Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 February 15

< February 14	February 16 >

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The result was Keep as nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Sting au Buzz Me... 23:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

School diva

seems to have original research issues. probably better at MetaWiki. whole heap of these on a "Roles in Schools" template so test case to see what community thinks? unencyclopedic and no sources per WP:RS. Sting au Buzz Me... 00:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain about this one but I think most or all of the articles in that template are perfectly OK. With respect to this one, it could probably be improved into a decent article , but it should not just be about fictional portrayals. Teacher's pet though almost entirely about fiction is a useful disam page, as there are multiple notable works with that title. Class clown was almost empty and deleted as an expired prod, Student athlete was a joke page, and should probably be re-created properly. The other student ones seem perfectly OK to me as articles, though they need sources. The school staff ones could all be sourced very easily from any textbook of school administration. DGG (talk) 02:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added citations to this article in order to demonstrate notability. I created the template, and along the way added the Template:Citations missing to almost every article. However, I used that template rather than Template:Notability because these are clearly notable topics. Commonly the topic of popular cultural references, there is also a growing body of literature surrounding student roles in schools. I really don't want to do all of the work inherent in demonstrating that, but if these articles were put up for AfD I would work against them. • Freechild'sup? 04:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn per work by Freechild. Well done. Close as keep. Sting au Buzz Me... 05:32, 16 February 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 User:Alexf, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peel Promenade Construction Railway

It seems pretty worthless right now and non-notable. The article says pretty much nothing and it doesn't really seem like it can be much expanded upon. Tombomp (talk) 11:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd suggest merging to an article about the Promenade itself, except that we don't even have such an article. Choess (talk) 03:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A1, very short article with no context to speak of, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per TPH. Sting au Buzz Me... 00:41, 16 February 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. Core desat 06:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After.Life

Per the notability guidelines for future films, After.Life does not yet warrant existence because there are no reliable sources to show that it has begun production. According to Reuters, it was supposed to have begun filming in 2007. In addition, for those who wonder about the poster, it is merely a teaser poster released in February 2007 before production was intended to start, so this is not a sign that it will come out. I've done my best to look for verifiable coverage from reliable sources about the film being in production, but there are none. Even IMDb says the status of this film is "Unknown". No prejudice against recreation if sourcing can be found for the start of production. Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The notability guidelines for future films stipulate that a stand-alone article for a film should not be created until a project enters production. This is because many factors such as budget issues, scripting issues, and casting issues can interfere with the project. Indeed, this project has already been delayed and there's nothing to say it won't be again. The article can be recreated when principal photography is confirmed to have begun. Steve ^{T • C} 14:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no WP:RS per WP:NFF. Sting au Buzz Me... 00:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFF. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Steve. Evan ¤ Seeds 04:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Belinda Chang

Appears to be non-notable Chinese writer. Two proposed deletions, both removed, so trying AFD. Cannot find much to show verifiability. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for example, here's reviews for her second [1] and third [2] books. cab (talk) 10:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 10:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I checked her Chinese name under Yahoo-Taiwan, Google, Live Search, Baidu and Sina Taiwan. Most of her results were only books related. However, there are enough results to keep the entry and it meets notability and verifiability guidelines. TheAsianGURU (talk) 00:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- notable in the round. -- Simon Cursitor (talk) 11:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the comments above, appears to be a notable Asian writer. RFerreira (talk) 22:17, 19 February 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. Core desat 06:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Humza Hashmi

It fails WP:FICT, disputed prod. Cenarium (talk) 23:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FIC. Non assertion of notability, and not enough information. Victao lopes (talk) 23:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. Minor character says it all really. Fails WP:FICT. Sting au Buzz Me... 00:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of minor Naruto characters. No sign of being independently notable outside the series, so cover it in the seris subpage. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be an incredibility incidental character as even a Google search turns up nothing, much less anything that would indicate notability. In fact, I doubt this character actually exists in the series and this article is a hoax. --Farix (Talk) 22:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right. The character does not appear in the reference given, the character lists at Naruto HQ. striking my vote above and changing to delete as hoax. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:45, 19 February 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: Deleted per snowbal clause. Creator's attempt to merge the article into Semantic Web has been firmly rejected. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 10:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The limit of the semantic web

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Corvus cornix_talk 23:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this page still threatened with deletion? The deadline was the 12th, and there’s no comment on the subject here. IMO this should be improved, not deleted; it looks like a useful addition, and I’d like to read it again tomorrow. If the objection is “Original Research” wouldn’t it be better to ask for references, and tag it thus? --Identityandconsulting (talk) 23:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's currently at Articles for Deletion, so yes, it's still threatened with deletion. And please don't add a new header in this discussion, it messes up the rest of the queue. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Identityandconsulting (talk · contribs) created the article. Corvus cornix_talk 00:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where does that user come up with Feb. 12 as the deadline? This article was written today. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article is apparently a repost. An article with the variant title The limit of The Semantic Web was, in fact, deleted as an expired prod on February 12. Deor (talk) 01:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as obvious POV/OR and merge any worthwhile content into Semantic Web --Nick Dowling (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced original research. Fails WP:NOR. Sting au Buzz Me... 00:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced original research that is unclear at best.Beeblbrox (talk) 03:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion proposal: Is this page still threatened with deletion? It has been suggested that this article or section be merged into Semantic Web (Skeptical reactions ). (Discuss)--Identityandconsulting (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion proposal: Do we scare away contributors by hassling them and deleting their work?

The biggest problem with focusing on deletion is the huge amount of wasted hours - people working to improve Wikipedia by making content are thwarted by people working to improve Wikipedia by deleting content! If those that delete content instead worked to improve content on Wikipedia, we might get featured quality articles twice as often than we do now.

There are other alternatives to deletion that are more constructive, such as merging, adding onto stub artiles, finding sources, fixing wording, line-item deletion, or simple editing.

Someone comes along--often someone with no knowledge of the subject--and presumes that the article can never be expanded and will never have verifiable sources, and so he PRODs it.
The original editor removes the PROD tag and maybe makes a substantial edit, if he has time--but remember, the whole reason he only wrote a sentence or two in the first place is because he doesn't have more than a few minutes at a time to work on Wikipedia.
The individual who added the PROD tag then lists it on AfD, for the same reason he PRODded it.
Other editors recommend its deletion, on the grounds that it does not list any sources, makes no claims to notability, or is simply "too short to be worth keeping"

So give an article a chance. Unless it's a blatant speedy delete--such as nonsense, advertising, slander, or a copyvio--don't tag it speedy. And don't PROD or AfD it until the original editor has had a chance--a week should be enough time--to add substance to the article and list sources and do everything else people tend to use against such short articles. You may want to consider using the {{expand}} tag. --Identityandconsulting (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AfD processes usually run for at least a week. --Nick Dowling (talk) 22:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion proposal: Is this page still threatened with deletion? This article or section has merged into Semantic Web (Skeptical reactions ).--Identityandconsulting (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Identity, I wouldn't start merging, moving it, recreating it on your userpage or the other attempts to keep the text somewhere here. You are liable to get yourself blocked. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The author, Identityandconsulting is blocked. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 15:31, 17 February 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. Core desat 06:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ice Cream Flavours

I don't think that this list is encyclopaedic or necessary, I think that Ice cream covers the subject. Cenarium (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although this list is (apparently) under construction, I can't ever see it being a manageable list. What was once the 31 flavors of Baskin-Robbins has grown to somewhere around 31 factorial by now; there's no way this would ever be complete! Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I could add anything to ice cream and market it as a new flavor. --SyntaxError55 ^talk 23:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Ten Pound Hammer. --On the other side ^Contribs 02:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - you could make ice cream with almost any flavouring component. - fchd (talk) 14:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Silly and nearly impossible to complete. Beeblbrox (talk) 04:44, 18 February 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. Core desat 06:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doorknob (game)

Non-notable, no sources. Seem to have been written by a random schoolkid in five minutes. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{it seems the winds have stopped...} 23:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This wasn't just made up yesterday, as I remember reading about it in an Uncle John's Bathroom Reader a couple years ago (and they didn't just make it up either). However, I can't find any reliable third party sources on this, um, game. By the way, I find it funny how this deals with flatulence, and your sig says "The winds have stopped". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I love irony. :P _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{it seems the winds have stopped...} 23:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I remember playing this horrible game with my friends a long time ago, but this clearly fails on notability Beeblbrox (talk) 03:25, 16 February 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. Core desat 06:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transmissibility (physics,mechanics)

Looks like a good faith addition, but articles already exist on the subject and the page needs cleanup and a better title. Tombomp (talk) 14:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, does it need to be deleted, or just cleanup and a better title. Could you clarify? --Itub (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Where does an article exist on this subject? Someguy1221 (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or transwiki to wictionary. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or transwiki per vegaswikian. Sting au Buzz Me... 01:02, 16 February 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 am aware that this is a very weak consensus, however by that notion I believe this wouldn't have survived a WP:PROD either and would have been deleted without any discussion anyway. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Magazine

While I cannot find any specific guidelines covering magazine notability, there is no evidence this magazine meets general notability guidelines. I find no evidence of 2nd party coverage (most of those results are about 'chief' positions after filtering out police and fire, which are more well-covered magazines). Out of the references cited in the article, two are PR blogs, one is a mention of a Chief Magazine staff member present at an event unrelated to the magazine and the 4th is about a staff member's book, which doesn't mention the article. This is not a CoI issue as I believe the creator has kept it neutral, I just don't see this meeting notability in any way Travellingcari (talk) 17:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources are provided. Logastellus (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:36, 15 February 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. Core desat 06:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Championship Wrestling,

Contested prod; removed by author without explanation. Non-notable wrestling group. Many ghits, but no notable secondary sources cover the topic. Fails WP:RS and WP:V. Article was written by User:NCWPromoter, which seems to indicate COI. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: NCWPromoter, the author of the article, wrote a fairly lengthy text that is beyond the scope of the main AfD page. It has been moved to the talk page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn. Ghits included heap of wiki mirrors and had to laugh at the "post your own press release" website. So much for WP:RS. Also agree article has WP:COI issues so fails WP:NPOV. Sting au Buzz Me... 01:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP this Listing User:taker147a I feel that there is more than enough professional wrestling history on this company to keep this professional wrestling listing. I have listed a couple of web sites showing some importance of this as a company in professional wrestling. There are more listings for proof and history than many other bad listings on Wiki's other listings in other areas of Sports, not a bad topic I say keep it, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nashsuns09 (talk • contribs) 10:07, February 19, 2008

— Nashsuns09 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

The result was Keep. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rising Son

This one is a bit harder. I searched for it on google, but I kept getting google to suggest spelling differences. (which then brough up karate movies) As it is now, it fails WP:MUSIC and the music label fails WP:CORP and WP:MUSIC. Delete Undeath (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I switched off the spelling correction on Google and found an interview in Chocolate magazine, The Situation magazine, Rap News UK, and The Scunthorpe Telegraph newspaper. He appears to have been played on Australian national radio station Triple J, although that looks like a one off, not rotation. Weak keep as he appears to have received quite a lot of coverage for one guest recording with American rapper Nas. --Canley (talk) 08:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There is nothing on this page yet but I was able to find information on this without much effort. If references are beefed up then I am in favor of inclusion.Georgiamonet (talk) 05:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Undeath. I think the article fails WP:Music and WP:Corp and very weak WP:Music —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canyouhearmenow (talk • contribs) 02:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:32, 15 February 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 - creator's request on my talk page. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WWBN.com

No indication that this company has been recognized as notable by reliable independent sources. Author posted numerous spammy redirects to this title. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The redirects I made are trademarks pertaining to this article WWBN that I thought should be redirected to this article, I do believe it should be moved to WWBN as it is the main trademark of World Wide Broadcast Network, Inc. morako (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The page consists of little more than listing of the services provided by the website/company and cites no third-party references. Alexa rank almost 2.75 million. Delete due to insufficient notability and as a promotional. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:46, 16 February 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. Core desat 06:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joy Enamavu

Non-notable journalist. Just because, the journalist has covered the first Gulf War (1990-1991) for a Malayalam language newspaper would not make him a notable person. Also, has published an obscure book Yasoodi. A Google search shows that the book is not sold by any publisher. It is also curious to see the contributions of the person who has created the article Joy Enamavu. Dr. A. Salih (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not sure any of the sources are non-Wiki/mirrors. Only possible other option is non-English language sources if they're out there and reliable Travellingcari (talk) 07:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable indep. sources showing notability are found. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:35, 15 February 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. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Brodie

I came across this article after noticing this edit and therefore suspected WP:AUTO. Still—that not being a definitive reason for deletion—I have made an attempt to find third-party sources, or anything that might indicate notability according to WP:BIO and my search has been unsuccessful. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed my vote. I now believe her daily film column on major Web portal MSN Sympatico gives her notability as a journalist beyond the confines of Toronto television. Also, with the sheer size of the southern Ontario market and her presence on Entertainment Tonight Canada, she is probably one of the country's most seen entertainment reporters -- if not the most? Add to that her longtime membership in the influential Toronto Film Critics Association. It all adds up to keep, for me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Shawn, I honestly can't find any evidence at all that she's a recognized entertainment reporter. Her article and her own website do not say that she was on Entertainment Tonight Canada, only that she did some work as a producer. WP's article on ET Canada makes no mention of her. The show's official site does not mention her. Do you have some other source? If she is as recognized as you suggest, surely some reporter or TV columnist would have at least mentioned her at some point—but when I search a database of Canadian newspapers and magazines, all that turns up is a single Toronto Star article in which she was one of 24 panelists commenting on films at the 2007 Toronto Film Festival. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a hit from the ctv.ca site which shows that she is indeed the main CFTO enterainment journalist at TIFF.[3] CFTO is local, but it's big local. And I did post the Sympatico/MSN link above. Would a combination of her CFTO work and her film column on Sympatico/MSN satisfy WP:BIO? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it does. What are you referring to within WP:BIO? Television personality that has "a large fan base"? I am doubtful of that. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose, in the end, it's the first criteria for journalists, under Creative Professionals. "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors." Maybe this is just WP:OR on my part, but I've worked years as a film publicist and if you wanted eyeballs in the big southern Ontario market, you wanted to get it to Anne. That said, I grant you she's not academically respected as a film critic or scholar like a Geoff Pevere...Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject that I was unable to find are produced. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of reliable third party sources. Reggie Perrin (talk) 06:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —86.149.53.196 (talk) 08:25, 23 February 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. Core desat 06:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Gray

This is the first time I've ever nominated an article for deletion after it had already survived one AfD, but I'm a staunch inclusionist for politicians and even I can't fathom how this person is notable. In the previous discussion, there were four keep !votes. One included no rationale. One included the rationale that "she's the leader of a local party and current candidate for a national parliament," neither of which is accurate. As far as I can tell, the only thing approximating a claim to notability in this is that she's won a "woman of distinction" award from the YWCA. These are no rare awards, and aren't generally even written up in the local media (it doesn't seem to have been in this case). I'm trying to get rid of the various vanity candidate articles connected with the Alberta general election, 2008, and this certainly seems to be one. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO, people whose ONLY claim to notability is that they are/were candidates for public office but have never actually been elected or served are NOT normally notable. I see no actual other claims to notability here. --Jayron32.talk.

contribs 04:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BIO, I was a contributor to this page and would like to point out that Christina has been elected before. As mentioned in the article she is the elected chair of the Edmonton Transit Systems Advisory Board. I also think that it is questionable that deletions of select candidates are being attempted in the midst of the provincial election campaign. --Jimador.talk.

- To quote WP:BIO, "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability," You can't get more local than the Edmonton Transit Systems Advisory Board. Did you read the guideline before trying to use it to support your claim? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the Edmonton Transit Systems Advisory Board is not an elected position. As for the suggestion that I'm trying to delete "select candidates", I prodded all of the candidates who appeared to make no assertion of notability beyond being a candidates. This involved prodding P.C., Liberal, NDP, and Wildrose Alliance candidates. By no means do I pretend that all of the calls with regards to what to prod and what not to was unambiguously correct, but I think you'll have trouble finding evidence that it was in bad faith. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. She is an unelected politician. Her other positions such as heading up a riding association for her political party do not meet the standards for notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:19, 17 February 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. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Rockefeller Strong

Delete - Contested prod. Article was created on the basis of the invalid criteria listed at WP:BIO#Invalid criteria. Relationships do not confer notability. The subject did nothing that would qualify herself under WP:BIO, and, again, the article was created on the basis that she was the eldest daughter of John D. Rockefeller. Jd027^chat 21:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

some people are so notable that there is in fact interest in their children. She'll be covered substantially in all the books about John D, Sr, and about the family; multiple sections in Nevin's standard John D. Rockefeller : the heroic age of American enterprise As well she should be: He left her 25 million dollars in trust for her, probably making her one of the wealthiest women in the world at the time. [4]DGG (talk) 03:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable as a philanthropist in her own right. Bearian (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable member of notable family. Fails WP:N, as she is not the primary subject of any sources provided. Most rich kids are occasional philanthropists; so what? Not every member of this family is notable, but somebody seems to have decided to create a stub about every darned one of them. Notability, need I remind anyone, is not hereditable. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep per DGG and Bearian. It shouldn't be at all hard to find the sourcing in that material. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is agreed that enough significant coverage exists to pass WP:N. SorryGuy Talk 06:24, 23 February 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 Benefit of the doubt Keep. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robofoot ÉPM

looks like a standard university organization in the robotics field. as much as I love robotics and involved with WP:ROBO and WP:UNI, this article does not seem to fulfill WP:ORG or our article guidelines set in WP:UNI - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 20:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe the article is notable since the project has received considerable media coverage in Québec compared to other university organizations. You can have a look at this page (in French) which lists newspaper articles and television interviews about the project. Although, I am not sure if theses sources can be considered "secondary sources". --Jcmaco (talk) 02:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you believe there are reliable sources you can use on the article, please include these in-line citations (in correct WP:CITE format) in the article. When sufficient notability is established, I'll gladly withdraw this AfD nomination. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 06:34, 16 February 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. SorryGuy Talk 06:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley "Doc" Cummings

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Stanley "Doc" Cummings

Seems notable only for his association with Dallas Stoudenmire. Only five non-wiki ghits using the nickname - impossible to tell how many without it. Katharineamy (talk) 20:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The one source I have found, Encyclopedia of Western gunfighters lists him as Samuel Cummings, not Stanley. Edward321 (talk) 01:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Very little is known of Stanley Cummings." So little in fact that there is no claim of notability, unless dating the sister of a town marshal counts. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dallas Stoudenmire. BusterD (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' - nn bio. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:08, 22 February 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. Core desat 06:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Eftekhari

Fails WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:V as there is no third-party sources to (1) assert notability, (2) maintain NPOV, (3) verify claims made in the article. nat.utoronto 19:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe these claims are not the case. The article was nominated for neutrality for a long time, but no claim was made. I searched the net there are many pages about this person. In addition to more than 100 publications in leading journals, he has numerous honors offered by famous scientific communities. This number of honors for a person of this age guarantees his presence in wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.157.226.28 (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I se no honors, except for the editorship of a minor 2-year old journal in his area devoted almost entirely to publishing special topic issues. With respect to his research, I see about 100 papers, but the most cited five have been cited only 31, 31, 26, 24, and 24 time respectively. There is only one article in a major general journal, PHYSICAL REVIEW LET, Volume: 48 Issue: 14 Pages: 953-956, in 1982--cited 26 times. He did not write the book claimed in the article, -- merely edited it: [5]. Considering his present affiliation, a one-man research institute trying to offer "virtual degrees" [6] I am frankly extremely dubious. DGG (talk) 04:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The CRN interview is a secondary source, but I'm not convinced of its reliability, and there's not much else here that would pass WP:BIO. WP:PROF is also a weak case, with no real academic position and poorly cited pubs. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:35, 17 February 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 me as A7/G11. J Milburn (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abe's Hot Dogs

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Abe's Hot Dogs

Does not seem particularly notable, and is written by an employee. It also lacks sources, and Google brings up no hits. Red Zion^X 19:58, 15 February 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. Core desat 06:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jay McConnell

Wikipedia is not a memorial and does not satisfy notability criteria. Xarr☎ 19:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also a conflict of interest with the creator of the page User:TrisMcConnellXarr☎ 20:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Memorial page for non-notable person; sources don't cut it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exterminate per above. Red Zion^X 20:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable, Wikipedia not a memorial site. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:36, 15 February 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. Nomination seems to stem from the unreasonable criteria that in order to be notable something must standout from its peers or be unique. Something can be plain, ordinary and even boring and still be notable. Many sources were listed in the AfD, and there was sufficient 'keep' participation to demonstrate that the article will undoubtedly be improved. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MyEclipse

AfDs for this article:

