to find sources... I'm nominating it for deletion because I've made a good-faith look for sources and found nothing compelling, and people in this AFD haven't found much either. Arguments that there are references out there, somewhere, aren't enough to keep an article in Wikipedia... actually finding those sources is what's needed. --Rividian (talk) 23:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the article stands it is sub standard but it appears clear it can be improved to a point of being worthy thus the keep. Mathmo ^Talk 04:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How? The only reference found, despite lots of looking, verifies 1.5 sentences. At best we have a verifiable dictionary definition. I am baffled at how people think this can be expanded despite no evidence of sources beyond a half page of an in-genre book. --Rividian (talk) 12:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP is not a HOWTO guide. Razor flame 01:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is original research, not based on reliable sources. If reliable sources are found, recreate the article, adding the sources first, and make sure content is derived from those sources. Note WP:NOTHOWTO. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:36, 3 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, article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 20:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Gadfly (magazine)

Notability not established for this quarterly magazine by undergraduate students. Damiens.rf 16:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All of the citations in the article are to the magazine itself, which raises not just notability but also possible COI issues as well. Cirt (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no attribution of notability to independent sources. But what does the rate of publication have to do with notability? --Dhartung | Talk 23:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not apparent, sorry. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:08, 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, article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 20:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palisade (magazine)

Notability not established for this six-times-a-year magazine. Damiens.rf 16:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unable to find significant discussion of the magazine in secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 17:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The magazine is a new publication from the Hudson Reporter, and the dearth of secondary references is most likely due to 1) its relative newness, and 2) that it doesn't at this time have a significant online presence, although it does have a significant print presence. Mistermind (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable magazine. Qworty (talk) 02:46, 30 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. If the references, found not to support the article, need to be reused, contact me, or another administrator for retrieval. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hip-hop magazines

This article consists of original research about the importance of "Magazines" in the hip-hop culture. At beast, I believe this article can be transformed in List of hip-hop magazines, if someone can take the time of finding some sources and removing the original research. Damiens.rf 16:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The entire thing is one big WP:OR mess. If there were anything notable that was properly sourced, then I would say merge those bits into Hip hop, but since there's not, then not. Cirt (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cirt. Razor flame 01:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - take your pick: original research or editorial essay. Either way, it doesn't belong here. Also, article is improperly named per WP:NAME. B.Wind (talk) 04:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's lots of references down the bottom, but the content is not based on them. If this is true, then delete. Would anyone want the references to help create a new article? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:40, 3 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. Sandstein (talk) 09:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gigi Mon Mathew

References include only three links, which all contain almost the exact same text. There's not wide enough coverage on this person either. A Google Search comes up with only those articles and some other links linking back to Wikipedia mirrors. I've tried to get more sources for verification, but have been unable to find any. vi5in^[talk] 16:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Similar to Vivin (talk · contribs), I was also unable to find significant coverage in other WP:RS/WP:V sources. Cirt (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any significant notability here. WP:BLP1E comes to mind. Powers ^T 21:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is clearly bad faith nomination by User:Vivin. The reprisal initiated when the moment I reverted his pov pushing on Nair article. The details are here. Ok coming to the point, I’d already added my rationale removing prod template added by the same user at articles talk page. Please note that notability is judged by coverage in reliable sources per WP:N and WP:RS. In this case, three main references from Middle East’s reputable sources such as tradearabia.com & albawaba.com etc. Apart from these, it was published by local news papers such as Malayala Manorama, Mathrubhoomy etc. The news was an item by a TV channel that during its Gulf news special telecast program. Also note that we have dozens of Wikipedia article created for Lottery winners. We have indeed a Category:Lottery_winners for that also. Many of these winners don’t have any prior notability at all. They are all notable because of they got bagged a huge amount of jackpot. If User:Vivin’s rationale is reasonable, all these articles also should be fleshed-out. Another reason to keep is that it is one the rarest news in its nature, as it is the biggest prize ever offered in the UAE by a publicly owned nationalized bank on promotion of their credit cards. A first and last promotion and an unusual incident in its nature. Therefore, we have plenty of strong reasons to keep it. The rationale provided by the nominator (User:Vivin) is that the References include only three links, which all contain almost the exact same text. There's not wide enough coverage on this person either. He is a lottery winner and he is notable only through this rarest contest therefore what else news you need about him? The article doesn’t have any original research as all materials written with the support of available references per WP:TRUTH. It is a real TRUTH whether you believe it or not and no matter whether you like him or not.Thanks. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 04:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, winning a contest, lottery, etc. does not establish notability. WP:BLP1E. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then what about we have the Category:Lottery_winners. These all articles should be tagged to AFD as well. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 10:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good reason to keep anything; also, if any of those is in Wikipedia solely for reason of having won a lottery, unless they otherwise have a broader claim to notability, their articles should be deleted too per WP:BLP1E. Thanks for the tip, I am going to have a look through those articles and see if any should be taken to AFD. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not solely for reason of having won a lottery. It is because of its contest nature and biggest prize ever offered in the UAE by a publicly owned nationalized bank on promotion of their credit cards. Probably the first such type of contest in the world. . Your comment on OTHERSTUFFEXISTS I am much aware of that full page and I used to quote it often. That is the reason why I called user:Vivin as a non-notableguru per WP:JNN. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 10:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By my math, he won less than a million dollars. The fact that the contest was the "biggest prize ever offered in the UAE by a publicly owned nationalized bank on promotion of their credit cards" is an awful lot of qualifications to achieve the "biggest prize" description. If it was the biggest prize ever in the UAE, period, that might be something, but people win <US$1 million prizes relatively routinely. Every such win is the "biggest" if you add enough qualifiers to it, but that doesn't make them notable. Powers ^T 14:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping in mind that if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable. The math you’d given may have changed by this time as the value of the winning amount also would have changed (Note that the contest held in 2002 per references). It is not an issue that whether he won less than a million dollars or 100 million dollar as we don't have any particular guidelines about it (?) (WP:IAR). Tell me why the major local and Gulf news papers had given importance on this incident. Why did they publish it? Because of its importance, the rarest contest style and biggest amount of its own. I am still echoing my words that the biggest prize ever offered in the UAE by a publicly owned nationalized bank on promotion of their credit cards is not an awful qualification. It is a fact and truth, it’s an information a real truth. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 05:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing the truth of it, I'm saying that when you have to add that many qualifiers to make something "the biggest", it really isn't "the biggest". It's like saying we need an article on "the tallest man in New York State without a glandular problem". Powers ^T 12:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, the sources currently in the article are of questionable value for showing notability. They all appear to be press releases, or at least heavily based on a press release. Look at the similarities among them -- there is no way the three of them were all produced independently. Powers ^T 12:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because since the material and contest incident was in a stub sort of stuff, the three different materials look almost same. It is not press release. It is news published by majour Arabian onlines and printed papers. It also published by local (Malayalam) news papers in Kerala too. Why? Because of its rarest contest style and first of its kind in the world. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 04:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, your argument on tallest man in the newyork state, an article shouldn’t be created. But if he is the tallest man in the world, an article definitely be crated. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 05:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Hiding T 16:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pretty much a WP:CSD#A7 candidate, in fact. Absolutely no evidence that this person will be the subject of any independent biographical sources going forward. Guy (Help!) 15:16, 30 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 we don't delete articles to improve their tone.. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kuoni Travel

Reads far too much like an advertisement for my liking, but i'd nominated for AfD instead of PROD to see other opinions on the matter. Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 16:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A few brief mentions in news sources, but most of those appear to be press releases, advertising/publicity, or just not enough significant discussion of the subject to warrant notability. Cirt (talk) 17:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Come on guys, this is a hundred-year-old company which is a household name in the UK. How are these 775 Google News hits "a few brief mentions in news sources"? And what about these 225 books (which take the reliable source count to a nice round 1000) including this one which says, "the market leader for long-haul packages is Swiss-owned Kuoni Travel, with about a fifth of the market in the UK"? If you think some of these references should be in the article then please feel free to add them - there's a tab called "edit this page" that lets you do this. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but.... stubbify or otherwise get rid of most of the article, which is unencyclopedic advertising-like material. It does seem to be easily notable given all of the coverage and size/age of the company. I took a stab at fixing the article[23] but self-reverted to allow people to weigh in on this discussion first. Wikidemo (talk) 23:40, 28 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 and salt ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DjBOI

missing or insufficient individual or music-connected notability; searches are self-referencing back to other articles here that are likewise suspect - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Speedied and recreated numerous times: I am using AFD to reinforce a solid reason for permanent deletion. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spam. Support speedily as such. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Anthony Rupert (talk) 16:41, 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, consensus is the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 20:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lynette Spano

A contested speedy. non-notable biography JulesN Talk 15:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, POV filled, unsourced personal-advertisement (in the case that it's not an hoax). --Damiens.rf 15:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only found a few passing mentions in secondary sources, and the article at present reads like one big spam/advertising WP:OR violation. Cirt (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Though it's touching how much someone really admires her, there is no indication of notability here. My own search turned up a few, minor mentions of no real consequence. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Non-notable, advertising. Actually, the creator of the article adding a hangon does not make this a contested speedy, the speedy should have been kept on and the afd tag wasn't needed. Corvus cornix_talk 22:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Corvus is correct. WP:PROD tags may be removed by creators, but WP:CSD tags require an administrator to rule. --Dhartung | Talk 23:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, marginal notability for SCI Consulting, perhaps, but not for Spano individually. --Dhartung | Talk 23:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, looks like there's also some COI editting happening. - JulesN Talk 08:36, 29 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 as failing WP:MUSIC nancy ^(talk) 15:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spill (U.S. band)

Appears to be a nonnotable band — I couldn't see any criteria in WP:MUSIC that it passed. Nyttend (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could not find any acceptable sources to speak of in quick searches. Cirt (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 07:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE.WP:MUSIC states that the band must "contain at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable". Keith Reber, the drummer, went on to play bass for the band A Dozen Furies (signed to Maverick label and former members of the band Unloco). Keith and the band were on tour with Ozzfest. Ryan Cabrera, who is signed to Atlantic Records and recorded his first record with the Goo Goo Doll's John Resnek, recorded backup vocals on Spill's "No Work Tomorrow" album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipnotknown (talk • contribs) 00:41, 30 April 2008
Comment – I searched Google News archives and also a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, and I could find no sources to add to the article. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- The band meets the criteria established by WP:MUSIC. (Comments partially removed by user) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipnotknown (talk • contribs) 04:09, 30 April 2008

I was not searching for recent news. The database I looked in has newspaper articles back to the early 1990s. Also, the drummer going on to play with A Dozen Furies might not help with regard to notability since the article on that band was deemed not notable enough for its own article; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Dozen Furies (2nd nomination). And a notable artist (Cabrera) singing back-up is not part of WP:MUSIC criteria. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE. - A Dozen Furies was a signed band. Keith Reber was a member of that band. He was formerly a member of Spill. That fits the criteria. It is verifiable and Spill should not be deleted. Here it is, again. WP:MUSIC: Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable. A Dozen Furies was on MTV and they were signed. They toured with Ozzfest. I'm not understanding how they are not "notable"? Also not sure why there is such a witchhunt over this... A Ryan Cabrera fan would probably be interested to know of other works, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipnotknown (talk • contribs) 15:45, 30 April 2008

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 (non-admin closure). -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 15:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Davis

Skateboarder that doesn't assert anything compliant with WP:BIO. asenine ^t/_c\^r (fc: f2abr04) 15:03, 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 Boldly redirected to Draco (genus), non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gliding lizard

Already has an existing article, Draco (genus). E Wing (talk) 14:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BOLD redirect to Draco (genus) asenine ^t/_c\^r (fc: f2abr04) 15:04, 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. Wizardman 20:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Schofield

Contested prod. Entirely non-notable actress whose only claim to fame is being the daughter of someone more notable. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Merge anything useful into her father's article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless rewritten to assert notability. Notability is not conferred, but if she's featured in any major productions the article could be rewritten in such a way that I'd switch my !vote. Any article that contains the cracking phrase "It is not currently known what she is doing." is always on to a loser in my book! LOL! -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 15:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThis article is worthy of being on Wikipedia as she is an actress in her own right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.182.223 (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC) — 84.66.182.223 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment - if you have reliable sources to prove that she is notable then mention this in the article (citing the sources of course!) -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 15:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could not find significant independent discussion focused on the individual herself, as per above what's already been stated, above. Cirt (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable in her own right. Corvus cornix_talk 22:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability to come. --Dhartung | Talk 23:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, Merge it with the article on her father Andrew Schofield —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.32.149 (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Like someone else has said merge it with the article Andrew Schofield who is her dad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.124.239 (talk) 08:51, 28 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, content was copy and pasted from website.--Otterathome (talk) 21:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Midnight Palace

My first instinct was to nominate for speedy deletion per CSD:A7. Judging from the quotes offered and the awards stated on their page, though, makes me wonder. I'm listing for AfD to get some more eyes on it. If kept, it needs a lot of NPOV rephrasing. Plvekamp (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - reads like an advert, there are no sources and the fact that a huge chunk of the main paragraph comes under the heading "The site as described on its "About Us" page:" leads me to believe it's a big WP:COPYVIO! -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 14:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Agree w/ JediLofty (talk · contribs) about the blatant copyvio issues. Cirt (talk) 17:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything in news sources to indicate notability. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:12, 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 Non-admin closure: speedily deleted as A7 no assertions of notability. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jaime Castro

Appears to be nothing more than another glorified blogger. The editor that wrote the article appears to be working his way through anyone with a remote connection to Columbia and while WP:ATHLETE allows for anyone that has participated in a sport at a pro or Olympic level, I don't think this means that blog journalists that write about that level are automatically notable enough. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 14:49, 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 as a hoax. I have indefinitely blocked Melissagoethe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Linlikai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and LoneWolfSHYBOY (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for disruptive meat- or sockpuppetry. Sandstein (talk) 09:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eiiris, K. Kagami

Near as I can tell, this is a hoax. I can find no mention of this person on Google, despite her impressive accomplishments. The only reachable source is in Japanese, and a translation doesn't show her name in the article anywhere. TheMile (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with TheMile (talk · contribs), could not find any sources at all. Cirt (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with the nomination. Could not find any sources mentioning her anywhere. Google search produces nothing on this person. Similarly, a search at the École Normale Supérieure website, where she is supposedly a postdoc, produces nothing either [24]. A search at MIT website where she was supposedly a student also produces zero results[25]. Looks like a hoax article. Nsk92 (talk) 02:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look-up my contributions by clicking at the link above. You will see that I have been an editor since August 2007 and have well over 500 edits on multiple topics.Nsk92 (talk) 12:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have removed the SPA tag on you, you've been here nearly since mid 2007.--Phoenix -wiki 13:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have presented my case under the discussion tab in the article regarding translation and where I have provided information how additional sources may be found on top of what is given. The quality of inquiry put into this case has been unsatisfactory in my opinion; as evidentiated from the messages in agreement of the nominator, only quick searches in English have been made - if results could've materialized on a quick search, I will not have gone through the trouble of painstaking collation. The nominator has also employed hasty claims on his educational status, an irrelevant and unproven premise as part of his claim. I have also falsified his error of equivocation and shown his lack of understanding in the field under the discussion tab; I recommend looking into his reliability. I also note a lack of inquiry standards in the search on the MIT site; I do not recall MIT publicizing its class rolls, nor do academicians practise the use of first name (note, the subject in concern follows Japanese naming convention) in publications - in fact, this is often abbreviated. The members of the inquiry have not displayed reliability in their understanding of the inner workings in this field. However, I must accept that the claim on École Normale Supérieure might have been a hasty mistake on my part - I remember it was one of the Grandes écoles, but cannot ascertain if it was ENS, École centrale Paris, or whichever. Thanks. Melissagoethe (talk) 06:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC) — Melissagoethe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Regarding MIT. They even have a special "People" search tab which allows to look for the names of all people affiliated with the university, including students. Here is am example:[26]. Moreover, many students have their personal webpages, again, see example here[27]. The MIT main search produces nothing for "Eiiris"[28]. It gives some hits for "Kagami"[29], but none are about her. In general, the burden of proof, per WP:V, is on you to produce positive and verifiable evidence of the subject's existence and notability. At the moment you have done neither. Nsk92 (talk) 11:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "This article is about a "child prodigy", not a "world-reknowned scientist". It is therefore not unexpected that one could not easily obtain articles written by the subject of the Wiki entry. Also, while overly elaborate with his verbosity at times, the author of the article did mention, quite reasonably, that if information on Ms. Eiiris is readily available throughout the 'net he would not have found the need to post the information here. The ambiguity of the source could be heavily disputed due to it being Japanese, but let's get a fluent or established translator to verify the source before deleting the article. Afterall, lets practice a bit of WikiLove, shall we? A community-driven encyclopedia should have more room for the benefit of doubt for fellow contributors. Linlikai (talk) 07:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC) — Linlikai (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment I would submit that a child prodigy with these accomplishments would gather significantly more media attention than the typical string theorist. TheMile (talk) 12:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 2 Google hits, both of which are to Wikipedia. Hoax. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree with Linlikai (talk · contribs). This is definitely not a hoax. The sources may be scarce, as she is not widely-known, but I have seen the professor in person, and she is a modest person (it is not unexpected that people know little about her),very young, very intelligent. I think she deserves this feature in recognition of her prodigious feats. I can testify that she has taught topology, and once gave a talk on ultracold atoms at a university faculty. I have even attended the said lecture during my internship at CERN... However, although I heard that she had completed her doctoral thesis, I am not certain if she is at École Normale Supérieur at the moment. Here, I believe that Melissagoethe (talk · contribs) met Wikipedia's ethical code for being honest about the truthfulness of this part of her article. LoneWolfSHYBOY (talk) 10:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)— LoneWolfSHYBOY (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