Delete this is the second go-round for this Java tool set; it was kept last Sept. with a rewrite. Following what rewrite occurred it still lacks significant coverage in independent 3rd party reliable sources to demonstrate that it's notable. There are lots of Java packages out there and this one doesn't seem to rise out of the pack in any notable fashion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consider merging with Genuitec. Pburka (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some notable third-party references/coverage:

#1 rated Eclipse Plugin on EPIC
SDTimes
AjaxWorld Magazine
CRN
InfoWorld
eWeek
InfoQ
Evans Data Corp - top IDE listings
Java Developers' Journal
Application Development Trends
JAX Magazine Jense (talk) 03:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Those all look like press releases. Pburka (talk) 04:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would say most are not. It seems like product release coverage. Additionally, came across these:

Infoworld product review
ZDNet - Ed Burnett
RedMonk Analyst Firm - James Governor
Java Developers' Journal
SDTimes
Jense (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I'd have to agree that most of the coverage is just parroting a press release. What real coverage there is seems to consist of quips from bloggers. Yet I do think it has the potential to be notable, if only for its notoriety in that community. Ultimately, though, if there is a decent article to be had from what sources exist, I'd prefer to see that article first rather than keeping the article on life support hoping that someone will work on it. Leaving it on the List of Eclipse-based software would otherwise suffice. Ham Pastrami (talk) 16:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. I fully disagree with request to delete. This is a great product with a thriving community offered at a considerable discount over the nearest competition. It is hard to go anywhere today without running into press coverage or a Blog about how someone discovered sanity while using it. Here is a partial list of what I could find when sorting through the over half a million Google listing on this name

http://agile.csc.ncsu.edu/SEMaterials/tutorials/seq_diagram_me/
http://www.oreillynet.com/onjava/blog/2005/09/myeclipse_tips.html
http://sureshkrishna.wordpress.com/2007/10/23/myeclipse-is-cool/
http://codethought.com/blog/?p=65
http://www.hrum.org/people/debedb/pro/articles/myeclipse-j2ee-blueprints.html
http://www.informit.com/guides/content.aspx?g=java&seqNum=291
Samwan2b (talk) 21:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. I also disagree with request to delete. Wikipedia is full of Java IDE's and most are much less noteworthy than MyEclipse. Oh, and if you want to see one really written like an advertisement have a look at JDeveloper from Oracle [7]. Now that is an advertisement. :-) Anyway, MyEclipse is much more widely known and used than most products listed and not quite so popular as others. Seems perfectly fine to me upon review of these additional links and other similar product pages. --Javawonk (talk) 17:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Last two entries are by SPAs with no prior history; I believe they are sockpuppets. Ham Pastrami (talk) 13:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Actually, it's just the first time I've stumbled over something in Wikipedia that I both found inaccurate and also have the background and expertise to comment on somewhat authoritatively. Ham Pastrami, from your prior comment you seem to sincerely just want a good article on the topic if one can be had. I agree. Perhaps if you gave Jense a few pointers to similar articles you do deem appropriate he could work on this article to both enhance it and make it conform to those guidelines. For example, should it read like the JDeveloper article I referenced in my last post [8]? Perhaps it should be like this one on IBM's RAD product [9]? Do you have any constructive suggestions for improvement? --Javawonk (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give us a little more detail about what is meant by having the "background and expertise" on this subject? Please note that the debate is about whether the product is notable, which doesn't really require expertise, it requires objective, published sources. In other words, if you are telling us that solid, third-party sources exist, just show us; if not, it ultimately doesn't matter that or how you are an expert. The reason I haven't provided sources of my own is because I can't find any that would be considered reliable and significant coverage, which is the point. Neither of the other Java IDE articles you mention are examples of ideal writing, but that is not the discussion we are having here -- you can nominate them for deletion as well if you feel that is the proper course to take, noting WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. As it stands, User:Jense has an edit history showing only edits to MyEclipse-related articles, along with two new users are the only people who are voting to keep. If anything, this is making me more inclined to delete. Ham Pastrami (talk) 09:35, 23 February 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, should have been tagged with {{db-spam}} and speedily deleted. Core desat 06:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Youth challenge international canada

This article reads by an advertisement, and was written by a new editor who may have a conflict of interest. Perhaps the organization is notable and the tone just needs to be adjusted. If you think so, please say so! Shalom (Hello • Peace) 21:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article is spammy, and there are no reliable sources to support notability. A google news search for them turns up nothing. -- Whpq (talk) 11:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with {{advert}} tag. I think a government source would be reliable enough. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 19:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The entry is part of a directory listing. It confirms they exist, but doesn't really establish that they are notable. -- Whpq (talk) 13:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I can see, they don't put upstart mom-and-pop organizations in that directory. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 02:52, 17 February 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. Core desat 06:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ISC CTU Prague

This article was just up for AfD during which it was speedied as a copyvio. The creators put it back today (without the blatant copyvio text but I speedied it under db-advert, which they contested. However their reasoning is "we are members of International Student Club in Prague. We would love to share information about rich history of our student club with hundreds of international student coming to study to Prague." Exactly the information that belongs on their website, it's not encyclopedic. There's nothing notable about this particular student club. Travellingcari (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of any possible importance. This will be the best place for deleting it definitively. DGG (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability found. Blatant advertising by a non-notable university club. • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And I would be advising the creator of the article of WP rules - particularly that WP is NOT a site just to share info on - unless that info is NOTABLE! TaintedZebra (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 15 February 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. Core desat 06:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jody de Ruiter

Subject does not meet WP:BIO. Disputed prod. Also clear conflict of interest. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 18:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She appeared in notable movies, but never in a lead or even support role. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 19:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She's not even listed in IMDb, which has lower requirements for inclusion. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails to meet notability as an actor. No significant roles. And the article itself describes her as a professional film extra. -- Whpq (talk) 15:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Louise Morrow Foxx

Non-notable educator. No references. 7 webhits all go to Wikipedia or mirrors. No Google book hits. No Google scholar hits. Cross porpoises (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Early 20th century educator of the blind--founder of The Mississippi Blind School for Negroes[10] in 1945, I don't know what can be expected to be found in Google. The school is real--it is in at least one directory [11]. This needs a look for specialized print sources. DGG (talk) 04:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's a known and respected educator, if not in the national leagues. The internet is notoriously unuser friendly to the disabled, and to the poor, no need for Wikipedia to subscribe to being an encyclopedia of exclusion--that's the point of band width over print. "No references?" There are plenty of books, news articles, and histories that tell some of her life, even if they are not available on google. "References" does not mean it's in cyber space. --69.225.10.208 (talk) 09:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. A well-known and significant educator. This AfD is discriminating on the basis of Internet notability, not actual notability, and there is a difference. • Freechild'sup? 15:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on another note, following the links, I see she organized the Five Blind Boys of Mississippi. Fo some reason this was not explicit in the text of the original article,so I clarified it. Lomax apparently recorded them at her school. It would help to have some of the printed sources mentioned above included as references. DGG (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I added info and citations to the article and cleaned it. • Freechild'sup? 20:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Horne

I don't believe Mr. Horne meets WP:BIO, or has any realistic likelihood of doing so soon. He has run in two primaries for major offices, the House and Senate, but lost one and dropped out of the other primary early. Other than that, he gave a radio address... I don't really see much else towards notability here. WP:BIO says politicians who haven't held statewide office can be notable if they are "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage". It would be a real stretch to say Horne is a "Major local political figure" - he's never even held a city council post. I am not just out to get Mr. Horne, I worked on this article while he was still in the senate race. Rividian (talk) 18:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question - what form did this "draft Horne" movement take? Was it genuinely independent of him? If he was notable enough to attract an actual draft movement (as opposed to one of these self-promoting faux draft movements), that's a positive sign for notability, in my view. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure who was responsible for the "draft Horne" thing, but at least in Kentucky politics, we see several of these things every year for some reason. This one got no media coverage that I can find, so it doesn't seem very notable. --Rividian (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Horne is notable enough for an article as anyone who is chosen to deliver a national weekly radio address in response to the President's address has to be noteworthy. That Democrats considered him for this role means he is not obscure. Also notable is that he ran in two races for federal offices, the one for the Senate being very high profile, as the general election opponent is the Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. Not all Wikipedia articles have to be ones that are expansive; some are indeed small subjects. Horne's accomplishments in the political realm may be minor, but they are also notable. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 04:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But they're not notable as defined by WP:BIO... I thought that was pretty clear. There are 8 democrats running in the senate primary this year (7 now that Horne dropped out), other than Horne, the only one with an article is Lunsford, who I believe is notable even if he never ran in an election. Sure Horne is well-liked around Louisville Democrats in a quixotic kind of way, but he really hasn't accomplished anything that goes towards what Wikipedia defines as notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rividian (talk • contribs) 14:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Careful - while running for a major party's nomination doesn't make you automatically notable, it also doesn't automatically make you non-notable. It is possible to be notable solely on the basis of one such run (not that that's what's happening here), as long as this run garnered sufficient coverage in reliable sources. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Giving a nationally heard speech in response to the President's speech alone makes Horne notable. You cannot discount my vote because the subject doesn't strictly follow WP:BIO in your opinion. I'm also not a Democrat, so I'm not a blind follower of Mr. Horne. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm sorry if you took this as something personal... I just hope you can understand my POV, even if you don't agree with it. Horne has never been elected to an office, or even won a primary... I don't see that as a very notable political career, and I'm just not convinced that giving a radio address once is enough notability for an article, especially considering the article shows no evidence the radio address was widely reported on by the media... it merely links to a transcript. However, if this radio address is enough for the community to say he is notable, so be it. --[[User talk:Rividian|Rividian]] (talk) 18:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the publicity he has received during his first campaign made him significantly notable. He also received a decent amount of publicity during his brief second campaign. He holds enough draw for people to want to know about him. As for him accomplishing significantly notable positions or actions, thats debatable and has potential to develop. -Jahnx (talk) 06:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is kind of borderline, but I find myself persauded by the keep (yes, that's a !vote) arguments above. The endorsement from Wesley Clark also counts for something, in my view; he's from out of state, so for somebody to garner his endorsement in a primary race suggest to me that the endorsee is no nobody. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per User:Stevietheman. BusterD (talk) 18:21, 18 February 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. Core desat 06:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Flynn

Seems to be a non notable footballer with no appearances to his name.Paste (talk) 18:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is part of Liverpool's first team squad. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 18:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:FOOTY/Notability as he has never played in a fully professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 19:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that he is part of the Liverpool squad is irrelevant as (it seems) he's never played a professional game. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 20:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not played professional game so fails WP:FOOTY criteria. Peanut4 (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a member of WP:LFC I hate to have to do this, but currently his article doesn't meet notability rules as defined above. John Hayes^talk 22:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Farewell - should he meet notability criteria in the future, great. Now? No. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Do not be fooled by the boilerplate on his talk page into believing that this article has the backing of the community at WP:FOOTY. Kevin McE (talk) 01:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. John Hayes^talk 01:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GiantSnowman (talk) 16:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not played professional game so fails WP:FOOTY criteria. Heshs Umpire (talk) 13:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, has not yet played professionally. BanRay 20:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General Knowledge Club of Royal College Colombo, Sri Lanka

This article has been been tagged for notability since September 2007. Since then, no edits to the article have been made to establish notability. Rockfang (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Student club at a single school. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:26, 15 February 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. Core desat 06:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LionEV

Article is written almost entirely by one user -- ElectricOne. Almost all of ElectricOne's contributions to Wikipedia have been to add in references to LionEV and to defend the company. LionEV is Kenneth W. Curry, of Virginia Beach, Virginia[12][13][14], a convicted scam artist.[15]

Delete no sources provided to establish notability. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable company. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and also tagged as a possible hoax due to some highly unlikely claims (supplier to Ford and Hyndai???). Blueboy 96 22:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article's history, it's obvious that this guy has deliberately tried to disrupt the AfD process by either removing the tag from the article or redirecting the discussion. Yes, he used an IP for the redirect--but come on, "quack". Good faith can no longer be assumed. Blueboy 96 02:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Alternative propulsion vehicle.--Mac (talk) 06:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some clarification is needed here. First of all we don't claim to be suppliers to Ford or Hyundai, we clearly state on our website that we convert Vehicles provided to us by Ford and Hyundai under fleet arrangements. Our wiki entry lists the vehicles and manufacturers that we convert, and have converted to full electric and PHEV. As to the hoax issue, I am not sure where that came from. Our formal site at http://www.LionEV.com shows full images of our conversion process and images of the battery packs we produce. Page 6 of the DIY Ranger series shows several of our vehicles on dyno testing devices, and out for road tests. As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words, I imagine a video is worth even more. This appears to be a matter of drive by texting by one of our competitors supporters, primarily eeStor. I can't imagine why they would protest an entry on wiki, but they sure seem intent on bringing it down. Our site also contains links to school projects that we are funding involving alternative fuel vehicles. Any information you require from LionEV just drop us a note. We would love to put this to rest. ElectricOne (talk) 14:13, 18 February 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. — Scientizzle 16:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shisha Boys

Not-notable UzEE 03:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not-notable at all as 'Shisha Cafe'. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 21:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to fail WP:MOVIE. Icestorm815 • Talk 16:35, 21 February 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. Core desat 06:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alec Ross (Social Entrepreneur)

The article was created by and mainly edited by a representative of One Economy Corporation, which Alec Ross is the Executive Vice-President of. Alec Ross does not appear to be notable and the article is simply a listing of minor interviews, speeches, writings, and board memberships. BlueAzure (talk) 03:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article started as a puff piece for one of the execs at the company by an employee. Not notable per nom. Toddst1 (talk) 07:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Most of the sources are self published like the Green school, 1000 Friends, Micromentor. While I have no doubt they are true, they basically confirm his resume, not his notability. Very few third parties involved. Toddst1 (talk) 15:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep enough evidence provided, it doesn't matter WHY the article was started. Blueswan1967 (talk) 11:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot see anything on the page that would suggest this person meets WP:BIO critera. --neonwhite user page talk 21:42, 15 February 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. Core desat 06:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cigar-related charity

Non-notable organizations. A confusing title for an article which tells us very little. The organizations might be notable on their own, but this article really isn't the place to tell us about them, and there's no suitable other name to make it more useful. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I moved the content of that article out of Cigar because of its irrelevance. Is the Gates Foundation mentioned in Software? I didn't know what else to do with it, and was hoping someone else would make something of the new article. Oh well. Frotz (talk) 06:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A great variety of companies engage in some charitable work. If they set up a notable charity, it can have its own page; if not, it should be mentioned in connection with the company. This is a weird cross-referenced way to collect information. I think the individual foundations should be merged to the companies associated with them, but we don't need to keep this article around, that content can be taken from old drafts of Cigar. Mango juice^talk 16:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bugler (tobacco)

Appears to be a non-notable product, has no sourced assertions of notability, prod was removed with no imporvements made. neonwhite user page talk 17:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definite Keep -The brand has over 1,500 hits at Google News as shown here. [16] – If that is not notable – verifiable and credible let’s pull the plug to the servers today. Shoessss | Chat 17:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but the article does not show evidence of notability, your link only provided trivial mentions, please familiarise yourself with the guidelines, especially WP:N and WP:PRODUCT before commenting. A subject is required to have "Significant coverage" in second party reliable sources. Hits on a search engine is not how we determine notability. The guidelines say that products should be redirect to the company that manufactures them but that article is even worse than this one. [17] --neonwhite user page talk 21:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, as you mention, WP:Notability is a guideline not policy. In that, it is only a guideline it is open to interpretation. Second, trivial is WP:POV as this discussion proves. What you view as trivial, I view as significant. If it were 1,500 hit at Google under a general search I would say you would be able to make a point. However, this product generated over 1,500 hits at Google News under very specific search criteria. That is significant and establishes notability. Shoessss | Chat 10:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the guidelines on notability as i said. Hits on a search engine do not under any circumstances make a subject notable. They never have and never will. If, however, a search produces several relaible second party sources which contains Significant coverage independant of the subject then this proves notability, but so far there none have been produced. Trivial ay be subjective but nevertheless it is a very importnet part of the guideline. --neonwhite user page talk 01:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep Googling's messy in cases like this, as there are a ton of hits which are just sales sites. However, there appears to be coverage here, evidence of the company's involvement in publicised lawsuits and the brand has been used in an art exhibit. And there are, dotted here and there, other suggestions the brand is sufficiently well known to be part of the cultural wallpaper. The point I'm trying to make here is that this may involve more work than, say, sourcing information about a famous film star, but I'm inclined to say that notability can be established here. --Sturm 11:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm switching to a straightforward "keep" here, after finding a source which says that Bugler is "the most popular prison tobacco". It's an extra twist to the coverage which surely points towards some kind of cultural/social notability. --Sturm 17:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is that it is not the subject of that article and doesnt get anywhere near significant coverage, articles have to provide something that could contribute to the article, if we removed all the unsourced info what would we be left with? --neonwhite user page talk 01:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to challenge particular statements in the article, then judicious use of the {{Fact}} template would be in order. --Sturm 01:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article is clearly unsourced, most is original research. --neonwhite user page talk 03:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definite Keep neonwhite is NUTS - Bugler is probably the #1 selling brand of loose-leaf (RYO) tobacco in America. They were listed as #2 but in my days they were #1 and I kind of doubt they even went to #2 behind TOP. How could you say the #1 or #2 brand of rolling tobacco is not notable???? I've felt this before and I must again say - do you work for TOP or a competitor of Bugler? Otherwise how could you say that the #1 (or #2) brand is NOT NOTABLE??? --Put that in your pipe and smoke it (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a personal POV only, please read WP:N to learn how wikipedia establishes notability. --neonwhite user page talk 01:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable prominent product.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Find some sources. --neonwhite user page talk 01:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with conwood. The most relevant guideline here is WP:PRODUCT and it states Information on products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy. In that case, the discussion of the company's products and services should be broken out from the company article in summary style. If the article can be sourced then it needs to be done soon. --neonwhite user page talk 01:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - First --neonwhite user page talk, I take umbrage to your tone and criticism. I am familiar with WP: Notability guidelines, just look at my edit history, and yes, they are just guidelines, not policy. Secondly I will say that your are involved with Wikipedia:Wikilawyering here, which is distasteful at its best. Thirdly from your tone of response to me and the other editors that expressed an opinion on whether to keep or delete this article, I would take that you are making assumption of bad faith editing. It is extremely rare that I get involved, to this level, concerning an Afd, but you have managed to push all the right buttons. Now I’ll take a deep breath – step back and leave with a smile :-) - Shoessss | Chat 01:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal attacks and intimidation are not welcome here. I suggest you cease. Discuss the subject not the editors taking part. I have discussed this in nothing but a civil manner. The principle of notability is clear, subjects need to be verifiable in reliable second party sources. Your comments show a substantial lack of knowledge of WP:N guidelines which is why i suggested and continue to suggest you read it. Especially the Notability requires objective evidence section. Suggesting hits on a search engine is evidence of notability is incorrect because search engines find trivial mentions. Guidelines were created by editors and are considered the correct way to edit. You can't suggest they be ignored without a good reason. --neonwhite user page talk 03:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The brand is notable almost to the point of ubiquity. -Sean Curtin (talk) 06:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then there should be reliable second party sources to be found. --neonwhite user page talk 14:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per just about everyone above.BWH76 (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE, no reliable sources found for either article. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Strider Records

No indication of notability for either this record label or one of its artists; the two articles seems to have been created to support each other, or more likely just for promotion. Neither of them meet the notability requirements. Jfire (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with Jfire's assessment. - Special-T (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for the Depoo article, if it is possible to verify that "they won a Noortebänd 2005" and that Noortebänd is indeed "the largest band competition in Estonia." Comment: I believe Roy Strider (the individual) is a colleague of Tõnu Trubetsky and/or Vennaskond. Those two subjects seem sufficiently notable, but there was a problem with conflict of interest a couple of years ago (see Talk:The Flowers of Romance (band)#The Estonian "comeback" band: Redux for a summary). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources. Blast Ulna (talk) 06:26, 23 February 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. Core desat 06:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sunny Golloway

I had proposed this article for speedy deletion (A7): the proposal was removed because «"head baseball coach at the University of Oklahoma" is an assertion of notability». Actually, it seems to me that this is just the description of a job: everybody is "somebody of somewhere", and almost any job can be qualified in a similar way. Goochelaar (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't quite understand your deletion rationale. Could you clarify? Anyway, this guy has a pretty solid presence at Google News [18], so I think we should keep the article, or at least merge/redirect to Oklahoma Sooners baseball. Zagalejo^^^ 19:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if I have been unclear. My point is that, for what I can understand, being "head coach etc." is just the description of a job, and having a job is something most honest people do, not a reason of notability. If this person is notable, this should made clear also to somebody who, like me, knows nothing about baseball or the University of Oklahoma. Happy editing, Goochelaar (talk) 23:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, head coaches of major sports at major universities are notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I removed the speedy, and was challenged about it. I don't follow college sports, but seems rather obvious to me that such people are notable. There is always press coverage for the head coaches in the various sports at the major athletic universities. DGG (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, not living in the USA, I do not understand which kind of figures are deemed notable there. I'd be ready to stand corrected and withdraw my nomination, if I understood this. Just from reading the article, it looked to me something like, say, "the head waiter at Such-and-Such Restaurant". Is there some Sport in USA or Sport in USA University article to understand better the weight such a person has in USA society? Thanks, Goochelaar (talk) 21:47, 16 February 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. Darkspots (talk) 01:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC) disclaimer: I am not an administrator.[reply]

Danish Pedophile Association

This is an article about a tiny organisation. The organisation gets a tiny, one-sentence passing mention on page 6 of a Salon.com article. The organisation also gets a passing mention in an NJ.com article, which is mostly about Lindsay Ashford and about pedophilia in general. Then there's a "translation of an article by journalist Karen Seneca in the Danish newspaper Ekstra Bladet from Tuesday, 23 July 1996, page 13." The problem is that this claimed source is not verifiable, and that we have no way of telling who translated the article, how accurate the translation is and how much of it was actually about this organisation. Other than this minimal coverage, not much remains that might make this subject notable. A ecis^Brievenbus 17:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. A ecis^Brievenbus 17:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Association is unfortunately very real and plenty notable, see [19], [20] and [21] from significant Danish news sources.--Peter Andersen (talk) 17:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Peter Andersen, lack of English-language sources is not a reason to delete. RFerreira (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but improve references. Just because a source is not online does not make it unverifiable. The format should give the article title, publication, and date like any other citation. A few other sources are presented in odd ways. There are sources that can be added such as the BBC. There are Google Books and Google Scholar results, too. The official website also has a (lightly-trafficked!) new address. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhartung (talk • contribs) 21:57, 15 February 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 withdraw nomination --Farix (Talk) 20:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Story Manga

Disputed prod. The article is clear original research based on a nologism. Farix (Talk) 17:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is it a neologism? The Japanese wikipedia article seems to indicate (at least based on a machine translation) the term's been used since 1925. A better reader might be able to come up with more (and identify whether it is, indeed, original research). —Quasirandom (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the external link (written by a historian of manga) makes it clear that if Osama Tezuka didn't coin the term, he certainly popularized it after the War. That plus the search a la Dhartung show that it's neither neologism nor original research. Barely sourced, incomplete, and borderline incoherent in places, but notable and worth an article. Keep and mark as in need of expert attention from the relevant Wikiproject. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Desperately needs better sources, but it clearly is NOT original research but a summary of the provided source. The "neologism" is found and discussed in more than sufficient depth in Google Books and Google Scholar. I don't feel much responsible checking was done for this nomination. --Dhartung | Talk 22:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 01:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some people mistakes AfD for clean-up. If this article is not good, wikify it. Deletion is very extreme. Zerokitsune (talk) 04:34, 16 February 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. Spebi 06:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Friend of Mine

Non-notable band; fails WP:MUSIC. Released only one EP, to no significant coverage. Cited sources are local, I can't verify the second one. Notability tags repeatedly removed by anons. Jfire (talk) 17:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:MUSIC in every way; no significant coverage, no chart hits, no major label albums, etc. etc. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC at this stage, although it can be recreated if the band achieves notability (2 albums, notable record label, etc.). For the record, the Beat reference appears to not exist. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 05:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 06:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC. —Moondyne 01:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. -RiverHockey (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:09, 19 February 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. Core desat 06:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OneStopPhoneShop

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, Hu12 (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn. fails WP:CORP as no WP:RS so also fails WP:V. Sting au Buzz Me... 01:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge then delete' Merge whatever material is useful into The Carphone Warehouse. Supposed (talk) 17:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wholly non-notable. Fails WP:CORP. No useful information for merging. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:46, 20 February 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. Core desat 06:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Panavision New Filmmaker Award

Called less pretentiously "New Filmmaker Program" by the company itself (http://www.panavision.com/students.php), this "grant program" consists of four 16mm and two 35mm cameras which have been set aside from the rental pool, to lend them to students for "short, non-profit" films. No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The article was apparently created as an attempt to prove the notability of Midnight Son (nominated for deletion below), where it is touted as an "accolade". High on a tree (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete rookie filmmakers get to rent a camera for free. Big whoop. Article tries to make this sound like an award of some kind. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's jut a grant program. -- Whpq (talk) 16:05, 17 February 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. Core desat 06:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight Son

No evidence for notability according to Wikipedia:Notability (films). The article about the film's writer and director has been speedily deleted as CSD A7 (Bio). The Panavision New Filmmaker Award (nominated for deletion above) is really just a small grant program which consists of four 16mm and two 35mm cameras which are lent out to students for short, non-profit films (there must have been many hundreds of students who have benefited from this over the years, not surprising that there some among them who are famous today). High on a tree (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Student films are almost never notable, and nothing in the article suggests this is some sort of exception. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:03, 15 February 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 close, please start a new AfD when the injunction has been lifted. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Casey

I was initially going to merge and redirect this to Minor characters in CSI:NY, however I don't know that there's enough here to support that. Shane Casey was a guest star on CSI: NY and while he had more of a role than the typical one episode guest star, I still don't think it meets WP:FICT and warrants inclusion here Travellingcari (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Travellingcari (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge? Did they stop doing Minor characters in <tv show> ? Corpx (talk) 10:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment: that was my own bad link, it should have been Minor characters in CSI: NY. I just think there's a fuzzy line of guest star v. minor character and while he had a "vendetta" that slightly extended his arc, he was still a guest star. While I know other stuff isn't a valid argument, it has some reasoning in that characters who had similar roles (Frankie Mala, DJ Pratt) don't exist, why does this one need to? I've been unable to find any sources that demonstrate real world context other than "{Actor) appears on CSI:NY as (character}" if that makes sense Travellingcari (talk) 18:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there's a moratorium on merging, per the arb com. DGG (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Link? Not disagreeing, I'd just like to have it so I'm aware of this. Guess the whole CSI:NY project is going on hold then and I'd like to follow it until the moratorium ends or is otherwise settled. Does this affect those that were closed as merge earlier this morning? Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marisol_Delko and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Peter_Elliott (CSI:_Miami)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travellingcari (talk • contribs) 15:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The "moratorium", as far as I can read, is exclusive to the editors in the Arbcom case itself, is a temporary injunction to stop the edit warring happening there, and is not directed to "all editors". The link is here. If it is to all editors in all discussions regarding fictional characters/episodes, where is that posted, DGG? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The temporary injunction applies to all Wikipedia editors[22] while this arbitration case is open. --Pixelface (talk) 09:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I dont really know, nor do I know whether it even applies or should apply to consensus edits, such as here. The text at [23] reads simply "no editor" without further qualification. I said what I did in the hope of some enlightenment myself. I find ArbCom unpredictable. Either, having decided they must intervene, they will throw it right back at the rest of the community--in which case i would suggest MASEM's revisions of the relevant pages, or they will make some strange decision that will require some odd adjustments in order to live with. DGG (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just found the talk page related to this. Seems nobody knows...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am little in the dark too, but I would say it is best to simply put this on hold until clarification in the case comes about. SorryGuy Talk 20:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Closure of this AFD may be subject to restrictions imposed by ARBCOM, as described at: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2/Proposed_decision#Halt_to_activities. JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Of coasrse that is just a proposal, and thus doesn't apply yet. TJ Spyke 05:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. The injunction was enacted on 02:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC), with the 4 required support votes, and no oppose votes. JERRY ^talk _contribs 07:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, MAYBE merge There are no sources for the article, so it fails WP:V. There is also no inidication of real world notability. TJ Spyke 05:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment About the Arbcom case I'm pretty sure they won't go out and ban us or anything if we have a unanimous consensus on what to do with an article, also it is ultimately admins that close the AfDs so if they can always just tell us in the closing if we should hold out on the final decision.--Sin Harvest (talk) 12:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "they can always just tell us", that's what I was doing... I relisted this solely because I have been told that it can not be closed as delete at this time due to the injunction. Continued discussion is encouraged in the meantime, but it is unlikely to get closed with a delete or merge outcome anytime soon. JERRY ^talk _contribs 20:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:24, 15 February 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 closed administratively as premature -- Y not be working? 16:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Phillip Kazmierczak

Zero notability apart from the shootings. Since my redirecting to Northern Illinois University shooting was overturned as well as an earlier CSD nom, I'm now drawing the consequence and nominate this for deletion. User:Dorftrottel 16:05, February 15, 2008 16:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...I asked people to discuss the matter first on the article's target page specifically to avoid the unpleasantness of an AfD when the same effect can be achieved with much less trouble by talking things out. --Kiz o r 16:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Can't the same argument be made for Seung-Hui Cho? Gary King (talk) 16:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:WAX. User:Dorftrottel 16:14, February 15, 2008

I would argue that this article is only a few hours old and more information will be put forward soon enough, very quickly. Give it a few days time and if it doesn't grow past a stub size then delete it. --Gary King (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not go the other way and have one single article, and eventually split the article of iff it becomes necessary? User:Dorftrottel 16:18, February 15, 2008

Ripping articles apart is harder than merging them together.--72.93.80.5 (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Everybody's talking about this guy. This issue is only hours old and notability/non notability have yet to be determined. This article will explode in the next 8 hours, if it hasn't already in the last 8 minutes. Moreover, consider the precedence of Seung-Hui Cho, Eric_Harris_and_Dylan_Kleboldet al. --72.93.80.5 (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:WAX. User:Dorftrottel 16:14, February 15, 2008

Whatever, I don't mind an AFD vote. --72.93.80.5 (talk) 16:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kizor's efforts to amicably discuss this are admirable, but not viable imo. User:Dorftrottel 16:14, February 15, 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 Keep. AFD is not a venue for solving POV problems or pushing one for that matter. This article may well contain POV, but this fact alone does not warrant the deletion of a comprehensive article, when editing it can solve that. Whether or not Isreal can join or will join the EU is not relevant to this discussion. What is relevant is whether the topic is notable, and verifiable to reliable sources. JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Israel and the European Union

The article is POV Bashing. There is no such activities of Israel accession to the EU going on within the EU. This is a conspiracy trying to promote some false beliefs. It is the same as saying US accession to the EU, I can provide equally the same information to support that claim such as talking about the strong trade relations. The fact is, Israel is NOT on European territory and thus has no legal basis for entry to the EU (unlike Turkey). The article shows pure propoganda material to deceive viewers in believing that a discussion is actually taking place when it is not. Waqas1987 (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I'd rather see Israel in the EU, rather than Turkey. Astrotrain (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a reason to keep. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is not at all relevant to this discussion. --L. Pistachio (talk) 17:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is relevant based on the comments requesting deletion. Israel is often associated with European groupings such as UEFA and the Song Contest. Astrotrain (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was that tour opinion on what countries should join the EU is not relevant to whether this article meets Wikipedia's inclusion standards. --L. Pistachio (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is relevant, as I was responding to the original research of the nomination rather than offering an out of the blue opinion. How does he know what countries have a legal basis to join the EU? Astrotrain (talk) 19:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To join the EU, you first must meet the "European" criteria. Turkey has a history in Europe and well as parts geographically located in Europe, Israel does not. Israel has no relationship to Europe whatsoever. UEFA and Eurovision song contest have got nothing to do with the EU. And further to my point, there is ABSOLUTELY NO TALK from with the EU members of a possible Israel in EU UNLIKE Turkey and even to some extent Morocco. This article is a simple POV bashing, propoganda rubbish that is derving conspiracies to fool readers. Delete this article, or remove any information related to a possible enlargement of EU to include Israel as this is utterly hideous.--Waqas1987 (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may not think Israel could join the EU, but obviously other people do as stated in the article. Israel would be a more suitable member than Turkey. Astrotrain (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My views is based on the facts that are already out there. Other memebers who wrote the article are derviing false conclusions. Produce me one citation of any hint from EU members of a possible Israel in EU? And secondly, I think Japan or even US are more suitable members to EU than both Turkey and Israel. Does that mean anything?--Waqas1987 (talk) 20:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Perhaps I'm missing something, but the topic of relations between Israel and EU seems unimpeachable and clearly sourced, e.g. look at first few footnotes. The nom's main concern is with the section "Possible future developments in EU-Israel relations" and I do see grounds for concern with editorializing and sourcing. Thus, there's a need for editing improvements, ad/or for tags, but deletion? HG | Talk 16:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about the EU-Israel association agreement? I can produce you one with Lebanon @ [24]. Does that mean we can start a topic of a possible enlargement of EU to include Lebanon? --Waqas1987 (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Keep. The article should exist, but most of the material in the artcile's largest section, "Possible future developments in EU-Israel relations", is a crystal ball hypothesis of what might happen if Israel were to attempt to join the EU. Most of that section should be trimmed away. Majoreditor (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up Buried among the wild speculation and OR is a viable article on the relations between Israel and the EU. Most of the text would have to be removed, though. --L. Pistachio (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Morocco has no legal basis for entry in the EU either, yet applied for membership. There's enough valid material here to keep it, even with some problems. matt91486 (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats an entirely different matter altogether. The fact that Morocco applied, and albeit rejected, it has scope for an article. But remember, I am not against talking about Israels and EUs trade relations, but when the first paragraph reads: "The accession of Israel to the European Union refers to a possible future development in the European Union-Israel relations." It is very deceiving to say the least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waqas1987 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It says a possible future development, not a possible future ascension. Ascension would be very very misleading, but future development is just ambiguous and poorly phrased, not malicious. matt91486 (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up - requires a new lead though. Any statement about joining the EU needs reliable sources. Squash Racket (talk) 05:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and develop - EU–Israel relations is a serious topic and the editors have made a start. Hell is more likely to freeze over than Israel actually joining the EU, however. Excuse My Dust (talk) 10:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Several of you are expressing concerns about article POV and crystal ball issues. I'm going to start a discussion thread on the article's talk page on how we can address these concerns. Majoreditor (talk) 04:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Majoreditor and Excuse My Dust--Allstar86 (talk) 05:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:MUSIC. Bearian (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barutana ljubavi

Per WP:MUSIC, unreleased albums are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources.} Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; this is an unreleased album with no substantial coverage. Here's a hint -- if you can't come up with so much as a track listing, then there's better than a 99.44% chance that the album isn't notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Miladin Šobić. Bondegezou (talk) 12:31, 21 February 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. Icestorm815 • Talk 16:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC) Non-admin closure.[reply]

Transmural care

Transwikied dictionary definition. TexasAndroid (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I created this page as a stub ages back. Transmural care is an important concept in medicine. There is plenty to say here beyond the dictionary definition suitable for Wiktionary. The article needs expanding, not deleting. I'm sorry I've never spent the time putting more into it! Bondegezou (talk) 15:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep needs expansion but has potential. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 27 references in PubMed; for example, [25] Chuck (talk) 05:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A.M. (band)

Non-notable band. The three references given (referred to in the article as "features") are no more than trivial coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ——Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --L. Pistachio (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are three sources and one of which is the L.A. Times. If that is not a notable source, I don't know what is. --Destroy1998 (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the LA Times reference is a blog, not the paper itself, and the reference just says "this band wasn't invited to the festival that I'm writing about, but they set up and played on the sidewalk anyway." As nominator said, this is trivial coverage of a nonnotable band. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Blog is not necessarily a dirty word. When "Web 2.0" was the new hawtness, major media rushed to call parts of their site blogs. It is still part of the LA Times. Perhaps you'd like to tell me which band in the piece about the entire festival receives more coverage, or perhaps you'd like to strike your characterization of it as unfair and misleading. - 86.44.6.14 (can't sign, tilde isn't working :D)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 19:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the delete voters are being extremely (unfairly?) tough. The blog is certainly part of the LA Times, and the author is a deputy editor on a section of the print version. The mention of the band is actually two long, meaty paragraphs. The LA Record sources are initialed posts which, though brief, describe the band's aesthetic and overall sound in some detail, recommend a particular song, and describe the guitar solo therein... Sounds like a keep to me. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 13:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Regardless of whether or not the LA Times blog entry is notable or not and whether 2 paragraphs out of 9 is trivial or not, that's still not nearly enough coverage to be considered "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable". —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 10:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained clearly why I hold the opposite view. Perhaps we simply differ in our applications of it, but I invite you to read all of notability guideline 1 one more time, with particular attention to its guides indicating what may constitute triviality. We are as far from that here as we are from AM being on the cover of Rolling Stone. ;) -86.44.6.14 —Preceding comment added by 86.44.6.14 (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Two brief show reviews where this band was the opening band. To me, that is the epitome of trivial coverage. That a band exists, plays shows, and has a sound that can be described does not mean that mentioning it briefly—as a tangent to the main point of the article (reviewing the headlining band), no less—is non-trivial. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not just a sound, an aesthetic too, and a recommended song, and a particular guitar solo? In conjunction with two relatively lengthly paragraphs about the band, with the lead singer being quoted, in a piece on the website of the LA Times? Notable to me. Your standards for notability are higher than mine, and i would gently suggest that they are higher than wp:music's (not that there is anything wrong with that). (Btw, they are not the opening band in one of the Record sources. It seems rather they share the bill; certainly they share the focus of the piece. Although a differing implication that may be drawn is that they are one of the opening bands, which is perhaps what you meant.) - that anon IP again

Delete. Agree that references provided are nothing more than trivial coverage; i.e. per latimesblogs.latimes.com, A sloppy, scrappy little quartet from Garden Grove called AM, which had neither applied for nor been invited to play the festival, set up on the sidewalk two doors down from the Echo and began to play an impromptu set of good-times garage-rock... [26]; and per larecord.com, Also playing is A.M., young kids out of Orange County who commonly play guerrilla-street shows in parking lots with generators...[27]. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dot dot dot indeed. What can you think selective quotations from the sources do to explain your view? Are you saying that a band who play that style of show cannot be in Wikipedia regardless of coverage? Interesting position. —86.44.6.14, 22 February 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.6.14 (talk) 13:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Starship Troopers (film). If people wish to merge they can from the history but, as it stands, the small amount of detail in here is unsourced - Peripitus (Talk) 23:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United Citizen Federation

No reliable sources have been added (since 2004) to establish the notability of this fictional organization. --Explodicle (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to Starship Troopers (film). Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting sounds fine to me, but what exactly is there to merge? This doesn't seem to have anything of worth that the article for the movie doesn't have. --Explodicle (talk) 15:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Merge I agree with Kim Dent-Brown. There isn't much notability for this and the article is best to be merged. Spencer^T♦^C 15:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge Per above.- Just Phil 22:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge This article is too small and insubstantial to stand on its own, it should be merged with the Starship Troopers (film) article; because it will add more detail to the film overall, then other users will take notice and add appropriate sources to the section. Walksonwalls (talk) 10:13, 22 February 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 Small consensus, but enough. Not in Wiktionary yet, could be added there, but not as this definiton, which doesn't match any other established definitoins in other dictionaries, online or otherwise. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Servery

Pure dictionary definition, and probably not accurate enough to send to Wiktionary either. Was created by a single use editor on 16 Oct 2007, and not edited since. Emeraude (talk) 14:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing here worth keeping. — Scientizzle 17:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Smith (footballer born September 1985)

Has yet to play in a full-time league, as per WP:Bio#athlete that makes him non-notable Jimbo^[online] 13:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:FOOTY/Notability, the criteria agreed upon by WP:FOOTY members, as he plays for a fully-professional club in a national league.[28] пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question I don't know much about English football, but isn't his club, Ebbsfleet United F.C., a professional club? It was recently purchased/will be purchased for £700,000, which implies that it receives revenue and pays its players, which could meet the standard of WP:BIO. Darkspots (talk) 13:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it is a fully professional club. See my link above as evidence. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The club maybe professional, but the player still needs some information in the article to even have an article. The way it stands I would delete this profile hands down. Govvy (talk) 14:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep asserts notability according to WP:FOOTY/Notability guidelines. English peasant 14:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:FOOTY/Notability. But gotta say "ouch!" on the article title. Can't we find a better name? Aardvarkvarkvark (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggestions welcome, but there is another player called James Smith who was born in October 1985! At least they were born in different months... пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets the football notability requirements. matt91486 (talk) 16:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be good enough now, still might need an ikkle more. Govvy (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:FOOTY/Notability Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 16:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. I wish we could have a better parethetical title for this article though. RFerreira (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Although I do agree the titles are a bit messy! glennb28 t/c 21:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep per the above WP:FOOTY/Notability Mrengland (talk) 10:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep per above. No different to many of the other articles on footballers ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 11:41, 19 February 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, no consensus to delete. One marginal (but relevant) reference added to article part way through deletion discussion. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 17:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genius Inside

While this says it was a finalist in the IBM Lotus Award, it does not say anywhere else on how it is notable. I see nothing that they made that was outstandingly significant. Soxred93 | talk count bot 02:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only sources seem to be press releases. -- Renesis (talk) 06:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT#NOTABLE.-Ravichandar 10:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Updated page content to reference notable 2008 IBM Lotus Mid Market Award. -- Mhankiny (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chetblong^{T C} 12:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Asserts notability by having won a notable award. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, isn't asserting notability different from satisfying notability requirements? This is enough to keep it from CSD, but no reason to pass AFD, since it doesn't fit the general notability requirements found at WP:N. -- Renesis (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, notability is rendered through being recognized by respected third party as offering outstanding technology and customer benefits. This posting seems in line with like solutions in this space. -- Mhankiny —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.131.169 (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete; no independent coverage or wide public notability. Please note that the "notable award" isn't, really; it's not like the Booker Prize or something, it's just an IBM marketing thing. --MCB (talk) 05:37, 24 February 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. Core desat 06:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pop-policy

no evidence this is a widely used term, delete per WP:SOAP --Snigbrook ^(talk) 12:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This term also fails WP:NEO. Bláthnaid 13:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is both a soapbox and a NN neologism. --L. Pistachio (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Obvious delete. — Scientizzle 17:39, 19 February 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 a7, webcontent with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chain Gang Soldier

Non notable and unreferenced.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The following text was moved here from the article page. It's not clear who wrote it:

Wikipedia.org has considered deleting this article, we are asking them not to do this due to the fact that this forum is very special to us and needs to be recognized.