What you or anybody else have heard somewhere does not count. The principal policy on Wikipedia is verifiability, WP:V. You must provide verifiable evidence that the subject exists and is notable. Otherwise the article has no business being on Wikipedia. Nsk92 (talk) 11:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My delete vote, posted yesterday, had been REMOVED by User:Linlikai. Here is the diff to prove it[30]. Such behaviour is absolutely unacceptable! If you have something to say, say it here, and provide comments below other people's votes. But you have absolutely no right to remove other people's votes. I am reposting my original vote, with the original time-stamp, below. Nsk92 (talk) 10:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am sorry to know that vote had been deleted under a discussion of my article. As I had replied to your post in my original post, I have relocated it above mine. Melissagoethe (talk) 11:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Challenge: Credence of User:Nsk92 I just also noted those who have come to my defense had been given SPA tags which I fairly preserved, but that User:Nsk92 has removed SPA tags against his favour. He has earlier mentioned that "[such] behaviour is absolutely unacceptable!". I will like to challenge his case on the basis that he has practised hypocrisy! Melissagoethe (talk) 12:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Edit: As per his standards, I have reset the tags.[reply]

Now, that is rich! First of all, it was not me who removed the SPA tag that you placed on my comment but rather User:KleenupKrew, here is the diff[31]. Second, you have got some nerve accusing me of being an SPA. Anyone can look-up my contributions here[32]. I have been a registered user since August 2007 and have over 500 edits on multiple topics. What about you?? Nsk92 (talk) 12:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A cursory look at Nsk92's contributions shows that a SPA tag for him is absurd. TheMile (talk) 13:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd like to point out that the only keep votes (from Linlikai, Melissagoethe, and LoneWolfSHYBOY) are from brand new accounts that have only contributed to articles concerning Ms. Eiiris, and as such are very likely meat/sockpuppets. I also find it suspicious how brand new users are showing such a thorough grasp of Wikipedia bureaucracy. TheMile (talk) 12:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, it's been taken to ANI. They look like sockpuppets to me.--Phoenix -wiki 13:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The AN/I discussion is here. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —TangentCube, Dialogues 12:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong delete it looks like a hoax, though there was the possiblity that it wasn't. The above SPAs have proved beyond all doubt that this is a hoax.--Phoenix -wiki 13:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definite hoax. Not a single hit in Google Scholar, not even as a citation in another article. You don't get to be a physics postdoc at the ENS without a single verifiable publication in an international journal. Hqb (talk) 13:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You can't trust the translator programs on Japanese names, so I went through the 2003 results manually. In my opinion, none of those names could plausibly be read as Eiirisu Kagami.Kww (talk) 13:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hoax - no real sources exist - this looks like an attempt by a student to puff themselves up. --87.115.8.27 (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hoax or not, I can't find any "accomplishments" mentioned in the article. EraserGirl (talk) 14:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ISI turns up no hits for the author Kagami EK, can't verify claims that she started publishing at age 14. Pete.Hurd (talk) 14:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, it looks like Linlikai, Melissagoethe, and LoneWolfSHYBOY are sockpuppets or meat puppets. An arbitration comitee ruling states that

For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets.

So the three above users are to be treated as one user with sockpuppets. Linlikai has removed others comments saying this article should be deleted and Melissagoethe has added {{spa}} tags to the comments of a user who clearly isn't a single purpose account, but who happens to disagree with him.--Phoenix -wiki 13:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drive a stake through its heart and bury it under a crossroads'. The article tells us: With a measured IQ of 174, she holds membership at various IQ societies, and is the youngest in history to hold the position of Provost of Natural Sciences in the [[high IQ society|Binary-Computable Deconstruction Society]], an invitation-only high IQ society that operates within the [[World Intelligence Network]]<ref>[http://www.iqsociety.org/intro.htm World Intelligence Network website]</ref>. Note how the ludicrously named "Binary Computable Deconstruction Society" is merely a link to high IQ society, in which it's not mentioned. And further: Kagami is the youngest gold medalist in the Japan Mathematical Olympiad to date, emerging as one of the top scorers at Japan’s Spring Mathematical Training Camp national team selection for the [[International Mathematical Olympiad]] 2003.<ref>[http://www.mmjp.or.jp/jmo/laureler/imo/record_imo.html Eiiris and Japan selections for International Mathematical Olympiad 2003 (in Japanese)]</ref> Really? Then she wasn't close enough to the top to be chosen, as her name doesn't appear in that page. Enough already? -- Hoary (talk) 15:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remark: Disturbingly similat to a hoax article on Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Ishahwright: claims of incredibly high IQ at low ages, membership at various IQ societies, and remarkable achievements that should be splashed everywhere including Guiness Book of Records, but they don't give a single hit on google --Enric Naval (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced; possibility of a hoax. A child prodigy who earned a Ph.D at MIT at age 16 would certainly be covered in American news media; there is nothing. EdJohnston (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the prosecution's evidence is convincing, the defence's behaviour is confirmation. JohnCD (talk) 19:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perhaps enough, but still. -- Taku (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete per nom. This is clearly a hoax and if not the American Media certainly has become lax. Rgoodermote 20:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but if reliable sources that clearly establish the controversial facts in the article turn up it's ok to recreate the article. Fg2 (talk) 04:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Meteorological alert. Could this be a snowstorm? -- Hoary (talk) 06:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The only keep votes are from two socks and from the article creator, and their reasoning is backed with no policy, so this is a clear "no consensus" :D --Enric Naval (talk) 22:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No Eiiris exists on WorldCat, and the Kagami who wrote mathematics in Japanese is Tetsuo Kagami. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly a hoax. Is it snowing yet? Edward321 (talk) 02:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have been unable to find ay paper by any Eiiris in arXiv. I doubt very much if someone would be a postdoc in a notable intstitute of higher education without having their name on at least one paper. DGG (talk) 03:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. And block socks. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 16:22, 29 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 - Since the argument is notability the sources provided at the end of the discussion are the deciding factor. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skyler Stone

Please Delete Non notable. Aside from his whopping six episode stint on cable tv he has done nothing worthwhile. Aside from that the article itself is EXTREMELY poorly written, seeming as if it were composed by the subject's little brother. JeanLatore (talk) 14:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Currently the guy isn't much more than a criminal who was able to get himself on TV, the refs I could find are all blogs talking about his show and his IMDB file shows him playing the third guy from the left. My dilemma comes when I think that had this been written while his show was on the air, we probably would have accepted that as notability, and he is still working and has a film in production. Just because I think the guy's a creep doesn't mean he shouldn't have a WP article, WP:IDONTLIKEIT and all. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 15:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, however the things he is doing now per IMDB are not notable. The 2005 six-episode " Con" was his only marginally notable venture and we already have an article on that. The show was notable, the person behind the show was not, and certainly is currently not. Delete.JeanLatore (talk) 02:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being badly written isn't really a reason to delete an article. I'm on my way out the door now but, saying weak keep for now. Article claims notability in various sections. And not all his roles looked "minor" but honestly haven't digested it yet. If it is still here on Monday I'll have a more indepth look. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you commenting on this AFD when you admit that you hadn't even closely reviewed or thought about the article in question. I caution that the above opinion be given little weight. JeanLatore (talk) 02:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not say I hadn't looked. I said from my non-indepth look that the article claims notability in a number of areas (which it does by pointing out at least one movie role (which is more than just 6 episodes on some tv show). I'm sorry if you took offense at my pointing out that poorly written isn't a reason for deletion and that you disagree with my honest interpretation of what is in the article. I'll gladly enter into a discussion on my talk page of my general reasoning behind bothering to comment on the AfD if you wish and you are willing to remain civil throughout any discussion. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He is pointing out the exact same thing I would point out even prior to looking at the Article. The nom is attempting to use the quality of the writing to influence the !votes, when it clearly is not a viable reason. Leaving the faulty reasoning aside, the question becomes; Is 6 episodes enough to confer Notability? It does not matter how long ago thoes episodes were as notability is not fleeting. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 20:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one really has made a case for support at all after 5 days on the AFD list. I think the presumption to Delete has not been rebutted at all. Closing admin, plz. take note, thank you sir. DeleteJeanLatore (talk) 14:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I believe it has been pointed out that there is little merit to the Nomination Rational, and no clear consensus to delete. I would presume the norm is to default to Keep in this type of situation. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments like this indicate a lack of understanding of deletion policy. In order for something to be deleted, there has to be a consensus to do so. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Having your own television series and references to show it assert notability. He has also appeared in other venues other than Comedy Central. Quality of the article is not particularly relevant, as that can be improved through regular editing processes. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:17, 1 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 speedy delete. Acroterion _(talk) 14:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic ku

E Wing (talk) 14:25, 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 keep per WP:SNOW. Article already more than sufficiently referenced. Take any objections about specific sources to the Talk page. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 04:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Air Traffic Simulation Network

Poorly sourced, and makes no verifiable claim of notability -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 14:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An article has been written about this network in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette [33]. The fact that it has 100,000 registered users and the fact that it is used by aspiring pilots at home seems to make this quite a unique project. Alexa confirms that it has been among the top 60,000 websites in terms of traffic, suggesting that it is quite popular. Cambrasa confab 14:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Where are you coming up with this figure of "100,000 registered users"? There are no reliable sources in the article that mention this. Getting a mention in a local paper isn't a fantastic way to assert notability, but is it mentioned in the article? -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 15:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - This figure (actually 109,000) is from the article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (see above). The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette is a large newspaper with a circulation similar to The Independent (a major UK national newspaper). I would certainly deem it a reliable source. Also, Vatsim didn't simply get a brief mention, but a whole article was written about it. Cambrasa confab 15:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - if that's the case, then why is it not cited in the article? The article still isn't really asserting its notability with reliable sources, is it? -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 15:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - What do you mean, it's not cited? Haven't you read this reference? Cambrasa confab 17:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd add the sources into the article if I knew anything about the subject, but I don't. Without question the Post-Gazette isn't just a local paper: it's one of America's top newspapers, and quite sufficient to be a reliable source. Nyttend (talk) 15:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - is it really? The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article merely confirms that it is "the largest daily newspaper serving metropolitan Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA". -- JediLofty

^{User ¦ Talk} 15:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has a circulation of 213,000 a day. That certainly makes it one of the larger newspapers.--Cambrasa confab 17:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep We've tried deleting the article for VATSIM THREE times? Google scholar link to all the published papers about vatsim, coverage from the top blog for academic gaming researchers, some more, throwaway comment from wired's blog, google books including a mention in Ted Castronova's book about virtual worlds. Wow. Never thought this would come up for deletion. Protonk (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm also going to challenge the afd nominator's claim that the article presents no notability. The article right now is unchanged from when the deletion message went up. At that time, VATSIM was referenced in a major scholarly work on the subject of virtual worlds (ted castronova's book), an anthology of economics and technology articles, the WORLD's premier business newspaper (WSJ), one of the most popular technology magazines (wired), and an independent book on microsoft flight simulator. How did all that get ignored and the article's notability somehow come down to whether or not Pittsburgh's paper of record was big enough? Explain to me what definition of notability merits this article's deletion. Protonk (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not of major notability - but it is notable in it's own right. - Rehnn83 ^Talk 18:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - How many times are we going to keep going around and around on this article? Since when are the Wall Street Journal and Wired not notable? Tim (talk) 21:45, 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 Delete (non-admin closure), deleted by Secret. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 15:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invicta Roadsters

Non-notable club. I could not find secondary sources about this club apart from directory listings. Cambrasa confab 14:02, 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, article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compound Radio

Advertisement for a recently created "internet radio". Damiens.rf 13:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No RS, they should come back at us after the press notices them. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 15:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree w/ Legotech (talk · contribs), no independent sources to speak of, and the article reads like blatant COI/advertising/publicity press release. Cirt (talk) 18:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:15, 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 notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Power Render

Article has been tagged for notability since Sept 07. Couldn't find any reliable third party sources to solve notability issues. Additionally, article seems to be an exact copy of promotional material on the Power Render website here. I haven't speedied it (G11 or G12) as the article has been around for some time. Gazimoff ^Write _Read 13:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an ad, non notable software, or copy vio your choice. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 15:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Found a few brief mentions in sources, but those appear to also read like press releases/publicity. Cirt (talk) 18:04, 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, article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 19:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK Finance

Advertisement for a financial company. I don't think the notability is established in the article. Damiens.rf 13:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A small company like millions of others that doesn't stand out for anything in particular, and doesn't appear in the news. Noy even the article says why this finance company is notable (apart from going bankrupt). Cambrasa confab 14:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an advert. Doesn't even have Carol Vorderman advertising it! :-) Had a quick hunt through a variety of news sources, and found nothing to indicate why the company would be notable. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 14:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per good rationale outlined by Cambrasa (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 18:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. All that I can find is the administrator's announcement of a meeting of creditors which appeared in the London Gazette, so I'm not going to argue that this company is notable or should be kept. I think, though, that style issues such as "advertisement" aren't in themselves reason to delete, and that they shouldn't be used as arguments in favor of deletion. --Eastmain (talk) 06:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per earlier observations. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I actually created this article. As it happens, the company is now bankrupt. JFBurton (talk) 18:12, 1 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.

I have discounted the following opinions in closing this discussion:

keep: Biophys ("criticism is good" is not an inclusion criterium), JeremyMcCracken and Everyking (WP:USEFUL).
delete: Jtrainor (unclear how this is a WP:POVFORK as it addresses all candidates, also such articles usually need editing and not deletion), Southern Texas (NPOV concerns can be addressed by editing), Biruitorul (WP:NOT#PAPER and see Jtrainor), Steve Dufour (no policy-based argument), Fallenfromthesky (WP:PERNOM).

This leaves us with 12 "delete" opinions, most of which note that this article needlessly duplicates material covered in the articles about the individual candidates or campaigns. The 7 remaining "keep" opinions, on the other hand, argue that the subject is notable in and of itself, and that a dedicated article can cover it more neutrally and in a form that is more useful to the reader.

On the basis of applicable policy and precedent, I find the "delete" opinion to be more persuasive. The principal problem with this page is that it does not rely on a reliable, common standard of "controversy" or "attack", which makes WP:SYNTH and WP:WEIGHT problems almost unavoidable. Also, the scope and importance of the 2008 US election is a major challenge for our limited resources of volunteer editors. I agree with some of the people commenting here that consideration should be given to this: the smaller the number of individual articles we use to cover the election, the less time we spend on maintenance, discussion and general drama; and the more eyes we have on the articles that matter. Under these circumstances, election-related content should not be forked unless e.g. size considerations render it absolutely necessary.