Delete An online search turns up Myspace and the like. With under a thousand members, I wouldn't expect to find much anyhow. Matchups (talk) 11:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable at all. Wexcan Talk 12:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely not notable. --L. Pistachio (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as either A7/nn-web or A7/nn-org, take your pick. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:00, 15 February 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 discussion, obviously, but I'ld like to add that it gets a full (two-part) interview in Publisher's Weekly[29][30]. A minimal Google search before nomination may sometimes help. Fram (talk) 12:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RASL

Delete up-coming self-published comic book. nn. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The next project from the creator of the immensely successful, and notable, Bone. I see no reason why this should not be notable too. It really isn't just a self-published comic from just anyone; Jeff Smith is a big name in comics. Kelvingreen (talk) 22:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Keep. Jeff Smith is easily notable for Bone, and has worked on various other notable projects for the bigger comic shops too. That being said, this is a bad article (the only text under "Story" repeats the same sentence twice). Someone with more info ought to get this into shape... Duncan1800 (talk) 08:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 11:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep?I added some more info with an active reference if that helps! I'm pretty new to all this, but I know RASL's first issue will only be coming out this month, so I'm sure if you give it some time, people will fill in more info as the series goes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blameless42 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Kelvingreen. Wexcan Talk 12:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shōsuke Tanihara

~~No evidence of notability has been presented in the year this article has been up. If someone were to present credible evidence, I'd withdraw the nomination.~~ — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 10:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination, per Truth or Doubt. Someone should put some of this in the article, though. Request Speedy close. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. IMDB lists over 20 credits. Starred in Fudoh: The New Generation. Pburka (talk) 13:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20 credits, without any indication of notability of the role, is not adequate. I can't speak as to whether Fudoh: The New Generation is sufficiently notable that the star inherits notability. In fact, I'm not sure that article belongs on Wikipedia, as it only contains a one sentence lead, plot summary, and cast list. The latter two violate WP:NOT. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As to how notable Fudoh is: Time Magazine listed it as one of their ten best movies of the year 1997. Which is certainly enough to justify an article on it, but maybe not enough for notability to be inherited by its lead. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google Search on Japanese name 谷原章介 yields 286,000 results vs the romanized version of under 6,000. Anime News Network profile [31], Has appeared in Godzilla vs. Megaguirus [32]. In american media he has appeared in USA today "First of all, the iPod design is cute," said movie star Shosuke Tanihara, who listens to Prince and Janet Jackson with his iPod while cooking pasta at home or driving his Mercedes. "[33], Movie review of Fudoh: The New Generation in seattle times [34], Variety Magazine review of Vexille ,in which Shōsuke Tanihara plays a major character [35] AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We should have a referenced article specifically about him, if he is to be listed. The USA today article suggests that someone thinks he's notable, or he wouldn't be interviewed. On the other hand, some of those articles quote the "man on the shttp://wwwz.fujitv.co.jp/kyoukasho/index.htmltreet". I lean toward Vexille being notable, even though the current article reads like a Movie Tome entry, but the star of a notable movie is not necessarily notable. As for google, I don't know Japanese, but a number of otherwise experienced Wikipedians forget to require the words to be in order. I'd accept an article in a major magazine, even if in Japanese, as an indication of notability. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. 122 Google news hits for his Japanese name. Someone who can read Japanese would be needed to determine which of these are actually articles primarily about him, but the number of hits is suggestive that he may be notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Filmography and ample ghits suggest notability. There is no time limit placed on the development of articles, and lack of content is not in itself reason enough to delete. PC78 (talk) 23:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of claims of notability in the article is a speedy deletion criterion, and I believe the article qualifies. I'd be happier if evidence were added, but the alternative really is deletion. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't think a 15-item filmography is a sufficient claim of notability to avoid speedy deletion? —David Eppstein (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't be under WP:PORN. We don't have a numeric estimate in WP:FILM (or whatever it's called now). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PORN does not describe criteria for speedy deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you think this article is eligable for speedy deletion, they by all means tag it as a speedy and see how far it gets you. Your link to WP:PORN is highly irrelevant to this discussion. PC78 (talk) 10:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears that this actor has also appeared on Japanese National television as a guest on the celebrity edition of Who Wants to Be a Millionare. More so, he was the host of a television show on Nippon Television called Truth or doubt. Official Nippon Television link[36] It is mostly in Japanese but you can clearly see his name romanized in the flash intro. In the past year he also appeared on Watashitachi no Kyoukasho, you can find the Japanese website here [37]. What more do you want? Unfortunately, I couldn't find a notarized letter from his mother asserting his notability ;-) AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think what he wants is, not guest appearances, but press: print articles or TV appearances that are about him rather than that merely feature him. Which there seem to be plenty of; several of the articles from Google news appear (from the horrible translation provided by Google translate) to be about his personal life. But we need them in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't miss the point.(In reference to your edit summary). Arthur Rubin asserts he is not a notable individual. I'm providing additional supporting information for notability. In some cases he may appear as a guest, but I'd note clearly hosting a television show should not be constituted as a 'guest appearance.' I understand that he is looking for print articles as well, and we've already establish that an editor with Japanese language skills is needed to properly source an article. However, we should not rely explicitly on that to assert notability when there are other verifiable sources which can be provided to support notability as well. Thanks AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 01:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Information and sources found above are enough to demonstrate notability. Be nice if they could be integrated into the article, but that's not required for an AfD. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:28, 18 February 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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of street medic organizations

So this one's probably going to get me in trouble with the street medics, but I really don't think this list should stay on WP in its current state. It doesn't have any reliable sources, almost all sources are the groups' own websites, advocacy sites, and user-generated sites like Indymedia. I think a lot of the info has never been published in reliable sources. Plus a lot of the content is empty headers. I do think that any info with reliable sources could get merged back into street medic, though, and the content of this article could be put on a street medic wiki. delldot on a public computer talk 09:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. No problems here. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I think the article can be built upon. Important subject. More to be said later when I am back in internet connection rkmlai (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks like a directory (with a major US slant) to me. Also, having investigated the section relevent to me (Canada), it only references a student run medic unit (QPIRG), which intrestingly (but not notably) has the same address as a 'Anarchism Study Group' both are linked to the Univ. of Concordia. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; (1) Wikipedia is not a directory, and (2) lack of independent/reliable sources for the content. --MCB (talk) 05:39, 24 February 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 17:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whale tail

AfDs for this article:

Article is largely a nonnotable neologism with few sources. It is also defined twice, which is symptomatic of a poor real world consensus about the term and thus makes it a protologism. Article was created after American Dialect Society made this their "most creative word" of 2005 (please note this is not "Word of the Year"). It thus survived a deletion debate 10 days after that news broke, but no reliable sources have been created about the word since that time. Article has also served as a dumping ground for voyeuristic and invasive images of marginal utility, as seen here. Most other images in Category:Whale tail on Commons have since been deleted for privacy and personality rights violations. Article has served as an advertisement for some guy's website for most of it's useful life and, after I cleaned up all of this, the article was reduced to three sentences. I then attempted a merger, which was disputed on the talk page, but not before this tag showed up. Article should be deleted to discourage any further violation of privacy rights, as well as for being fundamentally unencyclopedic, nonnotable and neologistic. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 08:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the phrase is well-used and clearly notable. The article is sourced pretty well, considering its length. Note that the nominator had previously merged this article (along with Cleavage (breasts), Toe cleavage and Cleavage (buttocks)) to a new article without discussion. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 09:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article has three sources, one to a slang dictionary (not a source), one to the American Dialect Society and one to an inadequate source about Porsches that mentions whale tail spoilers. Somebody keeps trying to insert "whale tail.com," but this is not a source, since its claims cannot be verified and it is does not undergo editorial review. Essentially this article serves as an advertisement for that website. If these are the best sources that can be found on the subject, I doubt this article would ever be anything other than an or essay. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia is not a dictionary ^Khukri 10:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's more to the article than a mere dictionary definition.-- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 10:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Seems to be just more than a dicdef, what with the "most creative' reference. I do agree that a picture is in order, however... Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would also suggest a merge to thong (clothing) per Edison, seems logical too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge to Thong (clothing). A nickname for the appearance of part of a type of underwear when it is not adequate concealed? Seems far too reductionistic. Edison (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would support a merge to thong. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the e American Dialect Society quote.DGG (talk) 05:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too much focus upon the terminology rather than the topic so fails WP:DICDEF. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Thong (clothing)--NAHID 11:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The concept meets the notability guideline nicely. It has implications that encompass jeans, thongs and lexicology, as well as pop stars. If word has enough cultural and implications, it deserves tender loving attention, not deletion. Look at truthiness, which has gone on to become a featured article with care and attention. And, oh, BTW, I have improved the article to some extent. But, it could use a lot more help. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not notable and most of the information you added either a) doesn't mention the term "whale tail" at all or b) cites an example of "whale tail" but doesn't elaborate on the term. Again, this is symptomatic of a protologism. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When the term is discussed, the argument becomes - "Wikipedia is not a dictionary." When the impact of the term is discussed, the argument takes on the shape of - "they do not elaborate the term." Why create a legal dilemma when it can be plainly seen that this article deals with a fairly elaborate concept and has pretty good potentials? Besides, take a look at your original deletion reasons - (1) it could act as a magnet for voyeuristic images; (2) it served as an advertisement for some guys website; (3) it is just a "word of the year"; (4) when I cleaned it up, it was reduced to three sentences. It is worth mentioning that any article that has anything to do with matters sexual draws a lot of inappropriate images, so does any famous entertainer who has a fairly large fan bases (mostly copyvio stuff). Take notice that the "some guys website" was cited by the NY Times, establishing its notability. A simple "word of the year" meets the notability criterion better than those obscure schools and minor peers the Wikipedia is so full of. Finally, Mere cleaning up without any attempt at research and expansion can deprecate anything, but can not become an reason for merging or deleting an article. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well that doesn't address the primary notability concerns, which are that there are not enough reliable sources for this article to stand on its own. Trying to argue that other stuff exists doesn't solve the notability problem inherent in this article. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Aditya. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Ample reliable and verifiable sources have been provided to demonstrate notability. term's selection by the American Dialect Society as its "most creative word of the year" winner was covered extensively in the media. The WP:NEO claim is completely and utterly irrelevant, only surpassed in its inexcusability for deletion by supposed "privacy rights" issues. Alansohn (talk) 06:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way, but the history of the article pretty clearly illustrates a tendency for editors to insert demeaning and degrading pictures of women in compromising positions to "illustrate" the concept. This is wrong and we should discourage any future personality rights violations through a merger into a more concrete article like "thong." Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How will we prevent inappropriate pictures from being added to whatever article might be an appropriate merger target? The best way to deal with the issue is increased vigilance, not deletion. Alansohn (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consolidate the articles. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see the nom's assertions about lacking reliable sources as accurate. The progression of the article, the dumping ground, the slippery slope of voyeurism and invasion are not valid reasons for deletion. We cannot control who is going to masturbate to which article at any given time. the_undertow ^talk 00:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a dictionary definition with some rather worthless commentary and is not in the slightest bit suitable for an encyclopedia. At the very best it could be redirected to Thong (clothing). 78.86.18.55 (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to explain why should a recognition by a century-old expert organization be considered ignorable? Also, why would commentaries published by some of the most notable newspapers in the world be considered worthless? And, please, explain why a cross-discipline article (i.e. fashion, linguistics and sexuality) should be directed to a fashion article? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 18:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains no discussion on linguistics at all. None. A recognition that provokes a brief ha-ha mention in some media isn't particularly notable really, and is *nothing* to do with linguistics. There is barely any mention of sexuality outside of a sentence that could equally well be applied to the thong article. There is no way to make this article very much more than a WP:DICDEF and a neologism at that. Not every word that exists that has been mentioned somewhere in the press automatically becomes notable. Try taking the definition part of this to Wiktionary, and scrubbing the rest or merging itinto the other article. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 21:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No linguistics? Interesting. Then, what do you make of the study of dialects? And, by the way, quite a few of the Dialect Society's nomination from that very year that nominated Whale Tail has fairly fine articles on the Wikiepdia (including podcast, truthiness and muffin top). One of these has climbed all the way up to become a Featured Article. If your're implying the study of dialects unencyclopedic, think again (BTW, it's interesting to find that you already had questions about the highly notable expert group that nominated the word). Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 21:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muffin top isn't an article. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 09:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason it isn't an article any more, Cumulus Clouds, is because YOU went round merging various random articles the other day! Thanks for pointing out Muffin top - I'd missed reverting that one. I shall go and do so now (unless, of course, you achieved consensus before merging, in which case I'll leave it alone!)-- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 09:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The information in this article was identical to the information in Central obesity. You undid a redirect and replicated the material without explanation, so the page was protected to prevent this. You then went back to Central obesity, cropped the material out and created an unnecessary fork because you wanted a discussion when none was needed. I really don't appreciate you going through my history and undoing all my edits simply because you don't like them. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you feel that's what I've done. What I had intended to do was ensure that a proper consensus was achieved before articles that had already survived the AfD process were merged.-- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 09:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no study of dialects that I can see in the artice. There is a nomination from an organisation that studies dialects. Not the same thing at all. The reason I tagged the article on the society was that it made no real claim to notability at the time and was completely unreferenced. Fortunately, someone has improved it. I haven't looked at the muffin top article yet, so I couldn't make a judgement on it. The other two examples you cite have been heavily discussed both as words and as phenomena. The lack of any real encyclopedic content in this article, and the apparent lack of potential for any more, leaves the article with little worth or purpose. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(reduced indent) Well, if the word was a linguistic phenomenon and was recognized as such by experts than it is a subject studied under that discipline. The lack of potential looks like a personal view. Did you do any research on the subject to come to that conclusion? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 22:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult when somebody asks one to prove a negative. The article provides no real linguistic discussion of its subject. Surely providing some further evidence of this would be the way forward? Or at least more than a sentence or two of useful content over and above a definition? By the way, it appears that only roughly 15% of the google hits for "whale tail" (in quotes) have anything to do with this neologism. Many more are to do with the tails of whales. This is merely a remark. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to "prove a negative" until you make it an argument to advocate deletion of an article. And, well, I didn't understand your "this not about linguistics" argument at all. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 23:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Aditya. --Merovingian (T, C) 12:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update I have tried to develop the article, and hopefully have been able to achieve some improvement at least. It should satisfy the criterion of existence as an article (at the very least, there should not be any question about its potential to grow further). But, it still requires a heavy copy-edit (not my strength area at all). A hand there would be highly appreciated. Thank you all. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 11:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seeing at it has 2 meanings with history to them and sources for them. MBisanz ^talk 01:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Many different sources and has been discussed by actual linguists so the general problem of neologisms does not exist. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:10, 23 February 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. SorryGuy Talk 06:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ClickStart

OK, there are four press references but I still think this is an advert for a non-notable product. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, weakly, not necessarily with prejudice; or stubbify. This is a tech product, but a consumer product. The problem with the current article is that the sources given do not support many of the assertions in the article, which instead contains self-laudatory description (an inventive learning tool that introduce(s) essential skills for school and basic computer literacy); the rest of the article is devoted to a feature list and supporting product list. The New York Times and USA Today stories do provide some independent third party coverage, though, so a neutral article on the subject would appear to meet the product notability guidelines. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an obvious keep, given that it is featured in NYT, WSJ, and other national media articles. If the article needs POV improvement, improve it. DGG (talk) 01:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG; AfD is not clean-up. Benji boi 15:51, 18 February 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. Core desat 06:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cinababi

Rambling and nonsensical glorified dicdef with a side helping of POV screed. A google search for "cinababi" turns up 66 results including Wikipedia. Delete as unencyclopedic NN borderline dicdef. tgies (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blatant nonsense and WP:SOAPBOXing. Title is an ethnic slur normally written as two words. cab (talk) 08:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 08:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absolutely. Cinababi is a slur of calling a Chinese a pig. It's an original research of a blatantly POV article. Dekisugi (talk) 10:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - OR opinion pieces with bad sources. Had this page watchlisted, but somehow missed the start of the AfD. I was going to give this section on the reference desk another day or two before I nominated this article and LALAS myself. --Onorem♠Dil 16:01, 18 February 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. Core desat 06:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bhakti Vikasa Swami

Non notable individual. Wikipedia is not for advertisements for particular gurus or swamis, it is a resource for notable individuals. Article has no independent third party sources. Does not meet the standards of Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Ism schism (talk) 08:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 08:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 08:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Individual is a non notable guru or swami. Article does not specify notabilty at all and reads like an advertisement for this particular person. There are no independent third party reliable sources at all, and no claims of notability are given. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 08:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Individual is well known within Gaudiya Vaishnavism, and on an international basis within Vaishnava Hinduism. Significant as an early member of ISKCON, as a western convert to Hinduism, and as a Gaudiya Vaishnava teacher and guru. Gouranga(UK) (talk) 11:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment - Bhakti Vikas Swami has also written a number of books (see here). Although this link is commercial, it should be possible to find details of these publications in order to establish notability. Gouranga(UK) (talk) 13:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The number of books an individual writes does not establish notability. Many preachers write books. Ism schism (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have not been able to find any independent reliable online sources on this individual. Matchups (talk) 11:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to satisfy Wikipedia standards for notability of people. Edison (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. --L. Pistachio (talk) 18:51, 15 February 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 transwiki and delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Advance Wars: Days of Ruin COs

This article is an in-universe listing of characters in the Advance Wars: Days of Ruin video game detailing, among other items, the history and fighting characteristics of each character. Putting aside the apparent lack of secondary sources (and thus general notability, this article very clearly violates the policy stating that Wikipedia is not a guide. jonny-m t 08:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick addendum - I neglected to mention that a merging of articles has apparently been proposed since December 2007, yet no consensus has been reached. --jonny-m t 08:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki and delete per Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/List of Advance Wars COs. This article has the same intent as the first article, and should be treated no differently. Comandante Talk 22:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just like the other list, this one is very unnecessary. The topic can easily be covered within plot related sections of the main article. TTN (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NOR and WP:N. --MrStalker ^(talk) 08:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 23:50, 15 February 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 - Peripitus (Talk) 23:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bhaktivedanta Narayana

Non notable individual. Article does not make any claim to notablity at all. Wikipedia is not for advertisements for particular gurus, it is a resource for notable individuals. Article has no independent third party sources. Does not meet the standards of Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Ism schism (talk) 07:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 07:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 07:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Individual is a non notable guru. Article does not specify notabilty at all and reads like an advertisement for this particular person. There are no independent third party reliable sources at all, and no claims of notability are given. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 07:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Narayana Swami is a very well known figure within Gaudiya Vaishnavism. The article requires improvement, but anyone familiar with this area knows that he is a notable guru. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 11:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's standards do not include, "anyone familiar with this area knows that he is a notable guru." If you are familiar please point to reliable sources for references and state how this individual is notable. In its present state the article reads like a "guru advertisement". Ism schism (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to satisfy Wikipedia standards for notability of people. Besides lacking notability, the article fails to maintain a neutral point of view without massive editing to remove the puffery , spam, and advertising quality, but that comment is not the basis for my deletion argument. Edison (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepMy recent notability references and extensive edits should warrant retention. Honorifics removed to comply with the policy. POV statements removed. Notable.[38] Wikidas (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article is written from subject's personal webpage. The main reference is a VNN article which is simply a link to Bhaktivedanta Narayana's personal website at [39]. This VNN article is the exact same article from the subject's personal website. This is not a Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Also, the other references only mention the subject in passing. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If he was " Editor-in-Chief of its Hindi publications and the monthly magazine 'Sri Bhagavat Patrika' ". then he would probably be notable. As for POV and excessive puffery, I've seen a lot worse in such articles. the way to deal with these where the distinctions are unfamiliar is to look for something objective and specific. DGG (talk) 01:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You have to admit that, as you stated, "if he was," seems to be the problem here. Where are the references to back up these claims? POV is not the main issue, it is notability of people, Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. I do not see any evidence in the article to confer notability. This article is not written to show notability, nor have its sources provided third party independent references to prove otherwise. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 06:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Very Notable On October 31, 2003 in the Vraja village of Uchagaon (Lalita-sakhi's village), Vrajacarya Pith and the World Religious Parliament in Delhi jointly awarded Parama-pujyapada Srila Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja the title "Yuga Acarya".The person has received significant recognized awards or honors.)(Syama (talk) 04:43, 21 February 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. Which is extremely regrettable, because I really like it a lot! I don't want to delete it... can you all just change your mind, please? Nevermind. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Junior officer's protection association

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Junior officer's protection association

The author claims that this is an "huge organization with thousands of members". But the number of Google hits suggests not. The clue may be at the bottom of this page which refers to it as a "joke Association". Even if the author was to be honest and describe it as a running joke, then I still doubt whether it would be notable. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reeks of things made up in the mess one day, and may even have been an attempt to use Wikipedia as a host in starting a community by this name, if it isn't outright propaganda. --Dhartung | Talk 08:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced and looks like propaganda. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 09:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not something made up by the author - it's military slang for junior officers looking out for each other, like "Spec4 mafia" in the army. We used it when I was a junior officer. But nonetheless not worthy of an article, maybe a blurb on some page about military jargon. It's not an organization, confederation, or anything like that; just a running joke in the military, like West Point Protection Agency/Association.--Nobunaga24 (talk) 09:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep - Well I can assure you this is not made up, nor is it propaganda. There is no website because the organization has no central governance. Each command, ship, squadron, etc has a JOPA, which exists as a bond between the junior officers. The org exists in varying degrees. One command's members may be heavily active in it, using it as a network within the command to receive training and support members at another command may never do anything with it at all. For example, on my ship we had a JOPA email list which we all used actively to contact one another, we had JOPA lunches, JOPA bbq's, JOPA training held by senior members, the list goes on. The fact that there is no website does not disprove it's existence. Try a google search for "JOPA patch" and you will find companies that produce squadron/ship/unit patches who also produce a patch for the Junior Officer's Protection Association. Companies that work for profit would not produce a patch for an organization that does not exist. Tha article exists as an informative page to state the fact that 1) it exists, and 2) what it is, as there are many misconceptions of what it is (as evidenced by the comments thusfar written). -FFG37Navigator 206.112.75.239 (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If so widespread, then surely someone has written about it in a reliable source somewhere? --Dhartung | Talk 21:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep - I also know for a fact that JOPA does exist. Although there is no "national" JOPA, the traditions are still carried out by the junior officers at individual commands. The level and types of activity of the JOPA depends on the command. At my squadron, JOPA was mostly about training, the occaisional outing, and meetings which helped keep the junior officers in the loop on new command policies and procedures. It is extremely valuable to junior officers new to the military or arriving at a new command. - Dipper Spook

198.201.23.10 (talk) 17:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Thanks for the info, Nobunaga24. Just a running joke, unverifiable. --L. Pistachio (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it exists, why is it not better-documented? --Wikiacc (°) 22:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possibly an article giving the use of this inside-joke term can be written, if indeed there are some real sources, but this is not going to be helpful towards it.DGG (talk) 02:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Such an article would probably best go on a title of simply JOPA (joke). Almost every permutation of officer's/officers', protection/protective, association/agency produces a few Google hits. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sourced, written with non-NPOV toward senior officers, and does not better the encyclopedia. --Zharmad (talk) 04:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to narcolepsy. Core desat 06:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Always sleeping (narcolepsy)

I think this goes under WP:NEO. But I am unsure. Thats why I brought it here. UzEE 06:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to narcolepsy. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with speedy redirect. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no redirect. One either looks for "Always sleeping" (perhaps) or "Narcolepsy", but not this. Fram (talk) 10:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge Could also redirect "always sleeping" to Narcolepsy. This appears to be a well-intentioned contribution from a new Wikipedian. If you search for a term,such as "always sleeping," Wikipedia invites you to create an article. It has a couple of references which do not appear to be in the article Narcolepsy which should be included there. Add the refs (Scientific American), lose the text. Edison (talk) 16:22, 15 February 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. Gimmetrow 21:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Syro Malankara Catholic

There are no references to uphold the claims. Therefore, this is not notable. UzEE 06:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Syro-Malankara Catholic Church as duplicate. Next time, nominator should search before bringing an article to AfD, especially since the article was only 8 minutes old. AfD is not for new page patrolling. • Gene93k (talk) 10:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that redirect is the best option. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Syro-Malankara Catholic Church as duplicate. Yes, it's an actual Roman Catholic Particular Church which encompasses about a half million worshipers. Unless an article is blatant spam, nonsense or vandalism, an article should not be brought up for deletion within eight minutes of its creation. As WP:OSTRICH states, "A little research on a topic you are unfamiliar with will take just as much time as putting an article up for deletion." --Oakshade (talk) 16:18, 15 February 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silvaticus 3015

Explicitly fails future film notability guidelines. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per gay ass retarded nom. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maquoketa Gold

No evidence of any notability for this festival and trivial ghits. Travellingcari (talk) 06:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced former advertising. BusterD (talk) 14:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that this exists, the external link is essentially dead, and seems to be advertising. Spencer^T♦^C 16:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Unable to find verifiable sources and notability not estalished. Dloh cierekim Deleted? 19:24, 16 February 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. Core desat 06:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old School Death Metal

Unsourced, original research, no useful content that isn't in the history section of the death metal article, just a lot of personal opinion in the list of notable bands and essential albums. Stormie (talk) 06:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable and original research. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both above. Travellingcari (talk) 06:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Old School Death Metal isn't known as a sub-genre of death metal", or known as anything. Delete as OR. Elrith (talk) 13:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, entirely OR. Funeral 16:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails the everything test. RFerreira (talk) 18:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and explain the differences in Death Metal. -RiverHockey (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- the differences are: death metal is a well-referenced article about a musical genre, and Old School Death Metal is someone's POV/OR essay. --Stormie (talk) 03:01, 20 February 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. Bearian (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bikstok Røgsystem

~~Apparently non-notable band. No external sources seem to verify notability. Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete per nom. KurtRaschke (talk) 16:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets Wikipedia:Notability (music). Having made the Danish charts and having a record make gold are both sufficient criteria according to the guideline. The external sources are out there, only mostly in Danish. Hemmingsen 16:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination of both articles Per recent citations to the articles provided by Hemmingsen. Good catch. No need to delete, article clearly shows how band is notable. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Hemmingsen. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:12, 19 February 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. Core desat 06:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Galvorn (band)

Fails WP:MUSIC. No notable sources and no label. The source in the discussion, from havenmetal, is defunct. Delete Undeath (talk) 23:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 17:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I see that the band's entries at Encyclopeda Metallum, at MetalReactor and at Spanish Wikipedia also do not offer any third-party reliable sources and I have not found any. Delete. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references to demonstrate notability. Sbowers3 (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC. Funeral 17:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:14, 19 February 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. Merging is not an issue for WP:AFD, this should instead be referred to WP:EDIT. The nominators rationale is also whacky... the fact that a subject is covered across several other articles is not a criteria for deletion, and does not backup the claim that the subject is not notable. As well, when the nominator has to resort to paranoia and blatant incivility including unwarranted sockpuppet request threats, her/his arguments are diminished. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

King Harold (Shrek)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of the plots of Shrek 2 and 3, which already covers this stuff in appropriate detail. This is therefore duplicative and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 17:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. JuJube (talk) 22:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article is no different than the other characters. What is the use of attacking this article? Give it up! DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a war, its a discussion about notability and references. Many articles have done this, like Master Chief (Halo), Jack Sparrow, and many others. I contend there are no references to how this character was created and such, that is the question, not how much someone hates the character. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Non-notable character from a really bad movie." --nom's AFD entry for Merlin (Shrek). 216.37.86.10 (talk) 14:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've also been asked to stop copy-pasting your AFD rationales and that AFD IS NOT CLEANUP, yet you've ignored this every single time. 216.37.86.10 (talk) 14:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your hilarious; first of all, Shrek 3 is a really bad movie, but that is completely irrelevent to this AFD. And second, I do not copy paste my AFD rationales, that's why I don't do more of them. And third, you are wasting our time and have no argument rooted in policy for keeping this poor article, so go find something productive to do. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Oh and by the way, 216.37.86.10, are you User:Blueanode? Cause I thought he had been blocked....perhaps I should go check on this, after all, it would be just like his usual cowardly ways of attacking people behind anonymous IP's with insults and no rational argument. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you do make enemies fast, leading to paranoia like this. Please don't waste their time with frivolous requests. To be honest, I thought Blueanode was you after he "saw the light" and then went on a deletionist rampage with your exact same posting style. Obviously I was mistaken, but at least I did not waste their time with a checkuser request, because it was unsubstantiated. Much like your claim. If you want me blocked for saying that AFD is not cleanup, you should have the other 20 people (admins included) that have said this out of your sight as well. 216.37.86.10 (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would a downsize, merge, and redirect to List of fairy tale characters in Shrek be an option? -- saberwyn 06:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Ignoring the lack of civility on both sides so far, I agree with Saberwyn; King Harold is essentially the Frog Prince, a classic fairytale character, as he appears in Shrek. He lacks any independent notability to support an article on his own but would fit nicely in that list article. --Ig8887 (talk) 09:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Astrotrain (talk) 13:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that AfD is not a vote. Your position is meaningless without an accompanying argument. --L. Pistachio (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge The Shrek character does not have independent notability, and the article is written entirely in-universe. --L. Pistachio (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - major supporting character in two hit movies. Could use more reliable sources, and less original research, though. Bearian (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But currently, there are no reliable sources at all, so there is no evidence of notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:59, 22 February 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. Core desat 06:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Cancer Research Foundation- Northwest Region

Orphaned redirect; not likely to ever be used vıd ıoman 21:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Jim62sch^dissera! 23:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Why is this still being discussed? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:42, 19 February 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. Core desat 06:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Musical

Delete - An album by Nina Sky which has no release date, no officially confirmed tracks and more importantly no sources. Surfer-boy94 (talk) 01:46, 01 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL; no verifiable info yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 06:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per TenpoundHammer. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:57, 15 February 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. Core desat 06:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sugar Daddy (Nina Sky song)

Delete - A song by Nina Sky which has not charted , is not notable in any way and more importantly no sources. Surfer-boy94 (talk) 01:56, 01 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Song isn't notable in any way. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 06:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the article on the album: anyone looking for this song will be directed to the most likely place for information, and if the whole "was going to be the first single but then wasn't when the release date changed" thing requires writing about, it can first be mentioned in relevance to the album and if expansion dictates split back out. -- saberwyn 06:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And I didn't see that the album is listed as part of this discussion, with no reasoning in the nomination. At least they'll end up in the same place. -- saberwyn 07:31, 15 February 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. Core desat 06:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lekra3

This article has been deleted in fr because of not meeting the admissibility requirements. This english page was created as a reaction of this deletion (see http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Pages_%C3%A0_supprimer/Lekra3 for details Hercule (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Algerian portal that is considered non-notable enough by French Wikipedia to have the title protected (see http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lekra3&action=edit), and how much more non-notable will it be to the English Wikipedia. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 19:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the following comment:

Supprimer Surtout quand on voit la photo ridiculeusement non-encyclopédique (a supprimer également) ! --Acetone (d) 31 janvier 2008 à 22:04 (CET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blanchardb (talk • contribs) 19:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I guess encyclopédique in French means as much as notable here, and seeing how the article has not a single source and I couldn't find anything myself with google, along the lines of WP:WEB I'd agree with the French and say it's not notable. Once some big news sites (even if only French/Algerian ones) write about it, the article could be re-created. Now I just wonder what the "Avis non décomptés" section means on the French AfD. --Minimaki (talk) 14:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It means these comments were deemed not worthy of consideration in the final decision. Apparently, in the French Wikipedia, the closing admin sorts the keeps and deletes before closing the discussion. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 02:07, 18 February 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, salt, and block. Spellcast (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rey Casas

Non-notable pianist/composer. Article was CSD'd, then re-created with new claims of Billboard charting and Grammy nomination. Examination of the references given indicate that the added content was cut out of whole cloth to give the appearance of notability. See the article's talk page for further info. Fails WP:MUSIC. If the consensus is to delete, I suggest salting. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 18:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete and block the author as well. Looking at his talk page, he created a previous version with copyright issues, and repeatedly removed cleanup tags from it as well. Good faith can't be assumed here. Blueboy 96 19:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, block and salt Per above. SingCal 16:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:16, 19 February 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. SorryGuy Talk 06:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The British Aerosol Manufacturers' Association

Nothing to assert notability per WP:ORG and a search doesn't return significant coverage. Travellingcari (talk) 16:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The coverage in google seems to be kind of trivial - I mean, there are mentions of it, and there are pdf files, but no third-party sources that address the subject in detail are cited in the article. I wouldn't speedily delete this though, and I think someone should take a closer look at the sources.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep if there's another source, to show that they are in fact the major national trade organisation in their industry. DGG (talk) 20:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd agree but I don't find anything. Even in the PR stuff, which I know doesn't meet RS, which would normally say "Person X was appointed to BAMA which is the king of the world since the day of the dinos..." doesn't. I just can't find any evidence that it's an industry leader. Even plain ghits don't appear to assert any industry importance. Travellingcari (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found a listing at http://www.cbidirectory.co.uk/search/company_search.php?Keywords=Aerosol&Submit=Search which identifies BAMA as a CBI member trade association. The National Aerosol Association (based in the United States) includes a link for BAMA and for other countries' aerosol trade associations at http://www.nationalaerosol.com/links.htm --Eastmain (talk) 21:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- significant organisation in the field of aerosol industry, particuarly in the UK Astrotrain (talk) 13:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment particuarly in the UK : Hardly surprising, given its name. Emeraude (talk) 14:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Genuinely seems to be the most notable organization in the British Aerosol industry. Usefully encyclopedic to anyone researching that field. I'd say that any genuine and legitimate national manufacturers' association is notable by definition. Something can be both notable and boring! Aardvarkvarkvark (talk) 15:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While I agree that it could be considered notable if we could find sources that back up the above claims of 'signifcant organisation' and 'seems to be the most notable' I disagree with : Usefully encyclopedic to anyone researching that field. Have you read the article? There's no substance, it's essentially its mission statement. I know that's for WP:CLEANUP and not AfD but my issue with that is a lack of sources with which to make this encyclopedic. Travellingcari (talk) 15:37, 15 February 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. No consensus to delete. Sufficient sources now cited to need no further AfD nomination (IMO). Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 17:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feloni

AfDs for this article:

Detroit rapper. Two prior nominations were closed early, but consensus at deletion review was to give this full consideration, as some editors thought the sources brought up to support notability were trivial. So here it is, procedural nomination, I have no opionion ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability established with reliable sources. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Keep Now that the DRV has established that this will get a full, fair shake, I would like to see this article expanded before the end of this AfD. I do think the links provided, especially after a brief cleanup, now establish basic notability as an independednt artist. By the way my Google-fu only produced a monthly award from Broadjam, not the "grand prize" that was initially claimed. -- RoninBK _{T C} 17:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Delete - I'm only seeing one "significant coverage in a reliable source independent of the subject", that being the Real Detroit Weekly article. Notability is established with multiple RSs. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Detroit Weekly is the first source and GO Magazine is the second source. Both have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy per WP:RS.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete She's close, I'd say VERY close to me saying keep, but there just isn't enough RS YET for me to say so. Wildthing61476 (talk) 22:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to pass WP:MUSIC as written. There's a couple of "almosts" in there, but it's just not enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- She actually meets the first criteria: "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable". --brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please, a lesbian rapper? In an industry known for misogyny and homophobia. Article should be developed and sourced (perhaps lesbian magazines and newspapers - just a hunch) should be sought out. I wouldn't expect google news to pop much as with many LGBT people but this seems like a good lead. Benji boi 12:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. 2nd album has been named and slated for 2008. Benji boi 17:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable outside a restricted "rap community." -RiverHockey (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which in other words makes her notable per Wikipedia notability standards. If she is notable within the rap community (which although me and you might not like, is still substantial) then she is notable. Besides, the reliable sources provided attest to notability in the gay community, the Detroit community etc.....--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:23, 20 February 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 with no prejudice against recreation. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 18:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iglesia ng Dios kay Kristo Hesus

Non notable church in the Philippines. This is not the same as Iglesia ng Dios kay Kristo Hesus, Haligi at Saligan ng Katotohanan or better known as Members Church of God International nor Iglesia ng Dios kay Kristo Hesus, Haligi at Suhay ng Katotohanan. Dft56 (talk) 13:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Does not present a clear reason why it is a notable church nor does it cite any sources. —C.Fred (talk) 14:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Currently neutral but let's be careful -- WP:BIAS is a major problem, so let's not just delete on sight articles on things where Google is less than helpful. According to the article, this church was founded in 1922, so there just may be some historical notability. There just may not be enough English-language sources. On the other hand, it can of course be a completely non-notable organization -- but most of us unfamiliar with the subject and the culture are not in position to judge. Let's not be hasty here. Some expert opinion would be welcome. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, then edit and move to "Ang Mga Kaanib sa Iglesia ng Dios kay Kristo Hesus, H.S.K sa Bansang Pilipinas, Inc.". This church actually sued "Iglesia ng Dios kay Kristo Hesus, Haligi at Suhay ng Katotohanan" regarding corporate name similarities. Read the article here. Please also refer to my argument in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most Holy Church of God in Christ Jesus. Starczamora (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As C.Fred points out above, "does not present a clear reason why it is a notable church nor does it cite any sources". Is this a single church or a whole denomination? Something with 100 followers or 100,000? If it is indeed notable, it can be re-created with new, verifiable, sourced information. --MCB (talk) 05:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to proper title. Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Billie Holiday Songbook

Non-notable tribute album. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{round of applause} 13:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find any significant coverage in secondary sources. --Asmodeus Samael (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Isn't this the same album as In My Solitude: The Billie Holiday Songbook?--Fisherjs (talk) 17:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to In My Solitude: The Billie Holiday Songbook. How can a record which reached #3 on the jazz charts be non-notable???? But we do not need 2 articles about it with slightly different titles. Edison (talk) 16:31, 15 February 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. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ulytau

Doesn't assert notability in any way, fails WP:MUSIC. ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 12:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A Google search suggests some activity by the band, but it's hard to assess notability without knowing more about the Kazakh/ex-USSR musical scene. Bondegezou (talk) 11:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 23:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - after almost nine months it is a one-sentence article. Could be speedied as not even an assertion of importance. Sbowers3 (talk) 02:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, no assertion of notability, so tagged. Jfire (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fund derivatives

Simple dicdef. Not an article. superβεεcat 09:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve - seems to be a real term in economics. Google searches for "Fund Derivatives" yields 39,700 results, and "Fund Derivative" yields 15,000. As it stands now, it definitely needs work, but I dont think it should be deleted, although this may be better suited for wiktionary.-Reuvenk_{T C} 22:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, move to fund derivative, as per article naming guidelines. the wub "?!" 18:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep fixed relisting. The vast majority of the google hits will be of the "fund, derivative" variety or alternatively talking about derivatives trading by funds, rather than discussing the subject of this article. But there's probably enough actual sources to write an article, like one that asks, "Could 2005 be the year of the fund derivative?" [40] ... bwahahaha ... cab (talk) 07:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article went up and minutes later it was AfD'd with a five-word rationale. Why not give it time to breathe? This is a complicated and interesting are of finance which deserves some kind of overview in Wikipedia.--Wageless (talk) 15:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep valid stub. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:08, 15 February 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Johnson (European producer)

Non-notable autobiography. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SorryGuy Talk 06:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to meet WP:BIO. Does not meet WP:RS. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:48, 19 February 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 A7, article about a website that does not assert it's significance. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Siebel_EIM

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Siebel EIM

I strongly feel this is not a topic to have a separate page in Wikipedia, as encyclopedic content. There are forums and websites outside of wikipedia like ittoolbox where this topic has been discussed quite extensively. Siebel EIM is just a feature / functionality offered by a product and it could very well go away in the future. So I feel this page is not apt. Sean rave (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SorryGuy Talk 06:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as either g11 (spam) or a7 (web). At first, I thought it should only be marked as g11, but it does not appear to be notable as of yet. Should another article that is sourced, neutral, and establishes notability be created, then (and only then) no prejudice to recreation. The Evil Spartan (talk) 16:54, 19 February 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Butta Creamé

Also included in this nomination, the following two members of the group that have their own articles as well.