On both a numerical basis and on the basis of the strength of argument, therefore, consensus is to delete this article. Sandstein (talk) 08:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 United States presidential election controversies and attacks

This article is completely unnecessary and inappropriate. Separate "controversies" and "criticisms" and "attacks" articles are violations of WP:NPOV, WP:Content forking, and WP:Criticism. If these controversies and attacks have played a notable role in the campaign, they should be included in the campaign articles for those candidates. (And some of these entries are decades old and have had no role or impact on the current campaign.) All such separate "controversies" articles and sections were previously eliminated for all the 2008 presidential candidates — see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections#Status of "controversies" pages for that effort. This doesn't belong either. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Articles such as this are simply laundry lists of grievances against the candidates, stripping them of context and presenting an undue weight concern. All of the issues addressed in this article are already extensively linked at the candidates' biography articles and (where they are currently relevant) their campaign articles. We don't need another fork that serves only to foment MOAR DRAMAH. Horologium (talk) 13:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a fork redundant to 2008 United States presidential election. It seems hard to swallow that controversies and attacks would not be covered in an article about a political campaign. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can be discussed in the various detailed articles already dealing with the election. Cirt (talk) 18:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is useful as a 'List' article. Various controversy articles already exist, and not all can be satisfactorily included in a campaign article. For example, the article about Insight and Fox News spreading the Muslim smear about Obama was bounced around from one article to another (including its own) and then quietly deleted. That left no audit trail, so the information couldn't even be merged into any existing article. We DON'T need to repeat that debacle. The current Obama/Ayers 'connection' is another example. It's not really relevant to either person (as it doesn't actually exist), but the story ITSELF has become the story. It shouldn't be addressed at length in any of the Obama articles, or in the Ayers article, so it needs another place. People look to Wikipedia for information, and we need to figure out how and where to supply it. Simply deleting the information (claiming it was 'merged') isn't working. Flatterworld (talk) 18:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Ayers-Obama thing should be included in Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. It would get placed into the chronology according to when it happened during the campaign, and the description of it would be in the proper context, e.g. it could discuss whether publicity and attacks about the connection had an impact on the Pennsylvania primary results. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The campaign article can discuss the impact of this (and other controversies) on the PA primary, and reference the section in this article. Flatterworld (talk) 22:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a POV/NPOV issue imo. The people behind these controversies may have a strong POV, but we are providing a NPOV article. (See Wikidemo's comment below.) Flatterworld (talk) 22:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject of the article (controversies and attacks that occur in the course of a Presidential election) is highly notable. There are books and articles about this subject all the time. An industry has grown around it, and it is a big part of what makes a political campaign, and what makes the press run as well. Given that we have a notable subject that we've agreed to cover, it's best base the answer on results, not sentiment. When we put the full context of a controversy about a candidate into the candidate's article it often becomes a POV issue because the subject does not often fit. The people stirring up these controversies do so in order to score points against the candidates, and they win those points when they succeed in elevating impertinences about a candidate to the level of public awareness that they get into an article describing the candidate. We become the tool of attack politics. The candidate's own (alleged, often unproven) faults are typically a highly partisan issue, a matter of analysis and judgment, and quite often disputed. To cover the other side, and shine the light on the people doing the attacking, and then the defending, becomes even more argumentative and diverges further from relevance to the article in main. In this article, however, we cover neutrally that the controversy has taken place, how, and among whom. One can cover the genesis of a controversy in an NPOV way, whatever candidate one supports, because the article is about the controversy, not the candidate. As a result this article is orderly, with very little edit warring or dispute that marks most other current politics articles here. The article is not simply a fork from these articles, it is a child article of the main 2008 article (one of several, perhaps dozens), each on a different subject. Accordingly, in some cases it merely points a link to the existing material; in others it covers a different aspect or in more depth, or an issue that does not properly belong in the other articles. Wikidemo (talk) 19:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a child article of United States presidential election, 2008 since there's no link from there to here. The article also doesn't cover any of the candidates who ran in 2008 but are no longer in the race — you think Romney, Giuliani, Edwards and the others didn't suffer from controversies and attacks? Yet paradoxically, for McCain and Clinton it does include past biographical controversies that have had no role at all in the current campaign — Keating Five, cattle futures, Whitewater, Rose Law Firm, Travelgate ... none of these have been a factor. So the article has no coherence at all; it's just a random dumping ground. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I've addressed all three issues. I've linked the article from the main Presidential campaign - it's obviously related. It's no surprise that the active candidates are getting addressed first but for goodness sakes, the article is only nine days old! How many articles reach GA status immediately? We expand incomplete articles rather than delete them. But for good measure I've added a section on Rudy Giuliani and see no reason why all major candidates cannot be included. Time will tell but Whitewater has come up as an issue for Clinton in this campaign (see the Rezko section under Obama), and I think Keating Five has come up for McCain already. In the end, issues that are not raised as new controversies in this election cycle don't belong here. There has to be some sourced context as to why it is relevant to the story of how controversy and attack politics play out in this campaign. Wikidemo (talk) 00:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article should be kept. It should also avoid personal attacks been focus on controversies directly tied to the 2008 presidential elections versus on the POV inserts regards not presidential controversies surrounding the candidates. This article is a great way to cover notable material without have the material take over the candidates biographies and presidential campaign articles. In favor of keeping. It is me i think (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hard to see how this is any more appropriate than a controversy page for a specific candidate. Grsz ^talk 19:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for all the reasons the nominator enumerates. This is not how we do things here. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The campaign articles are very long. It's useful to have an article that summarizes the controversies in one place. MikeWren (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~but rename (remove word "attacks").~~. Criticism is healthy and good. The more criticism I read about the USA, the better I feel about living in this country. "Controversy" articles are consistent with WP policies. There are no reasons to delete this particular article.Biophys (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The word "attacks" is probably the one honest aspect of the title. Changing the title won't fix an irreparably flawed article.--Loonymonkey (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - I think this is balanced. It slanders all candidates equally.Biophys (talk) 22:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it "slanders" any candidates, equally or not, it is a speedy-delete candidate. BLP violations are not acceptable. Horologium (talk) 17:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the article that "slanders" candidates. There is a political process in the United States by which derogatory claims made about politicians are an important and distinct part of the mechanics of elections. Balance, in this case, is a matter of giving reasonable weight to the more notable of the controversies, and is something that may emerge as the article matures. Wikidemo (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. This is a political process. Do not blame the messenger.Biophys (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete POV fork. Jtrainor (talk) 20:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clear violation of NPOV, very biased and exclusive, there were far more than 3 candidates with controversies in this election.--Southern Texas (talk) 20:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As predicted, (and as always happens with articles of this nature) it has simply become a coatrack for critics of the three current candidates and a POV fork for them to add opinions that they might have been prevented from adding to the candidate articles. The fact that there is POV against all three candidates is not "balance" it is simply an example of an article with excessive POV. Consider this, if the article were only about one candidate, not all three, would it be acceptable? Would we allow an article that was simply a list of attacks against a living person? Unlikely. So why would it be acceptable to combine three such articles into one? Further, it is apparent that most of this article has nothing to do with the election. A number of the "criticisms and attacks" such as the Keating Five scandal, Whitewater, Cattle Futures, etc. have not even been mentioned in this campaign and the cites are from a decade ago or earlier. And why is there no mention of any of the other candidates who are no longer in the race? It's because nobody is gunning for those candidates anymore, further evidence that this is simply an attack forum for political opponents rather than an encyclopedic article on the 2008 election (are we going to drop Clinton or Obama from this article when one of them emerges as the primary victor?) This article cannot be salvaged since the very idea of it is flawed. It should be deleted immediately. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All those issues HAVE been brought up in this election cycle. Flatterworld (talk) 22:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If so, then their importance to the campaign must be cited somewhere. I don't see any such cites in this article or in the Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, 2008 article. I do not believe any of these old issues have had any kind of importance in this campaign. I believe they are just being dragged in here to make the Hillary list look roughly equivalent in number to the Obama list, which is silly. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP This election is already historical, based on the candidates (First legitimate female candidate, a candidate who would be the oldest ever elected, and the first strong African-American candidate). The controversies around the campaigns are noteworthy in themselves. WP:CRYSTAL aside, in regard to the future interest in this election, this article is worth keeping. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 23:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourced, and linked in many cases to separate articles on the more notable issues. The words "and attacks" must be removed from the title, as that's a POV statement. Controversies is not a POV statement. 23skidoo (talk) 23:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. As the article creator I might have chosen the word "attack" unwisely but I assure you the purpose is not POV. We could just chop off the words "and attacks" but I think that's an incomplete picture. There's no doubt that partisan attacks (e.g. Attack ads) exist and are occurring in this election. I meant to keep the article general so it could cover partisan attempts to discredit the candidates that are not genuine controversies. A good example is the section I just added on Obama's middle name. The thing happened and it's notable in my opinion. But it's not really a controversy. Nobody says he shouldn't have that name and nobody in their right mind thinks there's anythign wrong with it. Yet there has been an effort to discredit him by drawing mental connections to Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, based on his name. Wikidemo (talk) 00:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. A laundry list of controversies does not seem encyclopedic. If a topic is relevant then it should be worked into another article that meet the test of notability.--InaMaka (talk) 01:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that Wikidemo has commented that the "Delete" votes are from folks that have not read the article. I have no idea how Wikidemo has made this judgment. I don't see how he KNOWS that the Delete votes have not read the article. But at any rate, in the McCain section there was a section about a woman lobbyist that McCain knows. This was a "controversy" for 25 seconds. Also, the way that the section was written was clearly POV. It stated that "rumors" are going around that McCain and the woman were in some kind of "improper relationship." It does not go into any more detail, etc. It was just plain old POV attack that violates BLP. The article needs to be deleted. I suspect that much of the information throughout the article violates BLP concerning all three candidates and this article is just a backdoor attempt to get negative BLP material into Wikipedia that needs to be highly vetted by the editors of each of the candidates' articles. And vetting should happen at the talk page of each of the candidate's articles. This article is not seen by enough editors to provide balance to each of these delicate topics. Each candidate's talk page will have folks from both for and against each of candidates reviewing additions and deletions--providing balance. I change my voted to: Strong Delete--InaMaka (talk) 01:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the reasons illustrated by WTR. Essentially a content/POV fork. I urge the closing admin not to give in to recentism and "I like it" rationales for keeping such an article.--Jersey Devil (talk) 03:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the same token much if not most of the "delete" sentiment is "idontlikeit" directed at the fact that people in the world at large take potshots at politicians, and conflating the existence of this unfortunate phenomenon with our encyclopedic coverage of it. There is also a bit of a walled garden from a small group that has tried to establish a standard across several articles for how to cover the 2008 election. An article that concentrates on all the bad things politicians do would be unhelpful. An article that describes the controversies that arise in an election is highly relevant. I get the sense that most people commenting here have not actually read the article, and are objecting to what they imagine it to be.Wikidemo (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking from the walled garden, it wasn't a small group of editors! We got buy-in from everyone working on the 2008 candidates' articles, that's sixteen articles' worth of editors. Wasn't easy, and so you can probably understand why a gardenite such as myself does not want to go backwards. As for "an article that describes the controversies that arise in an election is highly relevant," I agree completely; it's called a campaign article, and we have a bunch of them. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Actually, reading the comments leads me to believe that most of the delete votes are people who have read the article, and recognize that this particular intersection of characteristics does not merit an article of its own; a selective listing of perceived controversies and attacks (which are subjective) strips them of context and presents undue weight concerns. Horologium (talk) 19:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, the closing admin has discretion to weigh comments differently. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unnecessary content fork redundant to United States presidential election, 2008. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can see the use of this list from the standpoint of analyzing the culture of elections. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this polemical coatrack. Our coverage of this inane election already dwarfs that given to truly historic ones like 1860, 1932 and 1980; there's no need to keep yet another fork on the latest hot air to come out of this circus. Biruitorul (talk) 00:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not really an encyclopedia topic, better to post it elsewhere on the Internet. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nom Fallenfromthesky (talk) 00:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a useful resource to check the facts on the many political attacks in this campaign. Wikipedia can provide a more complete account than "urban legends" sites and make sure it's POV neutral.GreekParadise (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fact-checking is clearly not the purpose of this article and, in fact, many of the attacks listed are factually inaccurate. They are included because they are "attacks" not because they are true. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not encyclopedic, lacks a well-defined subject and, by distinguishing between matters as "controversies" and "attacks," has unavoidable NPOV problems. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 03:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and various stated above, this has a ton of POV problems and gives undue weight to any critical remark made by any media outlet. I don't see a mirror page giving all the positive comments during the campaign (Nice things said about the Presidential Candidates in the 2008 Election, anyone?). Darrenhusted (talk) 08:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, useful as a list compiling the various controversies surrounding the election. Everyking (talk) 19:01, 30 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) 19:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Christianson

Resume for non-notable IT professional. Damiens.rf 13:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The original author even wrote in the edit summary that it was a resume. Also, that the original editor hasn't done anything to the article except remove tags sort of makes me less likely to think the article can be redeemed. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 15:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant discussion in WP:RS sources to speak of. That first edit summary is also quite revealing. Cirt (talk) 18:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Resume/CV. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:27, 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. --PeaceNT (talk) 15:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stéphane Jouanneau

Yet another "blowgun master" resume. Damiens.rf 13:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guaraini Headhunting Delete: A mighty 46 unique Google hits [34], not a single one from a reliable source, and dominated by Wiki mirrors and personal webpages. RGTraynor 13:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No idea if this is a current Wikidrama or Hoax or something but according to WP:ATHLETE seems to state that they can stay based on competing at the top of their sport...no matter how silly we feel it is. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 15:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a problem with the same guys founding the sports federations, organizing the competitions and holding the world records. --Damiens.rf 15:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: To quote from WP:ATHLETE: "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)." (emphasis mine) RGTraynor 15:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Simply a list without prose (no sentences!). No references - simply a link to the corresponding article in French Wikipedia. No apparent reliable sources supporting assertions stated or implied in the list. Regarding WP:ATHLETE: it doesn't apply if the sport isn't covered by reliable sources. B.Wind (talk) 05:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expand or Delete. WP:ATHLETE notwithstanding, articles need (preferably secondary) sources and content. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:45, 3 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. Sandstein (talk) 08:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scandinavian Immigration to New Zealand in the 19th Century

This is primary source material which ought to be on wikisource. It does not belong in an encyclopedia - especially as the speaker says it is partly fictional. dramatic (talk) 13:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with Dramatic (talk · contribs) about Wikisource, but even to be over there it'd need more source info. Cirt (talk) 18:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —dramatic (talk) 23:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsuitable material for Wikipedia.-gadfium 20:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per gadfium and Dramatic. -- Avenue (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There should be a Scandinavian immigration to New Zealand (or something similar - probably Scandinavian New Zealanders?) article, but no need to restrict it to the 19th century, so this should be deleted. --Helenalex (talk) 23:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dramatic. Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 05:13, 28 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 21:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Sustak

I don't believe this "American sportsman" is notable enough to have an article about him on Wikipedia. The article is just a mini-c.v. with no sources. Damiens.rf 13:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant discussion in independent sources. Cirt (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply a list without prose (no sentences!). No references - book titles (at least I think they're books) without authors raise major red flag and must be discounted without further details about them. No apparent reliable sources supporting assertions stated or implied in the list. Regarding WP:ATHLETE: it doesn't apply if the sport isn't covered by reliable sources. B.Wind (talk) 05:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment May be notable. http://stun-ningsales.com/SportStore/blowguns/asba.htm is interesting. Needs content sourced in independent secondary sources. The possible books, who authored and published them? These possibly notable blowgun "sportsmen" should perhaps be added to blowgun if this is the only reason for their notability. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:59, 3 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 as unverifiable. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arab (rapper)

This rapper is not notable. He's yet to release his first album. He's greatest achievements include appearing in music videos for other non-notable rappers. Damiens.rf 13:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article doesn't assert notability at all. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 14:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree w/ above, plus couldn't really find discussion in independent sources. Cirt (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I was the editor who put the Template:Notability up on the page. I am a bit split over the notability of this person, as he performed in one song that was featured on an American Billboard chart, thus meeting WP:MUSIC. He could also meet the provision as "writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition." In quesion the song is "Yahhh!" by Soulja Boy, who is notable per WP:MUSIC...so think before slapping a "non-notable" name-calling term on a particular person. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 05:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment However, I could agree with the user "Cirt" because neither could I find any independently written info about him written in reliable sources. That's rather troublesome for an article about a living person. Additionally, this article could rather be redirected to maybe the page Soulja Boy, or Yahhh!, pretty much the only places where he has been "notable". But still as defense for keeping I turn to the "Composers/Lyricists" portion of WP:MUSIC --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 23:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Soulja Boy - in addition to being a ft. in Yahh, he also has "it" passed to him in the song "Soulja Boy". Sceptre ^(talk) 16:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Yahhh!, a notable song that had his participation. His participation in the recording does not quite reach the WP:MUSIC bar as he was did not get the "featuring" or "with" mention on the label listing (a.k.a. cover of the CD). Keep and tag for expansion. He qualifies under WP:MUSIC, not necessarily because of the #48 peak position on the Billboard Hot 100 but certainly because of the #3 peak position on the New Zealand Top 40. While the new album mention hints at crystal balling, he is credited with prior releases, and thus needs a more fleshed-out article. B.Wind (talk) 05:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if sources are not added. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:04, 3 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 {{WP:BIO|relevant notability guideline]]. Davewild (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Olusegun "Sheg" Aranmolate