Apparently non-notable group. Only known claim to fame is as a backing group on two songs. No actual sources verify this however, so it may be a hoax. Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:V, non-notable group. Tiptoety ^talk 06:03, 15 February 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. Rudget . 11:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rajkumar Rathinavelu

Reads like a resume, nn content. Could be moved to userspace and deleted. Tiptoety ^talk 05:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy: This is typical resume spam. (I live in India and this type of article pops up generally during Indias daytime hours.) Could easily have been {{db-nn}} Andante1980 (talk) 07:11, 15 February 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. Fairly unanimously so. JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

108 (band)

Non notable. Advertisement and vanity page. Ism schism (talk) 05:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 05:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 05:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Non notable. Advertisement and vanity page with no independent reliable sources. Ism schism (talk) 06:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article needs more references but the subject is notable, no need to delete. Gouranga(UK) (talk) 11:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Notable band with multiple releases on Equal Vision and Lost & Found. I am finding it hard to assume good faith when, first noting this user opened AFDs on two plainly notable Krishnacore bands, I check the editor's contribs to find what seems to be an anti-Krishna agenda. Regardless, the group is notable and meets WP:MUSIC. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My "agenda," as you put it, is to have notoble articles with reliable sources. If you need an exapmle of a Krishna music project that is notable please see Radha Krsna Temple. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response Above you cite WP:Music. Which "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" are you suggesting for notability? And, where are the reliable sources to back it up? These items are missing. Thanks.Ism schism (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page should remain as this is definitely a notable, yet underground, band. I feel they fulfill several of the "criteria for musicians and ensembles" in WP:Music. First, as stated above, they have released several albums on well-known independent labels (criteria #5). Secondly, they are the subject of two separate documentary films (criteria #1). Thirdly, the guitarist was a member of four other well-known underground bands, Inside Out, Burn, Shelter and Beyond (criteria #6). Uncle Cheech (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle Cheech, when you created this page, where you using any reliable sources for the information placed in the article? Are you aware of any since you created the page? If you can provide these sources, it would be helpful for this discussion. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I just added several reference links on the 108 page. They range from allmusic.com to a transcription of a Spin Magazine article from 1995. Thanks! Uncle Cheech (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Uncle Cheech! Ism schism (talk) 18:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to pretty easily meet notability. matt91486 (talk) 18:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change vote to Keep. Information provided in recent edits to article by Uncle Cheech has established notability verified through reliable sources. Ism schism (talk) 18:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the information cited by Uncle Cheech, I do believe that this satisfies WP:MUSIC guidelines. RFerreira (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note for Administrator - The nominator has changed his vote to keep; this can be closed. matt91486 (talk) 18:54, 15 February 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), nom withdrawn BusterD (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shelter (band)

Non notable. Advertisement and vanity page. No reliable sources to back up article's claims. Ism schism (talk) 05:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 05:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 05:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

*Delete Non notable. Advertisement and vanity page with no independent reliable sources. Ism schism (talk) 05:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article needs a clean-up, but the subject matter is notable, especially given the exent of their Discography. Gouranga(UK) (talk) 11:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and speedy close Very notable band with multiple releases on many well-known labels, including two albums on Roadrunner, a major label. I am finding it hard to assume good faith when, first noting this user opened AFDs on two plainly notable Krishnacore bands, I check the editor's contribs to find what seems to be an anti-Krishna agenda. Regardless, the group is notable and meets WP:MUSIC. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My "agenda," as you put it, is to have notoble articles with reliable sources. If you need an exapmle of a Krishna music project that is notable please see Radha Krsna Temple. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response Above you cite WP:Music. Which "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" are you suggesting for notability? And, where are the reliable sources to back it up? These items are missing. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:MUSIC point #5 "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels" They've released two albums on Roadrunner and one Victory, amongst others. Lugnuts (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Lugnuts! Per Lugnuts remarks, added references for the above information provided by Lugnuts. Ism schism (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change vote to Keep per Lugnuts and reliable sources to verify claims. Ism schism (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note for Administrator - The nominator has changed his vote to keep; this can be closed. Ism schism (talk) 19:48, 15 February 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bang Cartoon

Web site whose strongest claim of notability is a single event sourced mostly to "quotes directly from John Tayman" and the website itself. Web searches for combinations of "Bang Cartoon" and "John Tayman" indicate non-notability. Jfire (talk) 05:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It has been featured in many news broadcasts on t.v and radio. There just aren't copies of the reports on the net. Buc (talk) 12:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable website. Like the previous user says, it has been featured in the media and is frequently referenced on other websites. Enigma ^msg! 19:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide some citations? In fact, few or none of the references in the article (e.g. "Detroit news January 2006", "Quotes directly from John Tayman", "Website traffic reference- Google Analytics", and the links such as [41]) are reliable or verifiable. Jfire (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it posted about on the Internet a lot. I don't have links immediately available, but there have been interviews with John Tayman and follow-up articles. Also, they're frequently posted about on messageboards all over the Internet. A quick Google search yields a lot of links. Enigma ^msg! 20:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We require reliable sources. Internet message boards are not reliable sources. Jfire (talk) 21:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I didn't say they were reliable sources. I was using it as evidence of notability. Enigma ^msg! 22:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:N, the definition of notability is coverage in reliable sources. If the sources aren't reliable, they aren't evidence of notability. Jfire (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable website. NFL Players and coaches themselves have enjoyed the cartoons, and unfortunately most newspapers don't archive their articles but for so long. Hard to blame the site for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.78.205 (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC) — 69.251.78.205 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Actually, most newspapers do have online archives these days (even small papers -- see for example [42], where I just located online references for two relatively small papers). If this website really is notable, these sorts of references should not be hard to find. So far, we have people asserting that they do exist, but not actually producing any. Jfire (talk) 21:40, 21 February 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. Black Kite 09:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Rocket (Slippery Rock)

Weekly campus paper with 3000 circulation, only source is itself. Gary the No-Trash Cougar (talk) 05:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ self-evidently non-notable. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added three references not from the paper itself, ~~(which by the way claims higher circulation than stated in the deletion nomination)~~: from TV station KDKA, about racial tension aroused in 2006 by an editorial cartoon about reverse discrimination, and references from two different non-campus newspaper in two different towns about alumni association and faculty council ire raised by a simulated wanted poster for U.S. President Richard Nixon for "murder, genocide and conspiracy" in 1970. This satisfies Wikipedia notability requirements. Campus papers are no more inherently "non-notable" than are newspapers in towns of equivalent size if the campus papers themselves they have multiple substantial coverage in independent and reliable sources. Edison (talk) 15:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources provided by Edison. Struck through prior vote.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BLISS (band)

Non notable. Vanity page and advertisement. Ism schism (talk) 05:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 05:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 05:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable. Advertisement and vanity page. Ism schism (talk) 05:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article doesn't establish notability, WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:19, 19 February 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hare Krishna Temple (Toronto)

Non notable entry. Not every Hare Krishna temple is notable and Wikipedia is not a place to advertise every place of worship. Ism schism (talk) 02:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 02:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 02:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable entry. Not every ISKCON temple should be on wikipedia. Ism schism (talk) 02:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable building by a notable firm of architects. I added some references. --Eastmain (talk) 02:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mainly again because of architectural significance and the fact that its rear for ISKCON temple to have previously a church building. That alone is notable. No vanity in the article and NPOV is maintained. Good example of article with proper image and references. Wikidas (talk) 13:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is notable, not because it is a Hare Krishna temple, but because the building is a landmark in Toronto, with important historical connections.Paradiso (talk) 04:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Concerning the buildings architecture, I have a few questions. Does the purchase of an historic building confer notability on the organizaiton that purchased it? The notablity of Avenue Road Church was its architecture and history. Does this mean that the Hare Krishna Temple (Toronto) has inherited the notability of Avenue Road Church? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is the structure that remains architecturally notable, whatever name it goes by. Paradiso (talk) 04:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above, appears to be notable as a landmark which happens to be a place of worship. RFerreira (talk) 22:20, 19 February 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 CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of meteorology topics

The list is rather useless in its current state, as it appears to be a dump of the article lists from WikiProject Meteorology, WikiProject Tropical cyclones, WikiProject Severe weather, WikiProject Non-tropical storms, WikiProject Climate and WikiProject Climate change), and has been superseded by List of basic meteorology topics, List of named tropical cyclones, and primarily, Category:Weather and Category:Meteorology. Any purpose the list could have had is better dealt by the category structure below the two categories mentioned above. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The nominator is perhaps unaware of a very current proposal on the talk page for a complete overhaul, massive shortening, and rewrite of the list:

I was planning to rewrite this list, beginning with the removal of all metereological institutions and historical metereological events, leaving just a list of the core academic topics in metereology. I think such a revised list would be useful to have in addition to Category:Meteorology. Lists and categories are complementary as navigational tools. - Neparis (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe there is significant encyclopedic value in having a rewritten, tightly focussed list of the core academic topics in metereology. A list is a complementary navigational tool to a category. I am prepared to do the work of renovating the list. It is a good-faith offer. I was hoping that anybody with any interest in the status of this list would try to discuss my proposal on the talk page and build a consensus on what to do next. Nobody, however, has replied to my proposal, and I find that surprising. I don't think it is the best approach to start an AfD without first attempting to discuss on the talk page what is a very active, good-faith proposal for improvement. I would still like to have such a discussion of the proposal. However, I believe there is insufficient time to develop the proposal and improve the list before this AfD closes. An AfD is for discussing the merits of an article in its current form, not of possible future versions. In the circumstances, nominator, would you consider withdrawing the AfD to allow the improvement proposal to be adequately discussed and developed on the talk page? - Neparis (talk) 23:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sure wouldn't mind if the article was improved, and I really appreciate the offer, but in a way, I'm not 100% sure we need the article. That's what I'd like to know; whether other editors would find a modified version of this page useful or not, so I'm asking about the usefulness of the page as a topic, not necessarily in its current incarnation. But don't wait, the talk page is pretty much not watched by anyone (that's why no one has replied), just be bold and overhaul it. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need the article to match all the other List of foo topics.-- Alan Liefting-talk- 18:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per Neparis' comments above. User:Wavelength has made a significant no of edits to the page. This editor has also worked on many lists pertaining to the environment. See User talk:Wavelength and Talk:Lists of environmental topics for editing issues similar to those with this page. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 23:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In principle Delete - The main value of lists is to identify topics on which articles are needed (given as red links), but there are virtually none in this bloated list. Categories are a much better navigation tool. If kept, all the hurricanes, tropical storms etc. should be removed into separate lists, with a single cross-refernece in the main list. However, I would be willing for the list to be kept for (say) a month to enable the project to tidy it away. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The main value in a revamped List of meteorology topics would be to identify, in a very short list, what are the core topics in the academic field of meteorology. It seems to me like a most appropriate and useful list to have in any encyclopedia that aims for good coverage of mainstream academic fields. A good list does much more than a category. You seem to have lots of ideas for improving the existing list. If you have time, please lend a hand in developing the current proposal for improvement on Talk:List_of_meteorology_topics. - Neparis (talk) 17:54, 22 February 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, notability not established. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 05:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Hari

Not Notable. Ism schism (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable article. Ism schism (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Two albums released by the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust (BBT), which is "the world's largest publisher of books concerning Krishna and the philosophy, religion, and culture of the Vedic tradition of India." and therefore (I would think) counts as a major label in the context of India. --Eastmain (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if the claim of having sold 250,000 copies is true, I'd say that would surely pass the spirit of WP:N and WP:MUSIC. However, that claim is presently unsourced. Not going to vote either way yet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this could be proved, my vote would change as well. Ism schism (talk) 02:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 05:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if the claims in the article were referenced, notability would be established. Until they are, we can either delete the article pending citation of references, or just slap it with {{unreferenced}}. dab (𒁳) 10:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My thoughts are that even if sources are found, the information should be merged with the Robert Campagnola article. I don't think that the subject matter is notable enough to warrant it's own seperate article. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 12:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notablity is debatable, at best, and independent reliable sources are still missing completely. Ism schism (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable article. verifiable links are missing. autobio & unsourced. misnamed as well without disambiguation MBest-son (talk)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Manongdo

No evidence of any coverage and ghits appear to be videos, blogs and MySpace. No evidence he passes WP:MUSIC Travellingcari (talk) 05:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SingCal 16:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. Bondegezou (talk) 12:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bob cuba

Previous Afd in 10/07 resulted in no consenus. In the intervening months I see no evidence that the band passes WP:MUSIC. It could warrant a mention in the TV show, perhaps, but there is no charted album, and mainly trivial coverage (results aren't even entirely for the band -- there's a cabinet maker and an obit.) I'm not sure if the only possible RS is indeed independent. Travellingcari (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jfire (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:23, 19 February 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick S. J. Carmack

Not notable and unverifiable. It seems this article existed only because of its connection to The Money Masters conspiracy theory video, which itself was recently deleted. Baked ham (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No demonstrated notability at all. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:39, 20 February 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert Ott III

what more source could be provided, imcluded is link to label website, articles surrounding projects, etc.

Seemingly non-notable biography. Originally tagged with a simple {{notability}} but this was removed twice by an anon with no explanation or alteration. Sources barely acceptable if at all. tomasz. 18:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

tomasz, what can be done to satisfy in your eyes? ample information has been added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.41.249 (talk) 18:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The refs are to his own record company's website, to myspace and to a website which I cannot determine whether is an "independent and reliable" source with respect to our notability standards. Absolutepunk? Others may be more familiar with it. Find sources such as Billboard. Edison (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only "independent" sources listed are actually press releases, and even those only mention Gilbert Ott in passing. Gsearch not coming up with anything showing notability.--Fabrictramp (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment Gilbert Ott III (Gib) was essentially the same article as this, and was deleted as a result of this AfD.--Fabrictramp (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:MUSIC. Black Kite 09:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dead End (band)

Delete unsourced article about nn band, claim to have won some contests, but no indication of what these contests were so barely even an assertion of notability - fails WP:BAND. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The band seems to fail WP: BAND and is non-notable. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 21:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 19:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may be tough to find sources for a Serbian band. I found none through Google News archives or by searching a library database of newspaper and magazine articles. I'll have to say delete unless some sources turn up. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:25, 19 February 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. Keep arguments indicate there is sufficient coverage, but as those have not been used in the article, it does reduce their position. The jury is out at the moment. Tyrenius (talk) 04:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Big Orbit Gallery

There is some news coverage about events it hosts, but nothing to indicate it's more notable than any other gallery or meets WP:CORP Travellingcari (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Jlrich (talk) 23:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A gallery becomes notable by having notable exhibits, which I think this one does. The articles from the Buffalo News mentioned by the nominator seem to add up to enough coverage to pass WP:CORP. I added some categories. --Eastmain (talk) 23:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 23:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't seem notable from VA side. Local press coverage not enough. Johnbod (talk) 20:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Tyrenius (talk) 02:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to pass WP:CORP by virtue of the newspaper coverage, which is fairly extensive. A few of the newspaper articles (Natalie Green Tessier. "Humor, Creativity in Big Orbit". The Buffalo News. March 27, 2001) are actually about the place as a whole, and not just reviews of specific exhibits passing through. I agree that most of the coverage comes from the Buffalo area, but a quick Newsbank search reveals that the place has also been mentioned in the New Haven Register the Toronto Star, and the Boston Globe. Notable enough for me; we don't hurt anyone by having too much info on the arts. Zagalejo^^^ 05:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A real gallery, 16 years old, with a website. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - an Art gallery that has a Music venue, that sounds notable. Hosting more than one notable preformer also lends credence to the pedigree. Better references are highly encouraged. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments above, appears to have several notable aspects making it worthwhile for inclusion. RFerreira (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete As it is the article is just a directory listing. The article falls short of WP:CORP. I think we should follow the guidelines here, i.e. getting beyond "Trivial or incidental coverage". Wikpedia doesn't cover everything and this may be one of the things it doesn't cover, regardless of WP:HARMLESS and WP:ITSUSEFUL arguments. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:32, 20 February 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. SorryGuy Talk 06:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CricketP&G

Questionable notability, one Google result that leads to a Wikipedia userpage. Cricket matches the team has participated in are non-notable as well, does not meet WP:N or WP:CRICKET notability criteria. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 04:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not at all a notable cricket league, utterly devoid of coverage in reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apparent vanity page about non notable team. --Asmodeus Samael (talk) 04:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tosuddhu (talk • contribs) 04:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please provide a reason. What are the subject's claims to notability? JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 04:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Do Not Delete~~ Sources have been added to the article. Cricket is an upcoming sport in Singapore with a lot nationals looking for information resources on the game and its teams in Singapore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tosuddhu (talk • contribs) 05:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you provided are all primary sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I've stricken out the superfluous "do not delete" !votes by Tosuddhu. Deor (talk) 12:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There should be an article on cricket in Singapore. This isn't it though, despite the charming enthusiasm of the participants. Nick mallory (talk) 05:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Do Not Delete~~ From the points above two things seem to be the concerns for deletion of this article. I would like to contest both:

The facts are not proven: All the sources mentioned in the article are independent sources with utmost credibility. Most of the facts can be verified from the Official Website of the Singapore Cricket Association, which is the governing body of Cricket in Singapore and an affiliate member of ACC (Asian Cricket Council) and ICC (Internation Cricket Council). It would be a mockery of these institutions if someone were to contest the validity of data/claims on this article
The article is not useful: It would have been great if an article were to be written on Singapore Cricket, but an absence of it should not be a reason to disallow teams/clubs taking cricket forward in Singapore from disemminating information on the sport. Moreover, with there is ample information already published on wiki on sports clubs and teams. If they can be allowed to use wiki as a compendium of information on their team and the sport, why can this artice not allowed to be published ?

Thanks! --Tosuddhu (talk) 07:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Such teams are notable, I'm sorry, but this one isn't. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 03:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn cricket team. "Division III of the Singapore Cricket League." says it all really. Sting au Buzz Me... 01:40, 16 February 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 both. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley McCune

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Shirley McCune

Fails WP:BIO; a Notability tag has been on the page since September 2006. • Freechild'sup? 03:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:BIO. I added a link to a page about the book she wrote; delete that too as it fails WP:BK. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:03, 15 February 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, borderline notability, but enough to keep the article. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Potter (makeup artist)

Makeup artist. Decent career but not iconic enough to have been the subject of sufficient third-party coverage to create an article. The fact that the article is the sole contribution of the creator makes it also likely that there is a conflict of interest. Pichpich (talk) 00:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This and that are soe examples of articles which seem to have been about his work on Hedwig. I've tagged the article as unreferenced. He appears to be notable within the field of makeup. -- Whpq (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep meets WP:BIO per the articles found by Whpq. --Asmodeus Samael (talk) 04:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment how about merging to Hedwig and the Angry Inch then? Pichpich (talk) 04:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - the article isn't about Hedwig. The article is about Mike Potter. Since he meets notability criteria, he then should have an article. -- Whpq (talk) 11:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At best, his fame is questionable. The articles above are not so much about Mike Potter himself but about his work on Hedwig. This is an important difference: the articles are not about Mike Potter, they're about the make-up on Hedwig (which, if you've seen the movie or show, were indeed fairly interesting). There's not much available to create a true biographical article and if we're going to stick to significant third-party coverage, the article will read "Mike Potter is a makeup artist which did a great job on Hedwig and the Angry Inch. He has also worked on other things, see imdb." In other words, a piss-poor perma-stub. Pichpich (talk) 16:57, 15 February 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 all to Higher Colleges of Technology. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Dhabi Men's College

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Abu Dhabi Men's College

These articles do not satisfy the general notability guideline because they do not include secondary sources, nor any references that are reliable. As they are simply constituent colleges of a larger institution, the articles also fail the specific organization guidelines because they can all simply be included in the main article. Noetic Sage 03:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they have the same problems and are part of the same university:

—Noetic Sage 03:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —Noetic Sage 03:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all of these articles into Higher Colleges of Technology (HCT). Instead of having so many articles, one is enough to provide information about all of them. I do not know if this is a good idea or even feasible, but we can copy and paste each article into the HCT article as an idividual section. And then maybe attempt to clean them up and add more sources and notable information (if possible). Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 05:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge per above Astrotrain (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are all different colleges. They are all in different geographical locations. They all have different programs and different aims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.170.32.253 (talk) 10:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Happy to see them all merged onto a single HCT page Kembler (Kembler) —Preceding comment was added at 17:43, 15 February 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extreming

Neologism. The original version of the article was actually an ad for a non-notable team, which is why I put an A7 tag on it, which was removed, but then, so was the ad. Still, no sources, this is a neologism. It's virtually impossible to look up "extreme" as a verb, but "extreming" only comes up with about 650 hits, a lot of them misspellings and none of them reliable sources. Nothing at news.google.com. Corvus cornix_talk 03:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd suggest redirecting, but there doesn't seem to be any consistency to the usage. I can find (a few) hits where it's used to refer to software cracks ("extreming a TiVo"), weather ("global extreming"), or extreme sports. Pburka (talk) 04:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:N, WP:CORP, and WP:RS. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yasumicon

Originally prod deleted because the subject doesn't appear to meet WP:CORP's criteria for notable organization. Only sources appear to be from a university student newspaper, which I don't think is independent enough since the event is organized by a club within the same university. No other independent coverage found. --Farix (Talk) 03:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:N: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Four GNews hits, three of which are from the school paper and the fourth, in the Miami Herald, is a one-line mention in a daily events listing. Do not see any evidence of reliable third-party sources among the Google hits, just blogs, YouTube, and bulletin boards. cab (talk) 05:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've just had a long look for reliable sources, and there just aren't any. Everything I've found, including their own website, suggests that this is an extremely tiny student-run anime con. While I'm sure it's fun (not charging admission helps), an encyclopedia is just not the place for it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:25, 15 February 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 (nomination withdrawn), by JJL. Non-admin close. JJL (talk) 19:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heroic bloodshed

This article appears to be entirely original research and/ or a neologisms as the only citation listed appears to be a self published web article/essay. I did a Google search for references, but most of the hits I found were either sites quoting Wikipedia or web sites solely devoted to the Hong Kong Action genre. I do love these movies. Several of them are among my favorite films, but I would like to see some reliable sources for this before it is kept. Slavlin (talk) 03:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep term is used [43] but not sure how widely. JJL (talk) 03:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Unfortunately, an AOL members page article does not make a reliable source. Slavlin (talk) 04:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added some refs on the article. I assume that the nom doesn't want to cause other people to fix the article for him because he's too lazy to do so. So I'll leave this link for him to use in the article. Cheers--Lenticel ^(talk) 06:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Try to stay civil. The nom is under no obligation to fix the article. Mandsford (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I cited the book Hong Kong's Heroic Bloodshed which says it all. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn: With the citations listed now, I see support for it not being a neologism. Lenticel, you are not really assuming good faith by implying that I am being lazy, especially since I did say that I tried to find some references through a google search. I just didn't happen to find those books (which I actually may wind up getting.) Slavlin (talk) 19:00, 15 February 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 per consensus. The titles of the songs will be redirected to their respective articles for search capabilities. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Control Raging Fire

Doesn't seem to be a notable duet. First pair of duet partners recorded but did not release it; second pair of duet partners released it but it failed to chart. I would have merged this to an album, if not for the fact that two different sets of artists have recorded it. A search for sources turned up nothing notable about this song at all. (Note to closing admin: If this page is deleted, please delete Category:Dawn Sears songs as well.)