He's the only contestent of the show that has his own page and he didn't even win it. All the data on page comes from show bio. Nothing really a big deal here. Jjaazz (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. He appeared on Oprah and wrote a non-notable book. Michael 134.84.96.142 (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree w/ Jjaazz (talk · contribs), the one appearance isn't really enough to assert notability, the only sources I could find read like the article itself, promo/advertising. Cirt (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. --Son (talk) 13:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Originator of article seemed only interested in promoting Sheg. S/he has already had one article quickly deleted and has already had all other content created questioned. Jjaazz (talk) 13:25, 28 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 original research. Davewild (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scribblesmeeting

Seems like original research. A Google search turns up practically nothing. Had I seen it earlier I would have nominated it for speedy deletion. LittleOldMe (talk) 12:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Really could probably have just been speedied. Reads almost like a test/scratch or "scribble" page. Cirt (talk) 18:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. I can't find any speedy deletion criteria that this fits; it doesn't read like a test page to me, but that's the only criterion that comes close. AnturiaethwrTalk 18:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete either spam or a how-to (and in any case it's basically all original research). Either way it has no place in Wikipedia Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 13:18, 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 ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Impro-Visor

non-notable software - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 12:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete false positives and ghits only confirm existence. No evidence of notability TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I actually know the fellow who made the software, and it's pretty impressive. That said, it's not yet notable, and the fact that the author of the page is also the fellow who made the software is kind of sketchy. I'm willing to bet that something academic about this is likely to be published in a few years, but that's not enough. Not public yet, therefore not notable yet. ~~Delete per WP:NOTCRYSTAL~~. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So there are a couple of new sources mentioned on the page; it turns out that this project has been published in a couple of academic journals. I'm not sure if this is sufficient to establish notability, but it's a start. Weak Keep for now. TallNapoleon (talk) 02:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no independent sources. When they finally come out, that would be the time to consider inclusion, not before.B.Wind (talk) 04:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As moderator of the Yahoo! impro-visor users group, I've taken a poll and these countries are represented among the 1200 users of Impro-Visor: Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Hungary, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Peru, Phillipines, Poland, Russian Federation, Samoa, Singapore, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States. Rmkeller (talk) 07:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC

as a impro-visor user; I am really estonished you consider deleting this page ... Impro-visor is a very valuable tool to learn music, learn improvisation, ... very usefull !— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.254.232.120 (talk • contribs)

this is a valuable software tool for learning the fine art of jazz improvisation. The program is free so it's not like the author is self aggrandizing. I am new to using Impro-visor; appreciate that it exists, and would like to see it more well known. Tom Doran; "Bassdocta" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bassdocta (talk • contribs) 15:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Impro-Visor may have not been covered a lot in the media yet, maybe because it addresses a very special group of users, but it is a software extremely useful for musicians and indeed used by quite some people by now. While some of its functionality equals that of Band-in-a-Box (which actually is included in the wikipedia, for good reasons), it goes beyond this approach by giving you theoretical advice for composition and improvising. Also, Impro-Visor is not some irrelevant quick-and-dirty hack, but a mature, user-friendly software. --HeinzDrei (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep There seem to be some sources; I dont know how many academic papers count as enough, but I think this might be ok. DGG (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree that this software addresses a very special group of users, but it is a software extremely useful for JAZZ musicians. --85.165.67.8 (talk) 22:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Impro-Visor is very useful for jazz-musicians. I am a german jazz-guitar-player, using this good software nearly every day. So please keep it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.17.113.200 (talk) 16:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep Lacking in independent sources, but as free academic software for a very specific purpose, with a user group of over 1000, give it more time. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:15, 3 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 (per stronger, policy based arguments} Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TuxGuitar

non-notable software - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 12:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete RS coverage appears limited to two product listings, no reviews of the software. Ghits, although plentiful, are limited to forum posts, download locations and blogs. No evidence of notability TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Take a look into Category:Guitar-related_software and tell me how is that all those programs have the right to be kept and TuxGuitar doesn't, TuxGuitar is my main guitar-learning tool and is as good as the other open source programs listed in this category. --Arias Levhita (talk) 21:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment please see WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:USEFUL/WP:ILIKEIT, none of which are valid keep arguments. There is no evidence this software meets relevant guidelines. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 21:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a useful and well designed free software, handily cross-platform and compliant to exchange of file formats with other softwares. Because it is still in current development new versions are being released now and then with increased capabilities. There is every reason to suppose Wikipedia users would want to know about this programme. --wayland (talk) 06:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It's still not notable yet. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete in the absence of evidence that anyone is using it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:17, 3 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 notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 19:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canorus

non-notable software - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 12:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after filtering to remove the toad hits, there's no evidence of RS coverage and ghits just confirm its existence. Some minor blog mentions and downloads but no evidence of reviews or anything that would make the software notable. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems also like a bit of crystal balling here in this article without independent citations. B.Wind (talk) 04:15, 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, consensus is that any notability comes from one event and is insufficient for a biography. Davewild (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Doyle

AfDs for this article:

WP:ONEEVENT. Sex offender who worked for US Department of Homeland Security. Minor kerfuffle at time, no lasting impact. Note that section with "political impact" was recently removed as insignificant. Without this, we probably have no reason for the article. Other than the coincidence of his job (sex offenders come from all walks of life), this isn't a notable crime (and it was victimless as well). Dhartung | Talk 12:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The crime may not have been so coincidental. He claimed in the police interview and in the plea negotiations (referenced in the article) that he did it out of some sort of power tripping rather than an attempt to have sex with the supposed 14 year old girl, and sent her a photo of him with his Homeland Security ID visible. Had he been a small town dog catcher, he would not have had the power base to operate from. Undecided whether this news story rises to encyclopedic quality. It had substantial coverage from arrest to sentencing in 2006, but little coverage since and few societal effects or larger implications. Edison (talk) 13:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep A decidedly minor controversy, to be certain, but one that did generate a great deal of attention when it took place. The notability is admittedly borderline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecoleetage (talk • contribs) 14:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete not notable, everything seems notable at the time but few topics stand the test of time, setting that as a reason to keep invites and overwhelming number of minor articles (Flash Flood of 4 January, Dallas Tx). Additionally while I have no sympathy for this guy, are we going to start recording articles on other criminals who have no other notarity?, Is there a lower limit to the noteworthiness of criminality? Personally I feel this sets a bad precedent and possibly opens up the floodgates of slanderous and untrue articles under the guise of local issues and encyclopedic protectionism. --Lemmey talk 15:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Weak Delete I think there actually IS a proposal to change the notability requirements for criminals, making some criminal acts confer notability to the actor. It isn't approved and I don't think it would include this guy, but if you have thoughts on it you may find it Here. Actually, from reading it, it is dormant and were it revived it would probably provide grounds to remove this guy. Protonk (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Hiding T 16:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor sex offender, with appropriately minor significance--not enough for an article. DGG (talk) 03:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TABLOID. Guy (Help!) 15:14, 30 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, all four articles. As delete voters note, all four of these individuals seem to fail our notability standards at WP:ATHLETE.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Boyes

Footballer fails WP:Bio#Athletes as he has never played in a fully-professional league before Jimbo^[online] 11:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because they too fail notability at WP:Bio#Athletes:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Jimbo^[online] 12:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FOOTYN. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the criteria at WP:FOOTYN state the players must "Have played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure (FPNL club). This must be supported by evidence from a reliable source on a club by club basis for teams playing in leagues that are not recognised as being fully professional."

-All four players have played at a national level, the Conference National -All four players have played at a fully professional club, York City F.C.. -All four have played in at least one match against ANOTHER fully professional club at this national level: Boyes (Oxford United F.C.), Beadle (Oxford United F.C. & Torquay United F.C., along with almost thirty other clubs of similar stature while at Scarborough F.C.), McWilliams ((Oxford United F.C. & Torquay United F.C.), Liam Shepherd ((Oxford United F.C.).

How does that not satisfy the criteria? More to the point, why are we obsessing over deleting pages rather than expanding and improving WP? Me677 (talk) 01:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because WP:FOOTYN doesn't set the criteria, the criteria is set at WP:Bio - which they all fail. --Jimbo^[online] 10:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this be clarified? It seems daft to allow certain players for having played a single game in a fully professional league (e.g. Goma Lambu) yet not these and others, such as the deleted Martyn Woolford who have made 100s appearances and won awards in what is by all general definitions a 90% full time, national league competition. Why should half the YCFC squad qualify and not the others? What's deleting these ones achieving? Just confused really, this seems a waste of all our time. Me677 (talk) 11:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as they play for a professional team (York) on the national level of English football. 96T (talk) 12:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment your keep contradicts the notability set at WP:ATHLETE --Jimbo^[online] 09:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - none meet WP:ATHLETE. This is quite straightforward; these people fail the agreed notability guidelines. The keepers are trying to argue for a keep based on an informal standard agreed within a project. This has previously been tested at DRV where the authority of WP:ATHLETE over project guidelines has been clearly established. TerriersFan (talk) 21:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. All 4 of the players do not meet the requirements listed on either WP:FOOTY and WP:ATHLETE. Even though they play at the national level does not mean that they are notable. Does this mean that every single national level player for every sport deserves their own page? If that is the case, then we would be swamped with tons of articles. Razor flame 21:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Doesn't the York City F.C. count as "professional"? –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply No, although the club is professional, they fail notability because the league they play in is not fully-professional. --Jimbo^[online] 23:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, weak delete. –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:45, 3 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 notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Farmers' Five

This article concerns the first five settlers in a minor Victorian location. Nothing happened in any of their lives of any interest and I can't see anyhing that makes them genuinely notable. Grahame (talk) 11:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 11:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - notability not established, sources scarce. Google search shows no relevant results. Huon (talk) 23:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I truly hope that one day google searches (its just another search engine) are banned as any form of proof one way or the other on a subject like this - far more relevant - specially as there is a poem and genealogy issue there - http://protocat.nla.gov.au/Search/Home?lookfor=+farmers+five&type=all&filter%5B%5D=&submit=Find - the NLA website - far more relevant has nothing on its first page - as a consequence - despite the effort in putting the info and poem in - it is obviously a genealogy blog candidate not wikipedian Satu Suro 09:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Early Australian immigrant settlers just like thousands of insignificant others. - Shiftchange (talk) 13:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Lack of Google sources is easily explained by the fact that there was no Internet during the settlement of Australia, but these five still look to have only very local notability at best. I'd need to see some cites from books and the like before I was convinced of their notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Clarification, just to clarify, I'm not saying that they're not notable because there's nothing on Google, I'm saying that they're not notable because there's nothing anywhere else as far as I can see. Obviously relying on Ghits as the sole method to assess the notability of a subject like this one will produce less than reliable results. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Okay, I'll be the odd man out here with this vote. I support SatuSuro's comment on the unreliable nature of Google searching as the be-all/end-all way to determine notability. On the niche subject of early Australian history, it is notable. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability cannot be established by subjectively arguing that a topic is important to a particular area. Notibility is an objective concept refering to "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources". The reference provided does not include the publisher, and it appears that if "Bill O'Callaghan" ever wrote for a publication called "The Cronical"(sic) or "The Chronicle", then it was probably not a very widely distributed publication.[35] -- Mark Chovain 23:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just located and added a new link from an Australian site seeking out the descendants of the Farmers' Five. It appears someone out there (or Down Under) knows of this quintet. If there is notability, it would be unique to a corner of Australia. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just can't see this one getting anywhere near the bar. We need multiple, independent, reliable sources. An improperly sourced local newsletter (so badly sourced that we have no hope of verifying it); and a post by someone calling themselves "JackieC" on a some internet forum, requesting information on behalf of a third party just don't cut it. -- Mark Chovain 23:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nice poem but just not notable for a Wikipedia article. Orderinchaos 01:10, 30 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 a crystal ball violation and fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All I Want Is Everything (album)

Unreleased album (crystal ballism) with little or no media coverage and no references from reliable sources (Google searching turns up more of the same: gossip sites, blogs, and fan forums). Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums and WP:V. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 10:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 10:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Forum postings and blogs are not WP:reliable sources, even if they say they are reproductions of valid sources. Delete for WP:Verifiability issues until such time as the album's title, specific release date, tracklist, and first single can be provided through the use of WP:reliable sources that are independant of the artist and label. Once you have these four pieces of information, and you can prove them through reliable, independant, published sources, you have enough content to support an article, as well as the necessary factual backup. -- saberwyn 10:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although I created this article, I realise that this article has little text, no release date and unreliable sources. Surfer-boy94 (talk) 00:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is the title as argued above. Motion-In-The-Ocean (talk) 13:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Invalid Checkuser has confirmed that Motion-In-The-Ocean is the same user as Surfer-boy94. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 17:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - none of the sources cited are reliable, and smacks of WP:CRYSTAL. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 14:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources are forums and blogs, and thus not reliable. WP:CRYSTAL sure applies here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources, not even a statement from Universal Records, JoJo's label, to support the assertions. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 20:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 07:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I believe this article to be a hot mess. SKS2K6 (talk) 20:50, 30 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) 19:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RM Secor

This is a vanity/self-promotional article written by a vanity-press author who paid AuthorHouse to "publish" his two red-linked books, both of which abysmally fail WP:BK, and neither of which is even remotely notable. The spam link to his website contains the howler "RM Secor, author of spy thrillers, has done it again"--done what again, paid a vanity press for publication?! If all of this weren't bad enough, the guy has proceeded to delete every single tag that every helpful editor has ever placed on "his" article. Extremely aggressive ownership issues here. We'll have to watch this AfD, as well as the article, very closely for further vandalism and/or outrageous acts of WP:COI. Qworty (talk) 10:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable author. Promo. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: And given that this fellow is an SPA whose sole Wikipedia activity is this article, WP:SPAM as well. One would wonder how good an author can be who can't differentiate between the proper usage of "its" versus "it's," but few others are wondering: a Google search turns up nothing but Wiki mirrors, forum posts, and the fact that he likes to submit book reviews to Amazon. RGTraynor 14:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 23:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:25, 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 Delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Lauder (contractor)

Non notable immigrant-construction worker Celtus (talk) 09:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment found this reference to him but, not sure how significant it is [36]. Unfortunately, as the article stands now it doesn't seem to meet notability criteria and I've got to say delete unless substantial improvements are made. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BIO, somewhat grandiose rewrite of his life ("industrial contractor" sounds better than "stonemason", I guess). McGill has only this to say of him. There is no assertion of his significance to any of these projects that I can tell, though I'm sure having his ledgers on file is elucidatory for historians of the era. --Dhartung | Talk 12:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:45, 2 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 Keep, per the improvements to the article during the AFD which have established his notability. Davewild (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James V. Downton

The subject is a non-notable professor who does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics). All we know about him is that he wrote four books and used to teach at a university. His works are cited by others, [37] but he's not "widely cited"[38] and is not known for any innovative scholarship. Without a source like a biography, a profile, an interview, or even a faculty page it's difficult to see how this could develop into more than a short bibliography. We have an article on one of this books, Sacred Journeys (book), so the title can be redirected there if desired. Delete. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a college professor with little assertion to broader notability. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or keep and merge to Sacred Journeys (book) - See article about one of his books Sacred Journeys (book), a book that is widely cited in the domain of new religious movements (see [39] . If there is not enough bibliographic material for a full article, that is not an issue -- it can remain a stub until someone does expand it. Please note that AfD's are not for redirects or merges, but for deletion. I would not oppose a merge to Sacred Journeys (book), but oppose deletion per arguments presented. Also note that the nominator seems no to have properly read the notability criteria for academics: Criteria 3 states (my highlights(: The person has published a significant and well-known academic work. An academic work may be significant or well known if, for example, it is the basis for a textbook or course; if it is itself the subject of multiple, independent works; or if it is widely cited by other authors in the academic literature ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)
Delete, Oppose merge. -- Agree with Will Beback (talk · contribs) and KleenupKrew (talk · contribs), there is some brief info in other sources "Downton, author of this book, says in the book that..." - But I was unable in searches of multiple database archives to find any significant biographical discussion of the individual as a person in secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources. A search in InfoTrac came up with a whopping zero hits, searches in 2 other databases also came up with zero hits, or simply brief mentions "author of.." again. If there are any independent secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources out there which significantly discuss and go into detail on the biographical info of this individual, I was not able to find any. Also oppose a redirect/merge, as anyone searching for the title of the redirect will not be searching for the name of this individual, but rather for information on the redirect article itself - and if the individual is deemed not notable enough to have his own article, there is no point so keeping it, could always recreate later at some point if enough sources are found with enough biographical info to warrant, establish, and verify notability. Also, agree with Will Beback that Wikipedia:Notability (academics) is not established, none of his works are themselves the basis for a textbook or course, one of his works is cited enough for its own notability, but not widely cited, as per WP:PROF, "relative to other publications in the same field which are generally acknowledged to be important." The collective body of work is not significant or well-known, and so far as I can tell the individual has not received a notable award or honor. Cirt (talk) 17:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What dos InfoTrac has to do with this? His book is widely cited, and as such fits within the notability criteria:

Here is just but a few of the citations for his works. Yes, sure, it is a narrow discipline (religious coversion)(, but nonetheless Downton is wideliy cited:

Deconversion from religious movements: An analysis of charismatic bonding and spiritual commitment J Jacobs - Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion
Religious Conversion and the Concept of Socialization: Integrating the Brainwashing and Drift Models TE Long, JK Hadden - Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion
Conversion: Toward a holistic model of religious change, LR Rambo - Pastoral Psychology
Contacts, Cognitions, and Conversion: a Rational Choice Approach, CD GARTRELL - Review of Religious Research
Slogan Chanters to Mantra Chanters: A Mertonian Deviance Analysis of Conversion to Religiously Ideological Organizations in the Early170s Stephen A. Kent, Sociological Analysis, Vol. 49, No. 2 (Summer, 1988), pp. 104-118
Religious conversion of adolescents: Testing the Lofland and Stark model of religious conversion W Kox, W Meeus, H Hart - Sociological Analysis
The Spiritual Self-In-Relation: Empathy and the Construction of Spirituality Among Modern Descendants of theSpanish Crypto-Jews JL Jacobs - Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion,
Deprogramming, Brainwashing and the Medicalization of Deviant Religious Groups T Robbins, D Anthony
Religious youth cults: Alternative healing social networks, EM Pattison - Journal of Religion and Health
How People Recognize Charisma: The Case of Darshan in Radhasoami and Divine Light Mission, L. Dupertuis, Sociological analysis
Characters in Search of a Script: The Exit Narratives of Formerly Ultra-Orthodox Jews, L DAVIDMAN, AL GREIL - Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion
Religious participation, religious motivation, and individual psychosocial competence KI Pargament, RE Steele, FB Tyler - Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion
Constructing "cultist" mind control , T Robbins - Sociological Analysis
Devotion, Damages and Deprogrammers: Strategies and Counterstrategies in the Cult Wars BA Fisher - JL & Religion
Social change, gender roles, and new religious movements A Aidala - Sociological Analysis, 1985
God Comes to America: Father Divine and the Peace Mission Movement B Campbell - Sociological Analysis, 1979
Public Reaction against New Religious Movements, DG Bromley, A Shupe
Pathways To Druidry: A Case Study of Ár nDraíocht Féin, Michael T. COOPER, Ph.D. (Trinity International University, Deerfield Illinois, USA)
Meditative Ritual Practice and Spiritual Conversion-Commitment: Theoretical Implications Based on the Case of Zen, David L. Preston, Sociological Analysis, Vol. 43, No. 3
Understanding Religious Conversion, Lewis Ray Rambo
Versions of Deconversion: Autobiography and the Loss of Faith, John D. Barbour
Baring Our Souls: TV Talk Shows and the Religion of Recovery, Kathleen S. Lowney
Pluralism Comes of Age: American Religious Culture in the Twentieth Century, Charles H. Lippy
The 60's Communes: Hippies and Beyond, Timothy Miller
Encyclopedia of the American Religious Experience, Charles H. Lippy, Peter W. Williams
Religion in Sociological Perspective, Bryan R. Wilson
The active vs. passive convert: Paradigm conflict in conversion/recruitment research, JT Richardson - Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 1985
''Rebel Leadership: Commitment and Charisma in the Revolutionary Process M Jaworskyj - The Journal of Politics, 1975

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mentions as related to the one book does not satisfy WP:PROF. My position is laid out above, and still stands as "Delete". Cirt (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a dozen citations counts as being "widely cited". Even if it were twice that many we still have the problem that there is no biographical information available about this person. The article is just a (short) bibliography. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a narrow field of study, and there are more than a dozen citations, that was just a sample. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree w/ Will Beback (talk · contribs). I've explained my rationale, above, and other users can read that. I'd rather not get into a back-and-forth and back-and-forth and back-and-forth, those aren't usually pleasant in AfDs, especially when it (already) seems like we are going in circles. I'll let someone else have the last word, if they want to. Cirt (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-Notable per Wikipedia:Notability (academics).--RyRy5 (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to agree that this does not satisfy the criteria laid out by WP:PROF. David D. (Talk) 21:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits are a massive improvement. David D. (Talk) 19:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like the author has an ulterior motive for wanting this article. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The author? Ulterior motive? Is he editing Wikipedia? Don't think so ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What motive? Chimeric Glider (talk) 01:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No merge per Non-notable. Baegis (talk) 23:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (changed 27/4/08) The biographical information now provided, and the additional publications cited, IMO, now tips the balance to keep. --John Brauns (talk) 23:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The cites provided above are not Wikipedia citations, but peer-reviewed journals and sociology books. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to me that for such a narrow field of study he has a fairly large number of scholars citing him. I agree more biographical information would make it a more pertinent article, but it can be kept while this info shows up. Or doesn't. There must be thousands of less notable subjects for Wikipedia articles than this one. Rumiton (talk) 10:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He passes the "The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources" test.Momento (talk) 10:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- According to whom is the subject a significant expert? If he's so notable how come we can't even find out the most basic biographical information? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - See the partial list of citations above. Just for that reason, his work is notable and complies with WP:PROF , criteria (3). I fail to understand how these are dismissed so quickly in this debate. This is a very narrow area of research, See Category:Religious conversion ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Citing someone does not, by itself, make them a recognized expert. If this subject were notable then biographical information would be available. None is. The guy doesn't even have a faculty webpage. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Citing someone does not, by itself, make them a recognized expert -- yes, that is exactly what having your work cited by all main scholars in the field does. A faculty webpage, on the other hand, is not a demonstration of notability. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - See also Transformational_leadership, another area this scholar has engaged in, and in which he is mentioned. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I didn't mean that a faculty webpage connotes notability. I mean that we have zero biographical information on this subject. This is not a biography, it's a bibliography. Being cited as an expert makes one an expert. Being cited for conducting a study on a particular group does not make one an expert. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        See online bio [40]
        
        Being cited for conducting a study on a particular group does not make one an expert., Yes, it does. That is the measure of notability in academia, how much or how little your work is cited. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Despite exhaustively listing every citation that can be found, there still aren;t enough to show that this scholar is "widely cited". In the academic world, being cited a few dozen times isn't unusual. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-Notable. The problem is not that Downton was active in a ‘narrow field’, most academics are; the problem is that Downton made only a very limited range of reference within his ‘narrow field’. Further while he may be cited by a number of other authors, the cites are all for the same material, which is itself highly specific to a limited chronological and cultural range, and none of which provided a ‘rosetta stone’ of greater relevance. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 11:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Momento. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note For some reason editors who are participating in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myron Sharaf are also participating here. Since the subjects appear unrelated it seems like it's due to the involvement of one or more editors. I hope that each article is judged on its own merits. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

they are probably just cruising AfD. Doesn't look like anything sinister. Protonk (talk) 07:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looking at the g-books and g-scholar hits, I think there are sufficient citations to make him notable. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: The article has been expanded considerably since the AfD was placed as new editors have found addition biographical information and published bibliography. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have just expanded the article. It wasn't really that hard to find the information online. You just have to use a variety of search terms. For one thing, he's also known as Jim Downton. In any case, he was the first to introduce the term transformational leadership and is widely acknowledged as such. See the Google Scholar results for "Downton" + "transformational leadership" and observe these results from Google Books. His 1973 book Rebel Leadership: Commitment and Charisma in the Revolutionary Process alone has 108 citations in Google Scholar, and note that Google Scholar does not pick up all of them. Also, I think you're all focusing too much on Downton's work on religious cults. His work on leadership is equally, if not more important. I came to this AfD because I was monitoring the contributions of the Award Center Project (people offering barnstars to each other for various 'challenges'). I found this 'challenge' rather alarming, as well as this one. By the way, at least one of the 'delete' votes here is from a 13 year old, who has been on Wikipedia for all of two months and shown no interest whatsoever in articles about sociology or any academic related topics. Voceditenore (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per recent expansion/bio information additions by Voceditenore (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 23:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Was borderline at the start, but a full keep with the article expansion.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the original article was a short bibliography with no sources or assertions of notability, it is now a good biography. Thanks to Voceditenore for finding and adding evidence of the subject's notability. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:28, 28 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 discography to main artist article. Delete individual song articles since there is nothing worth merging. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frankee discography

Unnecessary list. What little information there is—the artist has 1 album and 3 singles—is included in the artist's own article. Prod was removed by an editor with ownership issues. The artist's 2 non-charting, non-notable singles are included, redirects were reverted by the same editor. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 09:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ——Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 09:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect the discography article to the relevant section of the artist's (Frankee) article, and merge and redirect the songs to the album (The Good, the Bad, the Ugly (album)). Neither article is at a size where splitting these sections out is productive, and making readers jump through extra hoops to get to the information they need makes for unhappy readers. The discography section can be split back out at a later date when the content of both the article and her back catalog expand to the point where we start having WP:article size issues. The non-charting singles can be split back out if later events cause more WP:reliably sourced information to be produced that demonstrates that these songs pass the general WP:Notability or the WP:Notability (music) guidelines. -- saberwyn 11:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - These articles are perfectly sourced and are worthy of their own articles. Surfer-boy94 (talk) 12:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As argued above, these articles are sourced and they do deserve their own articles. Motion-In-The-Ocean (talk) 13:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sourced? You two did notice the grand sum of one reference between all three articles? PC78 (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Motion-In-The-Ocean is suspected of being a sockpuppet of Surfer-boy94. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Surfer-boy94‎. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Invalid - Motion-In-The-Ocean / 59.100.253.232 confirmed as same user as Surfer-boy94 by Checkuser. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 16:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect per saberwyn. The biography and discography are both too short to warrant seperate articles. The non-charting singles have minimal notability and content, and can be adequately covered in the album article. PC78 (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect per saberwyn. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 07:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect per saberwyn. Nom's rationale implies a content fork, which means a merge is appropriate, and deletion is not. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't see how a redirect is warranted in this case. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 13:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - A redirect is a warranted because it is a plausible search term, extremely plausible given that someone thought it appropriate to create the article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - If someone is looking for information on Frankee, they'll go to her article first and that's where the discography is. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as merge is unnecessary with so little information. –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:27, 3 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 keep per unanimity of respondents (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 00:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aravind Eye Hospital

Delete This article reads like an advertisement. The notability of the subject is not independently verifiable. Ecoleetage (talk) 09:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep significant RS coverage including the partnership with Google. Needs clean-up, not deletion TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 17:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Aravind Hospital had the most important Award (1 million Euros) in Vision medicine, the Champalimaud Vision Award. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseolgon (talk • contribs) 03:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plenty of Online and Book RS's, but does need work (just like the rest of WP). Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 20:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The search results linked above show notability many times over. I would suggest to the nominator that a little research, such as Google Books and News Archive searches, would be a good idea before nominating articles for AfD. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yeah, it's notable. World renowned hospital in fact. KleenupKrew (talk) 23:16, 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 nancy ^(talk) 18:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giant Cookie Friday

Wikipedia is not for something made up one day, and this is not notable. There should be a speedy category for this kind of unencyclopedic nonsense. PROD removed without comment by IP. JohnCD (talk) 08:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hoax or not notable. Article claims "It's just as important as Earth Day". NOT! KleenupKrew (talk) 10:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Quickly if possible. Seems more like a joke than anything. The four bozos probably have a bet for how quickly it will get deleted. Jjaazz (talk) 13:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:BULLSHIT. Fails WP:NFT, WP:HOAX. RGTraynor 14:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Berig (talk) 15:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sad thing is, the person who wrote this probably thought it was hilarious. Give it up, nobody thinks you're funny, nobody thinks you're cute. Mandsford (talk) 16:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absolute stupidity. JuJube (talk) 23:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Someone must have missed it on Special:Newpages because there's no reason for this to have survived so long. A number of admins received a request from a user who asked us to add a non-existent holiday to the April 24 article apparently in order to get school credit. I wonder if this isn't connected to that effort. (If it is, I hope Jimbo or someone from the Foundation has a nice friendly chat with the teacher who started this). 23skidoo (talk) 23:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did pick it up on New Pages Patrol, but to my regret there is no speedy category for "something blatantly made up one day in school"; otherwise the winning ticket in the "let's see how long our silly joke will last" sweepstake would be 5 minutes rather than 5 days. JohnCD (talk) 09:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's funny. We do have a bet to see how long it will last. Also, it is funny. To us. To those of you arguing whether or not it should exist, you have such sad, sad lives. Delete it. But realize you wasted your time on this. Oh, and please, go have a cookie and pat yourselves on the back. You guys are so awesome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chickenmclovin (talk • contribs) 00:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Waste of time? Getting your sorry ass out of here was worth it.... Mandsford (talk) 17:27, 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 WP:CSD#G3. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ghouala

Obvious hoax, it's only source is a slashdot reference, probably with the same authorship. Grahame (talk) 08:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 08:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as an obvious hoax. It is humouristic portmanteaux word of ghoul and koala that someone made up on a site.--Berig (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per db-vandalism. JuJube (talk) 23:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as obvious hoax - everyone knows that all dropbears have an insatiable taste for human flesh, not just a subset of them. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy delete as all above - obviously well read comments Satu Suro 09:27, 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 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scotlands Shame

Unsourced neologism of no particular notability; basically an excuse to post a rant about Rangers F.C. Maybe copyright issues as well, as the article asserts that much of the text is from an un-named web forum (though I couldn't find it on Google). Prod removed without comment by IP, so let's go through the motions here for a bit... unless anyone thinks it's blatant enough to qualify as an attack page? Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 07:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 07:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 07:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no encyclopaedic notability at all. - fchd (talk) 08:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - wholly unencyclopedic rant/attack page ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't quite qualify for WP:CSD#G10 but should certainly go per nom. JohnCD (talk) 08:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment moved from article's talk page:For goodness sake get this deleted. Ignoring the fact it is utter political bile, it is not even written in proper sentences, and bits of it don't even make sense, e.g. "In the late 19th century and during the second world war the Irish community struggled indefinitely" - If they struggled indefinitely, then why not say that they have struggled since the late 19th century? Nonetheless, a load of parochial nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.156.74 (talk • contribs)

Speedy delete as attack page; only use is to disparage its subject. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 11:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A banner at a football match? Not notable and only there as an attack page. Red star (talk) 11:08, 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. This Afd has been open for over 3 weeks as far as I can tell, with no real direction as to whether to keep or delete the article. That defaults to keep. Article needs improvement of course (as do about 99% of our articles...) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Birdiesync

Non-notable software, article tastes spammy. ukexpat (talk) 15:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I don't think it's spam; the author has been editing for quite a while, and it seems well-intentioned (see the stub message). That said, I can't tell if the software is notable or not; there are certainly google hits, but someone with more knowledge of the area should comment. -- phoebe / (talk) 06:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:51, 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) 17:51, 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, Davewild (talk) 07:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as blatant advertising. Yeah, it's spam alright. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment have removed website link to move away from the spamminess. Have tagged for improvement as well. 100,000+ ghits most seem to be blogs or tech sites but, I can't verify properly from work (not that I know much about technology anyway). Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment anyone read French? TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 17:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like lots of serious postive bloggy stuff. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Doesn't seem spammy. Has lots of hits. http://www.thesmartpda.com/50226711/like_thunderbird_and_windows_mobile_try_birdiesync.php provides coverage in a seemingly reputable blog, authored by a seemingly reputable person. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:31, 2 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 keep per unanimity of respondents. (non-admin closure) Skomorokh 00:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AURA (United Artists for African Rap)

no useful content in this article Oo7565 (talk) 06:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if sources can be found to verify the claims of "instant hits, taking top spots in music charts across the region of Francophone West Africa". Beeblbrox (talk) 06:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep based on [41] and [42] although the article needs definite work and the redirect to Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy should be looked at as AURA should at least go to the disambiguation page. Also, as far as I'm aware "no useful content" isn't grounds for deletion.Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep If the groups are reasonably notable this is likely to be also. Lack of meaningful content is a reason for deletion, but thatdoes not seem to be the case here. No attempt by the nom. to look for references- DGG (talk) 00:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The only reason for deletion given by the nominator is clearly invalid in this case. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:08, 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, per DGG and Phil Bridger. Not notable (yet). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adaptive A.I. Inc.