Also listing other Patty Loveless songs which aren't notable because they didn't chart, and don't seem to be the subject of any sources:

Keep Your Distance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (good song, though)
Strong Heart (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Boys Are Back in Town (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(Note: I tried redirecting these songs to their respective albums but my redirects were undone, so I'm listing them here.)

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to understand why one person's opinion should have an article deleted. Patty Loveless is a major recording artist, and the pages that he wishes to be deleted were all recordings released as singles by her and her recording company. If we are to have a complete discography, with the released singles, then we should have a complete set, as how the songs performed on the charts is really immaterial. Again, just because one person feels that they are insignficant, that does not mean that other people feel the same. Loveless has millions of fans and they should be able to resarch all of her single releases, not just those that one person believes are significant, and others not available that they feel as insigificant... Bwmoll3 (talk) 03:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going with my own personal opinion at all, but rather the general consensus of several Wikipedia editors, and of at least one official Wikipedia policy. (Also, I happen to be a big fan of Loveless' music.) Please read Wikipedia:MUSIC#Albums and songs, which states (in part): "Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article... Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists... are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; permanent stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Personally, I think that it would be fairly difficult to find any reliable, specific info on any song that was released as a single but didn't chart; most of the time, I have trouble finding such info for any song that wasn't a Top 20 on the country charts. (There are occasional exceptions; see The Bumper of My SUV as an example.) The pages on Loveless' albums and discography already contain sufficient info for most of these songs; therefore, the songs themselves mostly don't warrant separate pages. I would recommend keeping the #1's and maybe most of the Top 10 hits, and merging the rest into the pages on the albums. The songs that didn't chart at all are probably better off deleted. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that if you didn't WANT to delete them, we wouldn't be here. Saying it's because you are an editor is irrelevant. As I said before, if Wikipedia wants to be complete and be the source of information about Ms. Loveless' music, then having her songs listed at the discretion of the editor is not the way to go. Censoring information benifits no one. Also just because you can't find information, doesn't mean others can not. I have known Ms Loveless and her husband for over 20 yers and I aware of the pride she puts into each song she selects to be included on each of her albums, as well as some of the background which I included on the pages I createdd. Either be complete and accurate, or have none of them there and let that information be available elsewhere on the web as it exists with varying degrees of accuracy. Bwmoll3 (talk) 09:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete them all. Each article consists of a few sentences and they will fit on their albums' pages; no information need be lost to humanity. Blast Ulna (talk) 04:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect with/without merge to the articles on each song's respective album, as plausible search terms, and so that while "no information need be lost", it makes said information easier to find. -- saberwyn 05:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Another option for The Boys Are Back in Town (song) (as there are now at least 2 songs and a television episode by this title (Patty Loveless', Thin Lizzy's song, and an Entourage episode would be to rewikilink all the Patty Loveless links to this title, redirect to The Boys Are Back In Town, move The Boys Are Back In Town to The Boys Are Back In Town (Thin Lizzy), and restructure the unqualified page as a 3 item disambiguation pointing to the Thin Lizzy song, the album for the Loveless song, and the Entourage episode list respectively. But then again, that's a lot of legwork. -- saberwyn 05:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've already tried to redirect these song articles -- at least twice -- only to have User:Bwmoll3 undo my work. Also, I don't think that "Out of Control Raging Fire" could be directed to either Patty's album or Tracy's, since the latter was released as a single, but the former was cut first. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 06:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, if this discussion closes as a merge and redirect, you'll have a bit of consensus to back you up, and if neccesary, I'm sure an admin could lock those redirects. As for the duet, redirect to one article and put a dablink in for the other. -- saberwyn 06:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No good reason given to delete these articles. If your redirect is being disputed discuss it on the talk page, don't nominate for deletion in retaliation. Catchpole (talk) 17:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I couldn't help but notice that this does seem to be a bit of a retaliation.... Apparantley he believes that it's either his way or the highway....Bwmoll3 (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about "non-notable song" as a reason? Non-charting songs have been deleted here before. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, should these articles not end up deleted, I would suggest that the closing admin turn all of them into locked redirects. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what you said before..... "...therefore, the songs themselves mostly don't warrant separate pages. I would recommend keeping the #1's and maybe most of the Top 10 hits...."

You stated you wanted to delete songs other than ones that didn't chart. Why is it that YOU are choosing which ones the delete or not delete? Either be complete or just delete them all.. Bwmoll3 (talk) 01:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're putting words in my mouth. I said "...and merging the rest into the pages on the albums. The songs that didn't chart at all are probably better off deleted." I never said I wanted anything else deleted, just the songs that didn't chart. Andy why do you think that I'm going off my own opinion entirely? If a song didn't chart, it's most likely non-notable per WP:MUSIC. "Keep Your Distance" et al. didn't chart; therefore, it doesn't deserve its own page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at what you wrote earlier on this page, I copied and pasted a direct quote from you. Those are words you typed, not I. Bwmoll3 (talk) 02:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It implies you want to be the arbiter of what you believe should be kept or not kept.. Why is it that this is even being discussed for deletion? Because you became upset that I reversed your redirects before, so now we are here? If that is the case, then just delete it all ... I don't have time for your childish nonsense and your little power trip...Bwmoll3 (talk) 02:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see how on earth you think that I suggested deleting other song pages. All I said was "the songs that didn't chart at all" are better off deleted; NOT any other song's page. Also, I am not on a "power trip", and I have no idea why you feel that I am. I am simply trying to follow ~~the official Wikipedia policy as established at~~ WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't read your own words that you wrote earler at the top of this page, ".... I would recommend keeping the #1's and maybe most of the Top 10 hits....", I feel very sorry for you. "I would recommend..." mans that You are deciding...and it certainly sounds like a power trip... Who gives you that right?. And yes, the fact is that because I deleted your redirects and stated that these songs are not "insigificant", and clashed with your opinion, that you, in turn, selected the articles for deletion. That, my friend, is acting on a power trip and acting out of spite because you disagreed with my opinion.. which happens to be different than yours. Bwmoll3 (talk) 08:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not acting out of spite. I'm not asking for deletion because my "precious redirects" were undone; rather, I'm asking for deletion because the songs aren't freaking notable per WP:MUSIC. It's that simple. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And what gives me the right? Oh, only the fact that I'm a Wikipedia user. That's what AfD is about -- someone gives an opinion that a page should be deleted, and a discussion is held wherein others agree or disagree with that opinion. Clearly you're ticked about having your pages listed at AfD, and now you're taking it all out on me because you think I'm some sort of egomaniacal deletionist. "I would recommend" is ONLY A SUGGESTION; it's not like I said "we MUST delete all the pages for songs that aren't Top Tens". Clearly you're misunderstanding me and vice versa. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSIC is not official Wikipedia policy. Catchpole (talk) 07:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's a shot to the foot. Never edit while asleep! Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then I strongly suggest that you withdraw this entire charade and put everything back the way you found it, before going off to recommend these pages for deletion because you didn't like that I reveresed your redirects. Bwmoll3 (talk) 13:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much that you reversed my redirects, it's more because the songs aren't notable per WP:MUSIC. As I stated on your talk page, it's common for a non-notable song to be redirected to the album it's on. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutley correct.. WP:MUSIC directly states "... While it is not policy, ...." This is not trying to redefine the meaning of "is". It is simply a Guideline.... This is twice now that misstatements have been made by User:TenPoundHammer to justify his opinion...Bwmoll3 (talk) 12:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- OKAY I can see about three entries by users other than Hammers and Bwmoll on here, one keep, and two redirect/deletes. That is a consensus of sorts but it is not a very strong one. Try to keep your disputes succint by not repeating yourself, or better yet by not having them :) SGGH ^speak! 17:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I submit that there is -no- consensus here and that things be put back the way they were before all of this started Bwmoll3 (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: Per WP:MUSIC, each song is not notable and each consist of a few brief statements that have no hope of being expanded upon. It would work just as well under their respective album pages. Seicer (t | c) 17:44, 22 February 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congenital Hell

Fails WP:MUSIC. Non notable label. No third party links. Delete Undeath (talk) 05:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, non-notable. -RiverHockey (talk) 22:13, 19 February 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oibii

Looks to be a hoax. Jfire (talk) 02:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced, no relevant ghit. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 02:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax. Pburka (talk) 04:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, evident hoax. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no WP:RS, possible hoax. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (speedy delete, if possible) as an evident hoax. RFerreira (talk) 18:44, 15 February 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alfamega

Thoroughly nonnotable rapper. `'Míkka >t 05:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Per nom, fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:MUSIC. American Patriot 1776 (talk) 23:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -RiverHockey (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't seem to have any albums or references, so fails WP:MUSIC. Darkspots (talk) 01:32, 21 February 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- Closing per WP:SNOW. ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Selling on Amazon

Contested prod. (Note that the prod tag was removed by an IP registered to Amazon.com.) Basically, this is nothing more than a how-to guide. Pairadox (talk) 02:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the fact that users can sell things on Amazon can be noted in a single sentence at Amazon.com. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As an alternative, it could be transwikied to one of the how to wikis. Slavlin (talk) 03:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing appearing encyclopedic in this at all. --Auto ^{(talk / contribs)} 04:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. DarkAudit (talk) 04:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, apart from WIki not being a HowTo, this information could change easily and is precisely the sort of information that ought to be looked up on a website not an encyclopedia. Travellingcari (talk) 04:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#HOWTO and possibly COI (the fact that the prod was removed by an ISP connected to Amazon) Doc Strange (talk) 19:22, 15 February 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 (I don't like it, but, that's what those guys down there said to do.) JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shaw, St. Louis

This seems like a non-notable neighborhood for wikipedia in St. Louis, Missouri. Imagine if every neighborhood was given its own article. There are millions of neighborhoods so why should this one be special? Tavix (talk) 02:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This one may well be notable. It's been around for a century, and the local media must have recorded a lot of the neighborhood's history. As well, sometimes what is today a neighborhood of a city might once have been a separate municipality until it was annexed by the city of which it today forms a part. (I can't find a Shaw, Missouri at http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic , but there may once have been a separate village there with a different name before the territory became part of the city of St. Louis.) --Eastmain (talk) 03:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's one of 75 St. Louis neighborhoods that may be notable, might have had a lot of coverage in the local media, might have been a separate municipality, may have been a village with a different name. It may be-- but so far, there's nothing to indicate that it IS. Neighborhoods aren't inherently notable-- thank God. Mandsford (talk) 03:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, covered in books like this, mentioned in tourist guides. Zagalejo^^^ 05:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable neighborhood of St. Louis. Alansohn (talk) 07:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not understand what a "non-notable neighborhood" would ever be. RFerreira (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nor is there such a thing as a "non-notable grandchild". Everyone's home is special to them, but whether it's worthy of an encyclopedia article is another matter. By the special-to-many standard, we would have millions and millions of articles about neighborhoods, kindergartens, churches, shopping centers, tall buildings, annual festivals, etc. There has to be something to indicate that it's notable to outsiders. Zagalejo is the only one to actually point to something that suggests that the Shaw neighborhood is notable.Mandsford (talk) 13:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What I meant by non-notable is that it isn't notable enough to be an encyclopedia article. It is obviously notable for the people who live there but not necessarily notable for Wikipedia. Tavix (talk) 01:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets low bar for notability. BusterD (talk) 19:09, 18 February 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Space Trek

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Contested prod. A movie in production. May be released in 2011. 'Nuff said. Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 02:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A possible hoax or crystal ball. A google search turned up no relevent hits. Tavix (talk) 02:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not a hoax, probably just keeping most secret. Da bomba3 (talk) 02:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it it obvious this movie will be released. Illays (talk) 02:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
— Illays (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Dekisugi (talk) 02:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Dekisugi (talk) 02:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. JJL (talk) 02:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, it's real! I'm a cast member!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Therealzezima (talk) 02:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
— Therealzezima (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Dekisugi (talk) 02:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' Hello, I am one of the directors of Space Trek and I must say that this film is real. Also, Therealzezima, which cast member are you? I wan't aware any cast members had a wikipedia account. Spacetrekdirector (talk) 02:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
— Spacetrekdirector (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Dekisugi (talk) 02:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment' I am Hebert Wanzalot. Therealzezima (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. That you were unaware of that would be because the account was created just minutes ago. Here is the account creation log. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 02:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable future film, no proof that it even exists yet. And please, somebody remove these socks. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, isn't it interesting how both a cast member and the director joined the discussion so quickly? I think we should nominate Star Wars for deletion so that we can hear from George Lucas and Harrison Ford. Mandsford (talk) 03:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, maybe Speedy' No sources, no proof of notability, no proof that the movie even exists. TJ Spyke 03:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To Pursue Wikiality - I'm kidding. We should delete this. This is clearly a hoax. I found no official source verifying a movie called "Space Trek" starring Shatner, and all the people posting keep look to be sock puppets. Nlm1515 (talk) 04:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources. No proof. No movie. No dice. DarkAudit (talk) 04:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dumb. JuJube (talk) 06:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:CRYSTAL Andante1980 (talk) 07:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At best this is crystal balling, at worst it's just a hoax. PC78 (talk) 12:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no WP:RS, possible hoax. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No content, probable hoax, no sources. The IMDb doesn't even list this thing and they'll list anything. 23skidoo (talk) 15:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete either a hoax or non-notable not-made-yet fan film. Oh, and block the socks. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentWhat does sock mean? Also, I'm pretty sure the reason IMDb doesn't list this is it hasn't been announced, why i heard of it from an anonymous e-mail, and that person(s) told me to make the Wikipedia article. Oh, and Nlm1515, the article says that they are trying to get Shatner. It doesn't say he's in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Da bomba3 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Sock" is a reference to sock puppet, which is a Wikipedia convention describing someone having more than one username, and posting comments under more than one name. I'm sure someone can explain this better than I, but suffice to say that the management has ways of spotting such things (how they can spot it is not as important as the fact that they are able to spot it), and they can ban any user as they see fit. There's a process for getting them to reconsider if a person feels that they have been banned unjustly. The best thing to do, however, is to not make waves until you have been established for awhile. It's their show. Posting on Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right. Mandsford (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Director and cast, please read WP:NFF. You are welcome to come back and create a WP article after your film has been released and/or reviewed. Bm gub (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good suggestion. Delete for now, and re-create the article when a recognized distributor announces that Space Trek is going to a DVD or theatre release. You'll have more verified information at that time, for sure. Mandsford (talk) 04:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crystal Ball-ing, and I'd think the PC DOS game would be a more likely search target. REDIRECT to Star Trek as a likely misunderstanding. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Hockey Federation of Armenia

Page contains no information at all, so there's no reason to keep it. AndyVolykhov (talk) 12:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. —Sting au Buzz Me... 13:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Stubs are harmless. I added some information, but I couldn't find a current web site for the federation itself. --Eastmain (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chetblong^{T C} 02:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. After all, it is the top league in that country, and, were it not for visa problems, they would have taken part in major international competitions. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 02:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain. --Pwnage8 (talk) 03:57, 15 February 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly Clear

bunch of copyvio stuff, only one decent source Caldorwards4 (talk) 02:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 23:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is a mix of copyvio and crystal ballery. Eric444 (talk) 06:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Little to no verifiable info about this article yet, besides the fact that "Stronger Woman" is doing great on country radio right now. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, merge any useful info on "Stronger Woman" to that article.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 22:07, 20 February 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Loudblast

Fails WP:MUSIC with the only source being myspace. Delete Undeath (talk) 06:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep encyclopedia metallum gives a number of albums on Semetary records (which is a subsiduary of fnac), thus a major company. Looks like the article was written by someone without perfect English, so I've rewritten it slightly. Black Kite 12:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Encyclopedia metallum is edited by normal people. The "facts" are not always true. Unless another source can confirm the semetary records, the this band is non notable. Undeath (talk) 04:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Loudblast certainly released on Semetary/FNAC, but online documentation seems sparse. This looks promising, but it will need more examination to see if it meets the needs of WP:RS. Serpent's Choice (talk) 04:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Black Kite. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compos Mentis (band)

Fails WP:MUSIC. No notable sources. No notable label. Undeath (talk) 06:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of sources [44], [45], apparently have toured Europe (WP:MUSIC#4) ([46]). Black Kite 07:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google search brings up plenty of coverage.--Michig (talk) 08:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The first two sources are non notable. Source one is metal archives. That does not constitute notability. The second site is spirit of metal which is just like metal archives. That and on the spirit of metal site, Compos Mentis only has four fans. Now, the third site is iffy. The reverbnation site says that the Compos Mentis article has had 29 hits and 7 fans. Until a site can confirm that the band has toured, they will still be non notable. Look at the reverbnation site, it just said that the band might be touring soon, but it never actually said that the band toured. So, as of now, it still does not meet WP:MUSIC. Undeath (talk) 12:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Undeath. Sources proving the band exists are not the same as "multiple non-trivial published works", and the 'tour' criterion is IMO the least reliable barometer of notability on the list. There's all the difference in the world between gigging in a pub and playing Wembley Stadium ;) EyeSerene^TALK 19:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per the sources below, which I believe qualifies as non-trivial coverage from reputable web-sites, I'll change my !vote to keep. EyeSerene^TALK 12:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I actually just bought a cd of their's and....love it. But, sad to say, they are still non notable. Undeath (talk) 23:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Coverage of the band: [47],[48],[49],[50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55]. Decide for yourselves whether this is enough.--Michig (talk) 12:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just bought their cd, they are still playing, official site is working, why should it be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.21.45.30 (talk) 10:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep they're notable. --Pwnage8 (talk) 03:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 19:40, 16 February 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bang'n on Wax: The Best of the Crips