could fail WP:corp; in addition, please note notability is not inherited. Oo7565 (talk) 05:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy keep~~. "Could fail" is not a reason for deletion - articles should only be nominated if the nominator, after doing some basic research, thinks that they "do fail" inclusion criteria. Also there is nothing about this article that gives any indication that inherited notability is claimed. Therefore no valid reason has been stated for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete currently has 17 staff members, "who in a relatively short time have made significant headway" and "The current project of Adaptive A.I. (called Project Aigo) is planned to be completed by January 2009." They hope to become notable. The references are promotional interviews at a few futurist websites. I'm not sure why the nom. mentioned "inherited" because their founder is not notable either--he tried to write an article on himself back in 2005, but it was speedily deleted. DGG (talk) 00:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep. http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns/050601-zader-peter-voss-interview.php demonstrates notability to an extent. The fact that it is a promotional interview doesn't preclude its use to satisfy WP:N. It is OK as long as the interview and publication cannot be considered a paid advertisement, or otherwise dependent on the subject. However, is this one interview sufficient? What is the theatlasphere? It claims to be big, but it is unclear that it is reputable. Note that the interview of June 1 2005 has received zero ratings to date. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am switching to neutral on this one, because DGG has addressed my concern by providing an acceptable rationale for deletion, which the nominator failed to do. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:42, 2 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 nancy ^(talk) 18:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy Clubs for Mothers and Daughters

Article seems to fail WP:ORG as ghits are to the group's founding press release and online articles written by the organization's founder. No independent coverage of the group. --Gwguffey (talk) 05:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —--Gwguffey (talk) 05:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a five year old press release of an event they hosted and the self-written articles the nom mentioned do not establish notability TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 17:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as spam now that the article's creator has been quite rightfully blocked. Qworty (talk) 09:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable as it currently stands. I would have leaned towards an A7 speedy myself, but I have no problem with letting the discussion run its course. At the risk of stereotyping, if the evidence for notability is out there (big if), I suspect it's been produced by folks who are rather less Internet-savvy than the rest of us... --Finngall ^talk 17:52, 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. I found the discussion here to be most interesting, and the comments from Dhartung and Myke Cuthbert were very helpful though they were "neutral". I have read the quoted WP:BIO criterion "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them", but I think that "notable award" here means an award which makes a person famous, not an award which meets Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. (Otherwise we could for example have articles on anyone wounded in combat for the US Military since they received Purple Hearts.) The question here regarding encyclopedic notability for this subject was whether the awards and participation in debates confer notability. The consensus appears to be that it does not, since such awards are fairly common. Nsk92 has also pointed out that there is a lack of available sources to make a decent biography. I recognize that two people have objected to deletion, but the consensus appears to be against them, and the case for deletion seems solid. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Dennison (biology)

~~I see various unreferenced statements - I don't see how this individual is notable.~~

EDIT: The NPR article states he was the President of the Texas Association of Biology Teachers - but I'm not sure if that's notable. I would AFD it unless there is a consensus that this is notable. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is very confusing. Who is the nominator of this article, and do they want it deleted or not? Beeblbrox (talk) 06:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WhisperToMe (talk · contribs) placed the AFD tag and created the discussion. --Dhartung | Talk 08:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm trying to decide. Sources are not that great. He has awards, but mostly of the mass variety. He was on an NPR to debate evolution and he spoke at a state hearing on teaching it. But these were somewhat incidental. For the awards:

Being President is an honor but not an award for merit. At the state level, I don't believe it's notable.
The Siemens Awards go mostly to students, but one teacher per state. 1 of 50 or so.
Life membership at state level even less notable than president.
The AP Special Recognition Awards from College Board are annual, recognizing several teachers from a region.
NABT Outstanding Biology Teacher of the Year is intriguing, but again it's "for Texas", implying 1 of 50.
Distinguished Teacher by the White House is intriguing as well. If it's the same as National Teacher of the Year, which goes to one person, that's definitely an honor. If it's a State Teacher of the Year (who are the competitors for the National title), again, it's 1 in 50 or so.

So I remain neutral at this time. These are awards, but there are few sources about him, and the sheer number of state-level teacher awards would seem to obviate our making that inherently notable. In aggregate, though? --Dhartung | Talk 09:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:PROF. The awards themselves are of questionable overall notability. Definitely not an expert in any field and not the author of any kind of significant text. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 03:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Resume/CV for a non-notable high school teacher. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only thing that seems to approach real notability is being a guest on NPR's Talk of the Nation, and he was just a guest, not the subject of the show. Beeblbrox (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I don't think WP:PROF is appropriate here. It is not expected that high school teachers generally contribute to the advancement of their field in a scholarly manner. there ARE some exceptions to this (Mainly in the field of education, but there actually is a journal of HS chemistry), but by and large it is the rule. IT is also possible that a teacher could write a textbook, but that is much more likely to occur at the college level (as a college is probably more likely to grant a sabbatical to write a book than a public high school). I'm not sure if we have spearate guidelines for the notability of high school teachers, but if we don't we can follow WP:BIO more generally. "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them." We can't probably make a full judgment of the notability of each of these awards received (aside from the fact that they don't have wiki links), but the run-down above actually does a good job. I'm inclined to think that about 2/3 of these awards are not too earth shaking, but the other 1/3 might be worth something. All in all, tie goes to the article. Protonk (talk) 07:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- AFAIK WP:PROF applies to all academics. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the reason we don't have a WP:TEACH is because teachers generally aren't notable; any who rose to the level of satisfying WP:PROF would be, however. In any case, distinguished teaching awards don't seem to pass muster under WP:BIO, either, given the vast number awarded and the nebulous and oftentimes political criteria for receiving them. Can anyone point to any of this person's awards as being particularly distinguished? I would also say that this looks like a vanity page: the only other page that the page's creator contributed to was Robert Dennison (US Navy officer); the same goes another earlier contributor (both IP addresses from the same town in Texas). RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 14:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the case that WP:PROF is meant to apply to high school teachers, I'm asking for a little common sense on the subject. If shouldn't be applied to them. It is entirely possible that a high school teacher could go their entire life without having written a textbook or contributed a scholarly work, yet still be notable (by virtue of awards, position, recognition). For one, we only need to meat one WP:BIO criteria to establish notability. For another thing, WP:PROF is written so that notable academics who would otherwise not be included could be added by the virtue of their contribution to scholarship. It is, in my opinion, inappropriate to apply those standards to a profession where publishing research is not an expected activity. Having said this, I also understand that this guy might not meet WP:BIO. To me it falls down to a judgment call on the notability of the awards, and their verifiability. Protonk (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep high school teachers normally become notable either through awards, and the question is whether these are sufficient. I think they are. In any profession, president of the State Association is significant.DGG (talk) 03:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Does not pass WP:PROF and does not satisfy WP:BIO either. Apart from the general WP:N itself, at the moment these seem to be the only applicable guidelines that one could use here to justify notability. The NPR reference is solid, but it is certainly insufficient to establish notability. A GoogleNews (all dates) search turns up only four more mentions[43]. The only factors to indicate real notability seem to be the awards listed. If more sources and details related to the awards are found, I may be willing to change to weak keep/keep, as one might then argue that he satisfies WP:PROF (based on criterion 6 of WP:PROF). I am somewhat sympathetic to Protonk's comments, but at the moment the choice here really is between WP:PROF and WP:BIO (and possibly WP:N), neither of which seems to be satisfied here. Nsk92 (talk) 03:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Remember, all he has to meet is this: "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them.". Then it doesn't matter if he fails the rest of the criteria. In my mind there is a real verifiability problem for those awards (or at least, for all of them), but if that list is 100% true there is no reason to delete. Protonk (talk) 17:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- ~~the awards don't seem to add up to WP's BIO notability, but it's hard for me from outside the field, to know.~~ I believe, for instance, a national or state teacher of the year award is notable (and these seem to have survived AfD before), but it's hard to know what "Distinguished teacher, White House" is (how many are given? how is the award chosen? is the award covered by the national or even local press?). The president of Texas Association of Biology Teachers ([44]) might be a notable award, and the "Honorary Membership" (given five times) might also be: their newsletter does have advertisers (textbook printers), so there may be some indication of influence. He also won an award by a national biology teacher's association [45] but it's given yearly to 50 teachers, so that might not be enough [46] (then of course, Texas is extremely populous, with a young population). I'm leaning toward Keep, because there's a definite recognition that he is one of the best teachers in the second most populous state in America, and that's something. But then again, what does one gain from the article? It won't help to explain where a particular theory comes from (as Prof. articles tend to), it's unlikely to be of assistance for doing research--will it just become a vanity/vandalism trap? That pushes me more towards delete. (realizing now I'm basically going through Dhartung's arguments again). -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 05:52, 29 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, encyclopedic content can be merged into the main Gungrave page or rewritten.. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gungrave Terminology

Confusing, unreferenced, WP:OR and excessive in-universe plot details. Not even sure where half this came from, since it doesn't appear in the Gungrave anime at all. Maybe a bad blend of video game and anime, but Wikipedia is not a game guide and it doesn't belong here. Collectonian (talk) 04:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Collectonian (talk) 05:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a game guide. Game guide is a complaint accurately applied only to articles which provide FAQ-type info and tell you how to beat a game, in violation of WP:NOT#HOWTO.
For a more applicable argument, "Terminology of X" pages, while they've often historically been created to gather in universe information that would otherwise be scattered across multiple pages (especially in the case of video games), are currently considered a lousy way to structure in universe content, because they are non-conducive to expansion with any sort of real world information. An alternative that has been successfully used in the past would be the creation of a Gungrave (series) article that can bring together in and out of universe information on the series as a whole, allowing clear presentation and providing grounds for expansion and easier assertion of notability. So I guess my vote goes to restructure. --erachima talk 06:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, I notice a lot of the length comes from covering characters. Given that there is no Characters in Gungrave, that would be another possible way of reorganizing the pages, either instead or in addition to a series page. --erachima talk 06:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A game guide includes minute details about a video game, including extensive background information and terminology summaries, not just an FAQ on how to beat a game. Collectonian (talk) 15:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. See game guide. What you are describing is a different problem related to writing about fiction in general, not specifically writing about games. --erachima talk 20:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. erachima talk 06:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree with what seems to be erachima's point, which is that the suite of articles on the Gungrave franchise are not optimally organized: articles on Gungrave (series) and List of Gungrave characters would seem to be in order, along with other reorganizations and merges. I'm hesitant to delete this information outright, for while it doesn't stand on its own (and, yeah, needs hella editing), it seems likely to have a place in an article with larger context. Exactly what context, though, I cannot say in advance. Would the nominator be amenable to withdrawing the nomination for a while, as editors reorganize things, and if a merge target isn't found after a while, bringing it back later? I would support a deletion at that time, if sourcing for notability isn't found. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no List of Gungrave characters, however Gungrave (anime) has a lengthy character section, as does Gungrave (video game). Gungrave: Overdose is nothing but a character article. Beyond The Grave and Harry MacDowell both have individual articles (in-universe filled, but they exist). Point being, anything in the terminology list of relevance to either video game or the anime should already be sufficiently covered in all that somewhere. I'm not sure a series article is needed. Despite the list saying its a "meta-series" its only two video games with one anime. Collectonian (talk) 15:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to ~~List of major character in Gungrave~~ List of Gungrave characters or some similarly named article after some reorganization. In response to other comments, I do not believe there is any guideline defining what is and is not a game guide. If the entire article is a guide to in-universe aspects of the game, then I'd say "game guide" is a reasonable conclusion. But that's not really the point, and there is not much use in arguing such minutia. It is an in-depth collection of in-universe information with no criteria for inclusion. The problem I see isn't WP:GUIDE, it's WP:PLOT. It would be nice if the article contained more information about how the elements present in the Gungrave video game compare and contrast to those in the anime. Obviously real world info (character design/development details, character analysis/critique from Reputable Sources, etc.) would be an ideal contribution (Curious. I only ever knew about the anime. I didn't know it was a video game first until coming across this AfD.) -Verdatum (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it were going to be renamed, the correct name would be List of Gungrave characters or Characters of Gungrave if there was going to be a focus on development and reception rather than just a list of characters. (I didn't know on the video game either...I thougth the anime had come first :P) Collectonian (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me, so edited. -Verdatum (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to List of Gungrave characters, and perform heavy cleanup to remove all the extraneous plot details and make it less in-universe and more in line with WP:WAF. Per Quasirandom, a series page is probably in order also. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gungrave. All of the content is beyond any independent reliable sources. Interested contributors should read WP:WAF. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's analysis of the article. Doctorfluffy (fart in my face) 04:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect so that editors can access and merge useful information in the future. –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:33, 3 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 no consensus. Clearly no consensus to delete (even the nom withdrew support) but there's a split between those favoring a merge/redirect and an outright keep. Since there is not a consensus we default to keep, but the merge option can certainly be explored on the article talk page.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Race Against Hate

The article does not seem to satisfy the notability factor. While the race is for a good cause, and despite its foundation suport, there are numerous 5k races around the United States and the world that don't receive their own Wikipedia entry. I cannot find a precedent for 'articles for deletion' based on 5k (or any other distance) races, however, allowing the article would open the door for any other race to have its own article. This race doesn't seem to raise any more attention than any other community race, though WP:Othercrapexists. A race size of seven thousand doesn't seem to be "worthy" of an encyclopedic entry. Barkeep^{Chat | $} 04:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable charitable event. While it appears to be for a good cause, that doesn't justify an article. Bfigura ^(talk) 05:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is established through the newspaper articles shown at http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Race+Against+Hate%22 This isn't about worthiness; its about whether reliable sources have made the decision that the event is worth writing about. --Eastmain (talk) 05:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ricky Byrdsong. The articles from the above google search appear to either be discussing the event on a local news level (insufficient for notability), or discuss the race in relation to the person, who is clearly notable. Perhaps if the size of either article/section grew with appropriate content, it would be appropriate to re-split them. But as is, both articles are sufficiently small to fit on a single page. -Verdatum (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After more thought and points given, I'd favor a Merge and Redirect. Barkeep^{Chat | $} 20:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a short description to Ricky Byrdsong. I used to live a block from where the race loops back. It's a local institution these days, I guess, but it doesn't have any wider significance. --Dhartung | Talk 04:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty enough Google hits and news stories. Local news is indeed sufficient for WP:N, as long as it is independent and reliable. As per Wikipedia:LOCAL, what matters is whether there's enough referenced information. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is notable, but there is only enough for a short article. –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:45, 3 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 Redirected into Arabistan If I would have remembered this article to begin with, I would never have nominated the article, but redirected it back to the source from which it was (POV)-forked. Avi (talk) 05:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arab-estan

Posted by an editor involved in a POV issue on Arabian Gulf. Also, article is not appropriately sourced. This appears to be a WP:SOAP and WP:NOR violation. Avi (talk) 04:33, 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 Speedy keep per NAC/SNOW. Good job. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 00:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Mills (opera singer)

Needs incredibly fundamental re-write. Completely unreferenced, original research, POV, written in first person, etc. Tan | 39 04:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite. I think notability is established through references from reliable sources. The original article did include references, but they were given only as URLs. I moved some of the references into {{Cite news}} format to make them easier to read. But the problems cited by the nominator aren't in themselves reason to delete. Things like the names of her spouse or her children can be omitted if they can't be verified, but the original article can still serve as the basis for a good article on a notable American opera singer, once various style issues are resolved. --Eastmain (talk) 05:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, references in article establish notability (and hundreds more are available). A notable opera singer with an international career at the highest level, even if she isn't a household name. It's very depressing to see articles like this db-tagged within minutes of creation, when {{wikify}} should be where it goes -- so thanks for bringing it to AFD. --Dhartung | Talk 06:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did some cleanup, eliminating most of the personal observations and asides. Six paragraphs on her early life and nothing on her career, to be completely fair, makes it difficult to see notability. --Dhartung | Talk 06:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep Notability should be addressed in the body of the text somewhere and the career section definitely needs expanding. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Oh, for pity's sake. CSD and AfD both within four minutes of the article's creation? That's just obnoxious. I agree that the article needs a huge rewrite, but (a) it isn't as if nom gave the creator a chance to do so, and (b) AfD is not the proper venue for that. I'm not terribly sold on the subject's notability, but this is crazy. RGTraynor 14:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please look at the article as it was originally created - I actually did look at it for a few minutes, trying to see if I could wrestle anything out of it to at least create a stub. I removed the misplaced CSD tag, and created this AfD to gain some discussion and perspective on it. I don't appreciate you calling my actions "obnoxious", and this AfD is exactly the chance to rewrite, source, etc. Like Dhartung said above, this certainly wasn't a speedy candidate, and I think this discussion has (and will) cause the article to meet Wikipedia standards a lot faster (and better) than if I had just slapped a cleanup tag on it. Tan | 39 14:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However, using AfD to force cleanup, especially when the article is still being created, is obnoxious behavior. There's enough articles with valid reasons to delete to wade through. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree with Quasirandom. This is not some article that's been dangling for a year or two. This is an article that was created moments before you AfDed it. To quote from the guide to deletion, "Please remember that the deletion process is about the appropriateness of the article for inclusion in Wikipedia." The nomination section in particular urges numerous steps that should be taken before filing an AfD, including tagging, adding cleanup templates, investigating the notability of a subject, and so on. No inclusionist would ever count me in his camp, but deletionism is a heck of a lot easier to defend when hack-and-slash isn't our first and only impulse. RGTraynor 15:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you folks feel this way. I am not a mindless deletionist. I made a comment on Quasi's talk page that you might find interesting. Tan | 39 15:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for not assuming good faith. However, you do admit on my talk page that you found enough information to demonstrate notability. Even if the initial article needed a complete ground-up rewrite, per the instructions for deleting an article, that makes the AfD inappropriate. In the context of large numbers of savable articles being AfDed/PRODded/CSDed within moments of creation, it was an annoying action. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable enough.--Berig (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Citations, as now present, demonstrate notability per WP:BIO. Good save, Dhartung. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perfectly notable and I have to state my concern about the possibility of this article being nominated for AFD in order to force cleanup. We have tags that we use to indicate articles that require cleanup, more sources and a better claim for notability, which should be used (except for more cut-and-dried cases) before the AFD procedure is followed. 23skidoo (talk) 23:56, 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, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bahay-saliksikan ng Bulacan (Center for Bulacan Studies)

Center for Bulacan Studies is not notable on its own to be its own article. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC) - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article created by User:Bahay-saliksikan ng Bulacan, which is an account created purely for this very article. Although the account has edited the Bulacan State University-related articles, the user name is also quite inappropriate. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete found no reliable sources over the net. Universities are notable but the individual institutions that comprise it might not be notable.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —- Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 06:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as spam and block user for inappropriate user name. Qworty (talk) 09:15, 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 (non-admin closure). Following undivided consensus that the subject is notable, nominator withdrew nomination. WilliamH (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Mahler

Probably fails WP:PROF. Also unreferenced, POV, and created by a user whose only contribution this is. Biruitorul (talk) 04:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of saving time (and face), I withdraw this nomination, as notability appears to have been established, but I hope the POV and referencing issues get sorted out. Biruitorul (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Author of Comparative politics : an institutional and cross-national approach, a textbook now in its fifth edition. --Eastmain (talk) 04:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Needs some more work, but overall a good article. Dwilso 05:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A whopping 108 unique hits on Google Scholar, something I discovered in ten seconds of research. I note that the article was AfDed less than eight hours after creation. RGTraynor 14:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8 hours is a lot more than far too many articles get, grump grump. Oh, and for the record, keep per above. The textbook itself would be enough. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable.--Berig (talk) 15:06, 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.

Rape This Industrial World Vol.1

The result was Speedy G7, the author blanked the page. -- lucasbfr ^talk 19:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contested PROD, no assertion that this compilation album passes WP:MUSIC, zero references. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 03:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:11, 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, consensus is that the article is original research. Davewild (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Speed Controlled Car

A curious bit of original research. Starts as a proposal for radio speed limit messages to be sent to cars. Then rapidly goes into minute detail of devices. I think it may be the outline of a student project. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 03:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Original Research Lars T. (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. -Verdatum (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:37, 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 notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Style Technicians

NN graffiti crew. Nakon 02:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. JJL (talk) 03:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:36, 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 Snowball Keep (non-admin closure per WP:SNOW), overwhelming consensus, nom did not proffer deletion criteria. Ravenswing 14:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abbywinters.com

Is this notable? Ecoleetage (talk) 02:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; whatever happened to opening an AfD with a explanation of why it should be deleted, instead of a snide comment? It's notable and verifiable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if you considered my comment to be "snide" -- it's just that I don't consider media outlets like "Best of Porn" and "Adult DVD Talk" to be notable information resources. Ecoleetage (talk) 09:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither do I, and those should be replaced or removed per WP:RS. But the notability derives from being covered by WIRED, multiple newspapers, and sex industry outlets like AVN. --Dhartung | Talk 10:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stating that that you consider certain sources to be unreliable is helpful; people can fix those references, or show that the remaining ones are sufficient. Your original post had nothing of that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I sincerely apologize if my initial comments were not clear. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; as a note, which the nominator didn't care to point out, this has passed ("no consensus") one AfD ("VfD") before: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Abby Winters.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The site is notable, with 18 references cnfirming it. Soxred93 | talk bot 02:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient third party coverage to assert notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Some of those 18 references are first-party, but there's enough different other reliable sources to demonstrate notability. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though it has some issues, there are sufficient references in article to demonstrate notability. Consider other approaches for imperfect articles before AFD such as tagging e.g. {{more sources}}. --Dhartung | Talk 04:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks like it. Maxa megalon 2000 05:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes notability concerns. Bfigura ^(talk) 05:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks notable enough to me, if you catch my drift (that is, the references establish notability). Klausness (talk) 10:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep the AVN award confirms notability Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:10, 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 Keep Yes, it could do with some work. Ty 23:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sislej Xhafa

Subject does not appear to meet notability standards, and the article's lack of links and references doesn't help. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 04:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references from reliable sources, and I think that notability has been demonstrated. --Eastmain (talk) 04:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 04:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain's references. Plus, he's represented Albania at the Venice Biennale: [47] --Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ethicoaestheticist, but the article could use some work...Modernist (talk) 12:21, 29 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 nancy ^(talk) 15:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xoxo, panda

Xoxo comes to us with a lack of notability. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No reliable references provide, and lacks notability. Dwilso 03:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable fictional character; unclear where this character has even been published. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete' Per nom. Article fails to establish notability, zero references.--Rtphokie (talk) 11:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Berig (talk) 15:05, 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 speedily deleted by Jonny-mt (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) at 08:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC) per WP:CSD#G11 - blatant advertising. cab (talk) 08:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xynergi

Reads like an advertisement, not an article Ecoleetage (talk) 01:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Blatant advertising, tagged as a G11 speedy. Bfigura ^(talk) 05:06, 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 S-keep. Nom withdrew. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 00:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Westover and Bournemouth Rowing Club

Non notable subject matter and bad article, the user that created this appears to exist only for the creation and promotion of this article Fallenfromthesky (talk) 01:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

added notification on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rowing Paulbrock (talk) 02:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Two of the three reasons given in the nomination are not valid. Bad articles can be made better, Single article editors can create articles. Only notability matters and this looks notable to me, so I sugesst keep and expect someone closer to the details to give more information and improve the article. --Bduke (talk) 02:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

--Nroseuk (talk) 07:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)I am compiling the history of this club and only set up a user profile to add information to Wikipedia about the club. Last night was my first attempt at using Wikipedia so I cut and paste information from the web site. As requeste by you I have changed this and added a bit of history. The club is notable at producing World Class champions and organising the annual weekly regatta - the facal point of Bournemouth's social scene for over a century and has equal (if not more) relevence to Bournemouth as the Rugby and Football clubs listed on the sporting sections.--Nroseuk (talk) 07:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep We've got to knock this off with nominating articles for deletion less than a day after they have been created. Sure, SPAM, Copyvio, and nonsense/hoax can all get blasted, but something that requires a judgment on notability should be given more than 24 hours to develop. Beyond the fact that we are passing judgment on a subject we likely no little about without time for an expert to weigh in, we have the added effect of pushing away new wikipedia users. Protonk (talk) 08:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's nothing in the WP "rules" against creating an account solely for the creation of a single article. Nor is there any guideline that says articles so created must be deleted. I don't know the club in question (as I'm no Englishman), but amateur rowing clubs that have competed in the Henley Royal Regatta and produced world champions are generally pretty notable. Don't expect to find your results under Google, though. The newspaper archive would be a much better place to check for sources.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 09:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination - obviously not given article creator adequate time, nomination was too trigger happy. Apologies! Paulbrock (talk) 12:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Clearly ready for the weekend, not even my nom! Apologies AGAIN! and Keep as not enough time given to establish article. Paulbrock (talk) 13:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is this resolved? - Can we remove the box about deletion? Thnaks --Nroseuk (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Nomination Admins please resolve as keep. Fallenfromthesky (talk) 21:58, 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 keep per unanimity of respondents (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 00:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Záviš von Zap

The notability of this article appears to be somewhat off-key. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article seems to be based closely on the corresponding article in the German Wikipedia, which cites a source on its talk page. The source definitely exists, but I don't have immediate access to it, so I'm not offering an opinion at this time. Deor (talk) 02:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep; real people from the 14th century should be given the benefit of the doubt, as nobody would write an article on them if they weren't notable. Furthermore, the AfD doesn't give any reason to delete, and hence should be speedily closed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Furthermore, both Beiträge zur Musikwissenschaft and Alte Musik: Von den Anfängen abendländischer Musik by Alfred Baumgartner show up in Google Books as mentioning him. There's two reliable sources.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created this due to the German Wikipedia article. I was thinking Medieval composers who are still known are probably notable. I did not find any sources though, but if there are sources that indicate this guy is a memorable Medieval composer then I say keep.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, medieval composers are notable.--Berig (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources clearly exist to confer notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:27, 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. Sandstein (talk) 08:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

50 Greatest Comedy Catchphrases

The notability of this highly subjective and British-slanted list doesn't appear to be obvious. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced list, unlikely to be sourced. No notability asserted for the list; probably a one-time airing that got reran ad nauseam without leaving an impact. Furthermore, they left out "That's Numberwang!". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a single sourced, non-notable. I don't see a reason to keep this. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can I do you now, sir? The TV show is techically notable since it has been noticed by reliable sources such as the UK press. But the real content here is the catchphrases and the TV show is best seen as a source which verifies them and their notability. So, move this to List of comedy catchphrases and make the show one of the sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - List isn't even complete. Jjaazz (talk) 14:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if this is, as stated, "a list broadcast on the British Channel 4" surely it's a WP:COPYVIO and should have been speedied? -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 14:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced and inherently POV.--Berig (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, copyvio. Intellectual property of the broadcasting entity. Corvus cornix_talk 23:13, 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 delete. As CaliforniaAliBaba notes, there's nothing sourced to merge. Sandstein (talk) 08:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Immigration from Singapore to the United States

Why does this need its own article, this type of immigration is really Non Notable. ~S R S~ 01:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Wikipedia:WikiProject Asian Americans has been informed of this discussion. cab (talk) 02:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 02:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a sufficiently notable topic to justify its own article. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge relevent details to Immigration to the United States as probably not notable as a stand alone artile. Additionally, could someone tell me how to remove Immigration to Puerto Rico from the category "Category:Immigration_to_the_United_States". Thanks Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Jasynnash2.--Berig (talk) 15:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any content worth mergeing. An article on this topic could be created (though possibly titled better) and it could be extremely informative; but it would take a lot of hunting for obscure sources, and I see no evidence of the intention for such an effort here. -Verdatum (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Verdatum; there's nothing sourced to merge, and quite possibly nothing sourceable. See the searches I performed in the hidden box below --- I've written articles about all sorts of obscure immigration patterns, and searches like those will show with results even for unlikely combinations of non-Anglophone countries, like Mongolians in South Korea or Iranians in Japan, but they give no reliable sources for Singaporeans in the United States. Apparently no one with any institutional credibility backing them up has found the topic worth looking into before, so therefore we can't write a Wikipedia article on it. cab (talk) 11:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Searches

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL - mainly gives Gwendoline Yeo using the term to refer to herself (practically the only notable person to do so), and lots of hits of the form "Singaporean, American"
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL - "singaporeans in america" in Chinese, just a bunch of blogs and false positives
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --- gives one article containing an unsourced estimate (not attributed to any government bureaux or anything) that there's 10,000 Singaporeans living in the US [48]
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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 --- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Walk FPS Creator

I fear that this might be an non-notable piece of software. Marlith (Talk) 01:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Reads like a advertisement, and it reads as a software that is non notable and underground type release.--~S R S~ 01:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nominator why have not added deletion tag in the main article?. --SkyWalker (talk) 04:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, and, like truco-x said, sounds like an ad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PwnerELITE (talk • contribs) 00:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Object If it is not notable, why not delete the FPS Creator page as well? Admittedly alot of the article needs to be rewritten, but the SW community is trying to rectify the issue. ^Talk User:Fissionfox 09:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to the other article. If you want to cleanup the article, then add non-trivial coverage by reliable verifiable secondary sources. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability and written like an advertisement. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of independent reputable coverage. Similarly, consider nominating for deletion FPS Creator. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:37, 2 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. Carioca (talk) 00:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Blood

Dubious. Does not verify claims. (EhJJ)^TALK 01:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This one could have been nominated for speedy deletion. It isn't encyclopedic, it isn't sourced, it isn't notable. It isn't coherent. Real information on this subject is already likely contained in relevant articles on stage techniques. The "Seriously" at the end makes me think this is someone's idea of a joke, but I can't see what that is.Auspex1729 (talk) 06:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced. Agree about the last sentence- it makes me think it's a complete hoax. Creator is an SPA. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 07:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research, possibly a hoax or includes made up "facts", no sources, no encyclopedic value to the topic. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What the...? Surely this is a WP:HOAX? -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 14:24, 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. Wizardman 20:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Real Estate Schools

These pages were both created by one user, clearly affiliated with Texas real estate. The real estate school page should most likely be deleted, as WP is not a textbook or how-to manual. The list is less clear; while I think it's a decent enough topic, I highly doubt it will be completed. If someone can make WP:HEY improvements to the list, I would withdraw the nomination for it. GlassCobra 01:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (both), the creator can always go to Wikihow. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the schools; keep the list, which seems as if it might be a worthwhile reference, even if it is a while before it gets filled in. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it is just me but wouldn't you want someone affiliated with Texas Real Estate to write the article? Real Estate Education is a gigantic industry and can be a saving career path for people looking for a second career or someone who is struggling to get by. Sure the schools are a for profit institutions but people can benefit from the knowledge on how to get into it or more information on starting a new career after a relocation. The last I checked, Metallica is a for profit band, yet their wiki is actually protected from edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.64.60.138 (talk) 21:55, 28 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 unanimity of responses (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 00:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aliso village housing projects

no citations to secondary sources or assertion of notability? Oo7565 (talk) 01:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to have been the subject of a 5,000 word piece in the LA Times [49], 20 other sources on Google News Archive [50], 250 for "Aliso Village" on GNA. 155 results on Google Books. Plenty of sources. --Rividian (talk) 02:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --intrinsic historical importance, and also the sources to show it. A careless nomination without attempting even to look for the most obvious sources. DGG (talk) 23:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A notable historical housing project. Many non-trivial hits on both g-scholar and g-books. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:42, 30 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-k per SNOW. Great job improving the article everyone.

Bloody Sunday (1969)

Delete this unsourced one-liner about a clash does not demonstrate notability of such. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Big delete~~ ~~I think it just fails the CSD for little or no context. It is unclear and you don't really learn anything from it. Me what do u want? _{Your Hancock Please} 01:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)~~ Speedy keep After the article went through the renevation, it is a great stub that you can learn from. Me what do u want? _{Your Hancock Please} 15:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Super Delete~~-Fails CSD for lack of context and like Mm40 stated you cant learn from it.--~S R S~ 01:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After the revamp, Speedy Keep.--~S R S~ 20:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For sure. True lack of content. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Much better now. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 13:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looking over news articles, there was a protest in Istanbul on February 16, 1969, over a week-long visit by the U.S. Sixth Fleet; two persons were killed and 150 were injured. As far as events go, it didn't rate a mention in TIME Magazine (www.time.com). It was a clash "between the right and the left", and February 16 was on a Sunday, and there was bloodshed. It's not the type of thing that lends itself to an anniversary observance. Nothing notableMandsford (talk) 02:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just edited the article a little bit based on some google searching. I know nothing about the event, but perhaps that information could be merged into an article about Taksim Square or another mor e relevant page, if it isn't worth its own article? --99.250.67.100 (talk) 03:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep the event is notable. It probably will be hard to find english language web sources for something that happened in turkey 30 years ago. I've included it in the disambiguation page for bloody sunday, added some project tags and I'm going to tack a few sources on there. Please don't delete. Protonk (talk) 04:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't mean to be rude, and if you feel I'm not being civil, then let me know on the talk page, I might strike this comment, but I think something is unclear. An article being poorly worded is not grounds for deletion. An article not showing up on a cursory google search is not grounds for deletion. While it is the author's responsibility to show notability, the rest of us should at least check google scholar/books before deep sixing this article. It took me <30 minutes and I've got 2 journal articles and one book that mention the event. Please, please, help clean prose up (as the original author probably doesn't speak english as a first language) and do some checking for sources before you say things like Big Delete. Protonk (talk) 05:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MAN, I was heated. Lots of nerd rage. Turns out the article seen by the first few delete votes was literally one line, no sources and no clear idea of what was happening. The article was STILL terrible when I saw it (apologies to 99.250.67.100 who did an awesome job fixing it up but it still had a long way to go), so I assumed that they saw the same article I did. Sorry guys (and/or gals). Protonk (talk) 16:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG keep This article is totally revamped now. 6 independent sources, each published or otherwise peer reviewed. Wikified. Added to appropriate projects and categories. Linked to and from the appropriate disambiguation pages and wiki pages. The prose has been reworked (but still needs work from someone who is better at that than me). Only one ^{[citation needed]} tag left. It is a whole new beast. Protonk (talk) 07:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources added by Protonk appear to establish notability. Klausness (talk) 10:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 11:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Protonk. The improved article still needs a POV check but it was a notable event. Google searches indicate continued academic/historical interest. • Gene93k (talk) 11:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, given improvement and sourcing. --JulesN Talk 12:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY by author. It probably does still need cleanup but its notability is now clear. --Dhartung | Talk 12:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well-sourced stub of a notable event TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 17:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hiya. I was to 99.250.67.100, now on my registered account. Just thought I'd put my own 2 cents in, now that the article's been improved (and thanks to others properly worded and sourced), it's definitely a keeper. --Dustinmacdonald (talk) 21:44, 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 to delete, which defaults to keep. The second half of the nomination, namely the article titled Janet Wolfe, could perhaps be merged/redirected to form one more comprehensive article, as Ms. Wolfe is perhaps only notable for this particular venture. A merge proposal may be in order, keeping both for now...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfe Laboratories

No notability asserted, likely author conflict of interest.

Also including the following page for the same reasons.

Paulbrock (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notification added to Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Pharmacology Paulbrock (talk) 01:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know of this company. I would say this was an assertion of notability: "Wolfe Laboratories was selected as one of the “Top 100 Woman-Led Business in MA” in 2007. Conducted by the Commonwealth Institute and Center for Woman’s Leadership at Babson College, the top 100 businesses were identified based on company revenue." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insufficient attribution of notability to independent sources. Only routine or press release coverage on Google News Archive. And being in a "top 100" of anything is a pretty slim claim to notability, especially when a) at state level and b) qualified ("women led business"). The top firm in an industry in a state would be a much stronger claim. --Dhartung | Talk 04:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither article sufficienty assesses notability. Contrary to Richard, being headed by a woman should nowadays not be the only reason to make a company notable. I will revise vote on the company if further information on notability is added (e.g. particular important products/methodologies offered, involvement in particularly notable or notorious cases etc). JFW | T@lk 06:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of RS coverage and sole assertion of notability is dubious and local, doesn't apppear to meet WP:CORP TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 17:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the article is notable and should be kept - it sounds like Wolfe has been in the news for some entrepreneurial achievements. There also appears to be relevant research going on as well. Other CRO's seem to have similar information on their pages. --powerten10 |

— powerten10 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

- What's a CRO? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the sources do tend to indicate the notability, though it is very hard to judge in this area, where they provide consulting, not tangible products.Probably only one of the two articles should be kept, but I'm not sure which. DGG (talk) 01:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wolfe Laboratories. Merge and redirect Janet Wolfe to Wolfe Laboratories as the person is only notable for her company. The company has received independent coverage, demonstrating notability. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - to meet notability requirements it is necessary to have significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, independent of the subject. Of those I can check, there's a mention in a Top 100 list (not significant coverage). The refs under the References heading seem to be about the industry in general rather than specifically Wolfe. This leaves a press release, listed on Yahoo, but not independent, and a short article about moving premises, which I would argue is not significant coverage. How do the 'keeps' see the sources? Paulbrock (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the references in the article aren’t good enough, but we have to judge the subject, not the article as it is now, there are no time limits. I found http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/news/sections/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsLang=en&newsId=20080401006163 and consider that it is sufficiently impressive as a demonstration of notability. It contains commentary about the company. I read “significant” as direct, not passing. It is not obvious that the news is non-independent, like a paid advertisement, so I give it the benefit of the doubt. Regarding “sources” (plural), I am happy to assume that if I can easily find one, then there’ll be more (like cockroaches). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's another press release though, which any company could upload to businesswire.com, not independent commentary about the company. See also [51] Paulbrock (talk) 17:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good point. What about the www.bizjournals.com articles [52], [53]. Are they also non-independent (paid for)? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Certainly much better. I feel that I am becoming too quick to shoot down 'keep' arguments though, so I will leave other contributors to determine the validity of the articles. Paulbrock (talk) 02:09, 3 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 speedily deleted per author request. Fabrictramp (talk) 22:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremiah Gray Edison Elementary School

Just another elementary school. Prod removed by author. JuJube (talk) 00:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A7, even though it makes me feel a little sad inside. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Schools can't be A7'd. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Metropolitan School District of Perry Township, where it's already listed under the name "Jeremiah Gray" (which I'll emend to the correct form, "Jeremiah Gray-Edison"), per the usual practice for elementary schools. Deor (talk) 01:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (if we can source the information in the article) and redirect: no reason to delete the article entirely. Nyttend (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Merge into Metropolitan School District of Perry Township. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 16:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as with all other n-n elementary schools TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 17:18, 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:unsourced. Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin and the Chipmunks Deux

Apparent hoax, as this film title is not mentioned on imdb.com or anywhere else other than sites derived from the Wikipedia article DAJF (talk) 00:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —DAJF (talk) 00:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~hoaxalicious.~~ It's talked about a lot on Google, but there doesn't seem to be any sources that actually confirm it's happening. JuJube (talk) 00:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~G3 as obvious hoax, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)~~ Strong delete unsourced and unverifiable, crystalball. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Crystal ball, unsourced, unverifieable, delete for sure. Some people are even saying that it will happen because it's written here! Soxred93 | talk bot 03:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:NFF. Also, I slowed the article down to 33⅓RPM and it's actually just a normal human voice! --Dhartung | Talk 04:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem is, now Dave sounds like Richard Sterban on Quaaludes. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NFF. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probable hoax; at least WP:CRYSTAL. Echo the sentiments of Soxred93- citations of Wikipedia as confirmation of this movie are spreading like a rash, as I found doing a google test. Yikes! JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 07:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - suffers from WP:NFF and WP:V, as well as a dose of WP:CRYSTAL and, potentially, a case of WP:HOAX. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 14:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Everything has been said above.--Berig (talk) 15:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete given the comments written above, it is our solemn duty to make sure that ANYTHING increasing the chance that there is a sequel to that movie get nuked from orbit. :P Protonk (talk) 16:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL, no refs, appears to completely OR. Delete. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 16:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That whirring sound is Dave Seville spinning in his grave. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:34, 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 keep; obviously meets WP:ATHLETE, no delete preferences voiced (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 00:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AJ Gilbert

hoax article about non existant rugby union player, only went through AfD due to creator removing prod CullenNZ (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not a hoax, and it also meets WP:BIO due to being a professional athlete. Soxred93 | talk bot 00:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hmm may have been hasty with the AfD but the wiki article says he's born in 1977, whereas a google search says he was 21 in 2007, as well as saying he's rookie player whereas the wiki incorrectly says he is a veteran player for the Reds so I just guess it needs someone to clean-up with the correct information because although now I know it is a existant player, most things in the article seem to been made up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CullenNZ (talk • contribs) 01:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a hoax. I know it needs cleanup, but It is not a hoax. Kubek15^{(Sign!) (Contribs) (UBX)} 11:00, 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 close Moved to WP:IFD where images for deletion should go. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mute swan male close-up.JPG

wrong pic uploaded seahamlass 00:20, 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 `'Míkka >t 16:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Standard work

Nonencyclopedic original research. "Standard work" is a vague term, one of many of the kind: seminal work, influential work, standard textbook, standard reference, major work, classic work etc. ad infinitum. Mukadderat (talk) 00:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources, and the term is pretty self-explanatory, so moving to wiktionary is probably not necessary. Pundit|utter 00:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless it can be supported with clearly defined references. As it is now, it appears to simply be original research tied specificly to a single religious body, which is already covered by Standard Works Dbiel ^(Talk) 01:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this looks like an excuse for lots of original research. Karanacs (talk) 02:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If there were references, I'd vote otherwise. Lack of references, and OR summarizes my vote. Soxred93 | talk bot 02:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the sort of thing that would make a good Atlantic essay but not an encyclopedic article. There's no way we could source a list of "standard works", which is just an opinion anyway. It would be the equivalent of having List of four-star movies. --Dhartung | Talk 04:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no refs, lot's of OR, so delete. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 16:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete it might be possible to write an article on this, but it would have to be done from scratch. DGG (talk) 01:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. It's an extremely important designation by scholars in all fields. It is a mere {{stub}} and needs much development, and I'm going to designated it {{underconstruction}}. It is difficult to write about since it's hard to find reference. But it certainly is not since I did not discover this widely known practice of desifnating scholarly studies as standard works. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:37, 30 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 --- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back Seat Confidential

Non-notable early version of a song whose article has already been deleted. No case made for notability. This article was deprodded with no edit summary or discussion. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Early version of a non-notable song, unlikely to expand beyond a poorly sourced stub. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, at best a redirect to the album the song is on. --Dhartung | Talk 04:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Volts (album), and subsequently to what Volts (album) may get redirected to. The critical problem is the lack of independent sources or other claim of notability. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:10, 2 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 Speedy Delete per CSD G7 Author blanked article. Nakon 03:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guan jee do

Contested prod which has slowly been transformed in an advert for a non-notable martial art and instructor of same. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete utterly lacks third-party reliable sources: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. The 5 webhits consist of Myspace and LinkedIn pages, and a mention in a laundry list on a web forum.cab (talk) 00:02, 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 Keep (non-admin closure). As a German speaker, I found this, so yes it did indeed win the award, which reasonably clear consensus discusses that this demonstrates notability. WilliamH (talk) 18:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AHT Cooling Systems

It fails WP:corp, Most relevant information must be found article also reads like an ad Oo7565 (talk) 00:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep If AHT really did win a European ProCool award, I'd say that's decent enough notability. Hopefully a user fluent in German can help us out here. GlassCobra 01:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep see above. It seems to be a valid stub if it passes WP:NOT. Me what do u want? _{Your Hancock Please} 01:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Austrian air conditioners? Ecoleetage (talk) 02:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ecoleetage, please offer a rationale for deletion that has some relationship to policy. I don't follow your objection. --Dhartung | Talk 04:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response Sorry for being vague, but I don't see how this article fits into Wikipedia's notability. It seems like an advertisement for Austrian air conditioners. Ecoleetage (talk) 09:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The only question at issue here is whether it passes WP:CORP. If it has been covered by reliable sources, then it is notable for Wikipedia purposes. If it is indeed a "leading global manufacturer" (haven't verified that yet), it's certainly notable. --Dhartung | Talk 10:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, probably improvable by a German speaking editor. There's coverage that isn't press releases. (I'm fascinated that the official company name is in English.) --Dhartung | Talk 04:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. A hard goods manufacturing business with some evidence of notability. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "A company ... is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources." The article cites an article in WirtschaftsBlatt. What else do we need? Lars T. (talk) 18:00, 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 by Orangemike (R3: Recent redirect from implausible typo, link or misnomer: db-rediruser). Non-admin closure. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Immortals (Grey Griffins)

This article is about a book that has yet to be released and has yet to even have a scheduled release date. The only thing that exists for this article is, basically, a plot summary. There is no proof of when this will be released and that it will be a notable work of fiction. Metros (talk) 00:00, 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 Keep. There is no consensus here to delete anything, and a marginal at best consensus here to merge some of the minor articles into a parent article (but that's for the talkpages of the respective articles). Perhaps a new article called "Minor characters of The Bill" is in order? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Roach

Procedural nomination for contested prod. No evidence of notability. Written primarily in-universe with no real world relevance. No third party sources. Fails WP:FICTION, WP:V and WP:RS.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Quick Robin to the Bat Cave (talk) 09:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: A anon IP editor has added Nathaniel Roberts to this AfD. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand or merge' -I see the argument of notability but they are characters from a notable British TV series and are no different to many of the character articles we have on countless American sitcoms etc. Needs some out of universe information though, a merge into a list would be best but something tells me there are so many characters that this would become too bloated ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 15:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There may be notability concerns on fictional characters, but the long-running series is definitely notable. One might refer to WP:Simpsons for precedent. These articles represent a considerable amount of fairly well-done editing; a decision to delete should not be done lightly. Plvekamp (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That's two different arguments. A long-running series is notable and it already has an article. The notability concerns are about these particular characters which have unsouced , in-universe "biographies" with no real world relevance. Quick Robin to the Bat Cave (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a wikiproject for these articles, WP:WikiProject The Bill Plvekamp (talk) 16:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite to be out-of-universe. Comment: should be renamed in favor of real persons if there is such a case. Lars T. (talk) 18:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to the tv series, while the show might be notable, the characters themselves have not gained coverage in reliable sources. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 18:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is exactly the point the "keep" !votes fail to understand. Quick Robin to the Bat Cave (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all pending the applicable expansion. To my knowledge the recent arbcom injunction did not result in a ban on these articles. If the articles have been banned, there are certainly less notable series to be targeted first. I won't accuse anyone of WP:OSTRICH but The Bill is on par with Law & Order with notability - series and character-wise - in its country of origin. 23skidoo (talk) 23:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This discussion is not about whether the show is notable. This is about whether these particular characters are notable. There are no third party sources backing up any such claim. Quick Robin to the Bat Cave (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either keep and expand or Merge/redact/refactor all into List of recurring characters in The Bill or similar. It's a fairly major series, so articles on its main characters are not out of the question. Grutness...wha? 00:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is already a List of The Bill characters. Basically a laundry list but it fulfils the function of a "list" that would otherwise make the main article too bloated. It does appear to list all characters portrayed by contracted actors (not guest stars). Quick Robin to the Bat Cave (talk) 02:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have noticed some other characters pages have already been deleted as in Phil Hunter and Ramani DeCosta to mention just a few. I agree with Blofeld, this is a very notable series and i personally always look at the page for the info. available (date first appeared) as this can hardly be found elsewhere on the net. Users have gone to the trouble of including images for many of the characters, this would be a big loss if deleted. Roadrunnerz45 ^{(talk 2 me)} 10:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As has already been discussed, the notability of the series is not in question. The undeniable issue is that these articles fail (miserably) WP:FICTION, WP:V and WP:RS. The images have all been copied from www.thebillbios.co.uk (so it would not be a "loss" at all) which already has in-universe character biographies. Quick Robin to the Bat Cave (talk) 09:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All or Merge All with List of The Bill characters. These articles do not cite any primary source, so they fail WP:V and their content fails WP:OR. They contain only trivial plot summaries and so fail WP:NOT#PLOT, or just details of the actors and so fail WP:NOT#GUIDE. None of the articles cite any reliable secondary sources and so they fail WP:N. The information in these articles can commonly be found in TV Guides and fansites, but falls outside the scope of Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keepthe major characters, merge the others. Delete none of them. DGG (talk) 01:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What is the rationale for keeping any unsourced fancruft? There is no valid reason to keep anything that blatantly fails WP:FICTION, WP:V and WP:RS. Quick Robin to the Bat Cave (talk) 10:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep any that can be found to have real-world information in any reliable source. Redirect the rest to the TV series, or an article on the characters collectively. Deletion is excessively rude and not appropriate. Encourage the contributors to read WP:WAF. Review the contribution history of the articles in question and Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:04, 2 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.