This "compilation" album it's a bootleg just by looking at how many tracks it has (33) and to the cover, which is just a hand-draw. This article also can't go beyond an infobox and a track listing. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 01:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Bangin' on Wax: Greatest Hits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 01:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Figures Tasc0 causing trouble again. They are not bootlegs, so what if they have art on the cover, can you prove they are bootlegs? Can you proove the covers are hand drawn? Do you realize that Bangin' on Wax: Greatest Hits was released by the same label as Bangin' on Wax and Bangin' on Wax 2 and has an AMG page. All these edits and Tasc0 is still not getting over.Same As It Ever Was (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No studio album or compilation that's not a bootleg has more than 20/25 tracks. This is a clear bootleg in a MP3 format and the cover is a hand draw by just looking at it. It is clear it wasn't made in some type of computer program. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 22:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You do realize it is a two-disc set? That is why it has 20 tracks and the Bangin' on Wax: Greatest Hits is totally official. Same As It Ever Was (talk) 01:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a compilation album, just because it has more than 25 or such tracks it doesn't become a mixtape or bootleg. --Flesh-n-Bone 15:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I would keep, especially, the Bangin' on Wax: Greatest Hits and Bang'n on Wax: The Best of the Crips, as they are "Best of" albumns, which are inherently notable. Not sure about the Bang'n on Wax: The Best of the Damu's, which is just a compilation. Bearian (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn, translation is now satisfactory. Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 03:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parliamentary inquiries by the Belgian Federal Parliament

A first PROD by me was contested by the creator at the very last minute. The article was almost immediately reprodded by a regular contributor at WP:PNT, but the fact the first prod was contested means the next step is to bring an article here. This article, in Flemish, has been awaiting translation for more than two weeks now. Delete unless someone with some fluency in Flemish is willing to do the translation. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 01:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I suspect that the untranslated text is the official name of the inquiry and what one would use to look it up. Everything else has been translated. --Eastmain (talk) 02:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 02:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Translations should be provided since this is the English wikipedia. -Yupik (talk) 06:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've started translating them, but I do wonder if this is the right way to go. Those names are the official names. Maybe we should keep both the translation, and the official title? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the best way to go would be to have English equivalents in parentheses, since only a minority of English speakers understand Flemish. Under the circumstances, I will consider withdrawing my nomination if there is another Keep vote. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 02:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And I will change my vote if and when they are translated. I should have been more clear though in that I expect the Flemish to stay in the article and the English to be added in parentheses as this is the norm. -Yupik (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll go do the rest then. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The translations are done. I'll go wikify them. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:17, 17 February 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, better as a category, also inclusion is dubious as it's not really a music genre and as the article says "Note that some of the bands listed here are not "new romantic" bands per se..." Black Kite 09:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of New Romantic bands

Whilst on the face of it this article was created in good faith, the fact is that since there is not a clear definition of what makes a music band ‘New Romantic’ in the main article New Romantics. This list has been plagued with inaccuracies since its creation. Even the creator cannot decide what should be listed here. Attempts by knowledgeable editors to maintain it result in constant re-additions of non New Romantic bands by unregistered and new editors. It has been tagged with ‘Accuracy Disputed’ for months and its blatant inaccuracy brings Wikipedia into disrepute. As there were only a handful of actual New Romantic bands, these can be (and already are) incorporated into the main article with the required references, and this list should be deleted. andi064 ^{T . C} 13:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and verify sources - It's a suitable topic for a list. The quality of the list's contents and the suitability of specific entries should be discussed on the list's talk page. If an entry isn't verifiable (that is, if sources don't exist out there that verify that a specific band belongs to this genre), then remove that band from the list. The Transhumanist 22:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chetblong^{T C} 01:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Pwnage8 (talk) 03:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete New Romantic defines a tendency in 1980s fashion. It's not really a music genre, and I don't think it's useful to start categorizing bands by how they dressed.Nlm1515 (talk) 04:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lists of x bands are better suited as categories. Funeral 16:49, 18 February 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 Apollo Quiboloy CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sikat: Where Life Shines

Non notable newspaper by the religious sect of Apollo Quiboloy to promote his own church. Dft56 (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. All publications are notable enough. Starczamora (talk) 06:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article has no sources indicating importance and I could find none. Might be worth a mention in Quiboloy's article but not a standalone article. Capitalistroadster (talk) 06:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chetblong^{T C} 01:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, perhaps not notable enough for an article, but relevant information about the sect. 96T (talk) 15:08, 15 February 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 without prejudice to re-create if sources are found. Little activity here but it's been over two weeks... —Wknight94 (talk) 14:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thorkell Atlason

I don't see a clear notability claim in the article for this musician. I would have speedied except for the fact that some people have put effort into improving it. The original version was probably autobiographical (Keli is a nickname for someone named Þorkell). Haukur (talk) 13:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of reliable first or secondary sources. Non-notable individual. (Mind meal (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if this is the same Thorkell Atlason who produces and records Krauka's albums. I can't confirm this one way or another on a quick search. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:43, 15 February 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. SorryGuy Talk 07:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Mo Capaldi

Skateboarder, article was speedily deleted twice but restored per deletion review. Procedural nomination, I have no opinion ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article is unreferenced and needs to be cleaned up, but a quick google search reveals 30,200 hits on "Mike Mo Capaldi". Clicking around, it's obvious that the claim that he's well-known is true. I was able to verify some of the sponsorship details as well. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 14:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chetblong^{T C} 01:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Amateur skateboarder, amateur athletes generally are not notable. I had friends in high school who were in videos and had sponsors; this does not suggest notability. Has he won a medal (or at least competed) at the X Games? A Google search doesn't mean anything; more telling is a Google News search (116 hits, only 5 of which are relevant and a Google Books search (5 hits, none relevant). May be notable some day, not there yet. faithless (^speak) 18:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the general consensus for athletes is that they be fully professional and compete at the highest level of their particular sport. The article comes right out and says that he's an amateur skateboarder. Google News archive shows 4 hits from Thrasher, all of which look to be passing mentions rather than cover stories and the like. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Starblind. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Gore (theater producer)

Theater producer, speedy deletion was overturned on review. Procedural nomination, I have no opinion ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable and verifiable. Is really more than a theater producer, is CEO of Key Brand Entertainment which recently purchased Broadway Across America. As a biography, article needs to be more about Gore and less about his companies, though. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 00:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable and verifiable. I added some bio informtion from a PR Newsire release. This seems an important article to the Broadway Theater community.--204.110.112.2 (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chetblong^{T C} 01:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above. BusterD (talk) 16:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mamadsho Ilolov

Looks like just an average professor. Presumably a living person, yet the article is unreferenced. Don't see any way it meets the notability criteria. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep clearly not just an average professor. President of a national science academy (Academy of Sciences of Tajikistan), former member of parliament, and former cabinet minister as already noted in the source given at the bottom of the article. Numerous Russian and Tajik sources (BBC Persian, Office of the President of Tajikistan, etc.) confirm these claims [56], as do some English sources like the [57][58]. cab (talk) 02:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tajikistan-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 02:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 02:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regardless of actual scientific merit, being the President of Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Tajikistan is appropriate status for an article. (I'm not sure i would say so for membership in the Academy). And The World Information Distributed University actually might just be real, and is certainly curious enough to need an article. As for scientific merit, I can find only two papers in Web of Science, cited almost never, published in Doklady ANSSR, both presumably with his advisor at Kiev, but coverage of Russian work in WoS is very sparse--although of course the notable russian mathematicians are very highly cited worldwide. so even though not a notable scientist, still notable. DGG (talk) 04:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for being the President of the Academy of Sciences in Tajikistan. matt91486 (talk) 04:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator thinks a President of a National Academy of Sciences, a former Cabinet Minister, MP, is non-notable? I suggest their many road articles are significantly less notable than this person. Mostlyharmless (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not aware of the importance of this organization, and the article as I found it did not place much emphasis on this. Also, the reference to being a member of parliament was buried in a list of other achievements that I overlooked. Furthermore, I'd prefer that you comment on this article alone and not on my contribution history; the latter is irrelevant to this debate. Thank you. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a minister, but needs better sources. Punkmorten (talk) 12:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable post-Soviet scientific official. I added a cite from Asia Pulse. He was also part of the Tajik president's delegation to India in 2006, per BBC radio monitoring.--12:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wageless (talk • contribs)
Keep one should hope that being the President of the Academy of Sciences in Tajikista is notable enough. RFerreira (talk) 18:46, 15 February 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shattered image

nn vanity piece, assertions of notability are dubious Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 20:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - assertion of notability seems to be that they were really good as a cover band. No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Note that there are other bands with the same name. -- Whpq (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chetblong^{T C} 01:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a hair away from being A7 material, but nonetheless this is not a notable band. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to the album. Black Kite 10:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brave (song)

The article is poorly written, no sourcing. Fails WP:MUSIC. TrU Co ⁹31¹ 21:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. iMatthew 20 08 23:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chetblong^{T C} 01:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability criteria for songs, doesn't seem to have charted or have any significant impact on its artist's career. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This could easily have been merged with the album, an afd seems unecessary. --neonwhite user page talk 21:44, 15 February 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. — Scientizzle 16:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Verne Judson White

It seems this page is about someone called Chris Edwards, not Verne Judson White. No claim of notability for Mr White. Montchav (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or Rename - first thing I saw was this SF Gate article by Ben Fong-Torres about a confusion between two DJs named Chris Edwards resulting in a voluntary cease-desist of sorts. It has apparently been cited here by Montchav, but I don't see how that fixes the naming/notability issues. The Fong-Torres piece was written in '06; the KYA website mentioned appears to maintain some of the same misinformation from (over) a year ago. Anyone got more info? Duncan1800 (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From the SF Gate article and the website (warning: extremely irritating website with scrolling images and embedded sound), it looks to me like this guy has been and still is misappropriating the name and history of Chris Edwards. He doesn't seem to be notable himself. Jfire (talk) 06:03, 19 February 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 & redirect. — Scientizzle 16:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia 500s

I find the article most unencyclopedic. Someone with a bit more interest on the subject, please rewrite it. It's falsely named and worthless as it stands; there are better articles such as List of Nokia products. I ended up in here by searching Nokia 500, the navigator phone which isn't listed in Wikipedia at all. Sigmundur (talk) 00:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Merge to List of Nokia products Travellingcari (talk) 17:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC) I get confused when to use "merge" and when to use "redirect", clearly I meant "redirect" in this case. Travellingcari (talk) 12:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Nokia products. The article is a breezy bit of opinion and original research, and there is nothing in it remotely worth merging. Edison (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Based mostly on obvious opinion ("very nice sound for its music player") and use of the phrase "as the T-mobile shop attendent said" [sic]. And if (as I agree) there's nothing worth merging, why merge? Just kill. Duncan1800 (talk) 08:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. --Pwnage8 (talk) 04:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On List of Nokia products 500s is listed under "other products" instead of "mobile phones", so this article was likely misnamed for a phone with a similar name (but all we know about which one that might have been is what the article tells us about it.. so not much). Nokia 500 as Sigmundur pointed out is again another phone which is not even mentioned on List of Nokia products. So I can see no point for even a redirect. --Minimaki (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment you may be right. According to Google this is a nokia 500s and while I don't know exactly what it is, it doesn't appear to be a mobile phone. Travellingcari (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Not even a mobile phone, and does not appear to be a notable product (whatever it is). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:22, 15 February 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. I am redirecting this to Shrek 2. Much of the content is already in Shrek 2 and that's apparently where the Far Far Away concept originated, not in the first film. If I'm wrong, go ahead and move the sections in Shrek 2 to Shrek. Regardless, the point is that the consensus here is that there is no reason to have this as a separate article. I have not merged any content since it appeared to already exist. Everyone is free to fetch mergeable content from the history of this redirect and merge it wherever. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Far Far Away

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just a dump of trivia related to the Shrek movies and video games that is already covered in their respective articles. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chetblong^{T C} 01:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of individual notability and not enough info. to justify a separate page from Shrek. JJL (talk) 01:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a good standalone article about a prominent fictional universe--the spoofs chart is helpful and informative, as is the trivia (to which I added a ref). Fail to see what's gained by this deletion.--Wageless (talk) 12:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect: This is information that should be in Shrek, in a limited form. There isn't really enough vital to say about the kingdom, and explaining jokes really isn't the function of an encyclopedia. Utgard Loki (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Utgard Loki. The non-table information may be of interest in the main article, but the rest is original research and in-universe trivia. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:17, 15 February 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. Black Kite 10:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Norton

Unreliable sources, seems like self-advertising Ziggy Sawdust (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While he does yield a bunch of ghits, none of them are secondary, non-COI, reliable sources. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 15:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable published composer. Briefly rummaging through only the first page of "'Christopher Norton' composer" ghits, many do seem to be commercial sales sites, but I did go to Google news archives which do list this artist in multiple nontrivial outside sources [59], i.e Washington Post and Greensboro News, etc. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 16:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A notable published composer, just I think the article needs a bit of cleaning up, that's all. His books have made it over here in Australia and are well played due to being on the AMEB list. I think the number of internationally distributed books by him are enough to assert notability. Hoogiman (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cricket02 - The man is a successful composer and music educator--this info about him enriches WP. I added a passing cite or two.--Wageless (talk) 13:34, 15 February 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Pendragon (Shrek)

This article is just an in-universe plot repetition without any referencing or notability. As such, it is just a big in-universe repetition of the plot of Shrek 3, so is total duplication. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 17:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. JuJube (talk) 22:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chetblong^{T C} 01:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable outside the Shrek universe, and barely notable even within it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable per above. Tavix (talk) 02:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - primary plot device in the third Shrek film --- Jeremy (talk) 03:41, 17 February 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 CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iris engine

"The conceptual core of a new conceptual category of power generation devices." I originally tagged this as spam but that seems inappropriate since there is no product yet. An idea; has won a prize in a competition; is being patented; but is not (yet) particularly notable. Article probably written by one of the inventors. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rather illegibly technical at the moment, but fairly well-sourced and notable. Red Zion^X 20:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --- only GNews hits are typos; Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --- no GBooks, GScholar, or GNews hits at all. Winning the contest might be a sign of notability, but I wouldn't call this "well-sourced" --- references cited in the article are all self-published (the CNN one is a press release reprint; the Create the Future Contest entry is written by the inventor, as of course is his own website); the only one with any third-party review would be the patent, and just having a patent doesn't make an invention notable. cab (talk) 05:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- After some thought, I'm suggesting we delete this article because there are no third-party sources on the topic. If not deleted, it should be restubbed to say merely that it's an engine design which won an award in a competition, and the rest of the content moved to the talk page. cab (talk) 00:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The NASA award in itself is sufficient evidence of notability. The article offers further information about the engine design, something that those who saw the award list would legitimately expect from Wikipedia.--Wageless (talk) 13:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- People would legitimately expect that Wikipedia does something other than repeat what the inventor says about his own invention (WP:SELFPUB). Notability standards are a rough approximation for determining whether we can write a WP:V/WP:NPOV article on a topic; a topic might be considered "inherently notable" because of awards it has won, but that doesn't mean we should write an article which can't comply with basic policies. cab (talk) 00:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs to be phrased less promotionally and shortened--but there should definitely be an article on this idea. Doesn't matter if the design will or won't work: it got an award from Nasa and some press ergo people will be curious about it. I hesitate to offer parallels, but see the recent discussion on the proposed deletion of the "Perepiteia," a quasi perpetual motion motion machine.[60]--Wageless (talk) 13:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments and analysis of the IRIS engine on the discussion page of the main article (click on 'talk' above). I challenge the designers of this engine to respond.Jayjay51 (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments; this really underscores the fact that their work hasn't had enough third-party review that Wikipedia can write a neutral article about it. Unfortunately, I don't know if the designers of the IRIS engine are watching their Wikipedia article ... cab (talk) 00:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've shortened and removed the promotionalism to address cab's criticisms. Jayjay51's critical talkpage analysis, relating to sealing problems, is long and interesting, but this article isn't about the demerits of the design except insofar as the demerits have themselves been published somewhere.--Wageless (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No good third-party sources except a newspaper in the inventors' home city. I disagree with Wageless that winning a NASA award alone is sufficient for notability unless a guideline can be shown to support that assertion. If this invention takes off, then rewrite this. Until then, delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:15, 23 February 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. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

N&k Technology

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/N&k Technology

Article about a company written by User:Nktechnology. Are they notable. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Exterminate~~ Weak Keep with Eastmain's sources, it does help establish notability. The article still reads a bit like an ad, though, and may still be axed just for that. Red Zion^X 14:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable per WP:CORP. — Satori Son 21:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I looked over the new links, but I still don't see enough to meet any of the various criteria at WP:CORP. Staying with "Delete" for now. — Satori Son 14:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references (magazine articles). The journal articles published in Physical Review B which presumably relate to technologies used in this company's products tend to establish notability because research has to be quite good to be published there. Even though the article started out as a self-advertisement, I think the company is notable. --Eastmain (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CORP and looks like somewhat of an advert. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Send to cleanup: The top half of the article is the only part we would want, and yet it is spectacularly uninformative. One assumes that such a manufacturer is important, as it's a particularly interesting and cutting edge industry, but the article is all about the director (something a stock investor might want to read) and not about the company. I.e. it looks like a press release with a Wikipedia article squatting on it. Utgard Loki (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:CORP; the source cited are either the company's own press releases or are directories, and there are no reliable secondary sources in evidence here. I agree with Milk's Favorite Cookie that this article reads like an advertorial, and this may fail WP:SPAM as well. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Gavin Collins (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CORP. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The creator of the entry is "Nktechnology." Yeah, good try. TheAsianGURU (talk) 00:11, 21 February 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OtakuOmaha

Originally speedy deleted as a non-notable organization, but later restored, the article does not assert the notability of the anime convention nor can sufficient coverage by reliable third-party sources be found to establish notability. --Farix (Talk) 00:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 500 attendees, only 1 year so far. I have to go with non-notable. By that definition, my graduation ceremony would be notable. ;) Slavlin (talk) 03:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The longevity of this convention has not been proven. Though it appears there were notable guests. Could not find any local media articles regarding this convention either. Could become notable if convention continues. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability in instances like this is derived from the convention and group doing something that marks it as first, biggest, most important, etc. Being "just another" anything is a disqualification, and most cases of "the only in X" are too weak to justify. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if we assume the unreferenced 500 attendence figure is the truth, that's still well on the low end for an anime convention (Otakon, for example, had 23,000 last year), and no other notability is stated. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:55, 15 February 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. —BradV 19:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dalkeith High School

Article is not notable and is a target of frequent vandalism. —BradV 00:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it has been the subject of multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in national-level media as a result of the religious problems there[61][62]. cab (talk) 02:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 02:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 02:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable per refs added by Cab. Sting au Buzz Me... 04:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep above and beyond the broadly accepted precedent of WP:Inherent notability for high schools, the sources provided in the article satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 07:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sting au. Also, the solution for vandalism is vigilance, not deletion. • Gene93k (talk) 08:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alansohn. Ben MacDui ^Talk/Walk 08:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article has been significantly improved since I nominated it for deletion (Thanks cab). If there are no objections the discussion can be closed and the notice deleted. —BradV 16:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is quite a poor nomination I'm afraid, many articles on Wikipedia are much greater targets of vandalism and that is never a reason for deletion, its simply the nature of an open editing system. RFerreira (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that there was no reference to anything notable in the article when I nominated it. See a snapshot here. —BradV 18:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per comment from nominator. -- DS1953 ^talk 18:56, 15 February 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

Adolf Hitler's inspection of the German Workers' Party

AfDs for this article:

This article is appalling. Sections such as 'The enraged Hitler spoke out forcefully against the man for the next fifteen minutes uninterrupted, to the astonishment of everyone. One of the founders of the DAP, Anton Drexler, reportedly whispered: "he's got the gift of the gab. We could use him."', 'Hitler read the pamphlet, written by Drexler, and was delighted to find that it reflected political thinking much like his own - building a strong nationalist, pro-military, anti-semitic party made up of working class people.', 'Adolf Hitler joined the committee of the German Workers' Party by becoming the 7th executive member and thus entered politics.' are either factually incorrect, irrelevant or nonsense. Further, there is very, very little need for this article. This information is already in the Adolf Hitler page and the DAP page.

Furthermore, the article name is inappropriate as well. He wasn't inspecting them, he was spying on them. Thedreamdied (talk) 00:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and reads as essay/synthesis, not to mention all the just plain incorrect info. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interpretive essay on a minor part of the life of a notable individual. Already covered by German Workers' Party#Adolf Hitler joins the DAP. --Dhartung | Talk 00:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and mainly because it's unsourced. Read Mein Kampf and read Shirer's Rise and Fall of Nazi Germany for further details about this pivotal moment in Hitler's life. September 12, 1919, was certainly be an important day in retrospect, but that's something that should be covered as part of the article on Hitler, and sourced to the many histories that have been written about Der Fuehrer. Mandsford (talk) 03:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. BusterD (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is no place for personal essays. All info already covered in another article Doc Strange (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per like everything above. What can i say that hasnt already BonesBrigade 18:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with all above. Unsourced essay. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:29, 19 February 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. Black Kite 10:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

M.A.C. Black Cola

According to WP:NOTE: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I don't beleive this topic has. Rockfang (talk) 21:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC) Also, the article had previously been tagged with a notability template from June '07 with no significant additions/changes as of my prod'ing the article today.--Rockfang (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly is notable for the spectacular failure after a massive campaign. It was pre-internet so sources are a bit hard to find, but I've read several articles about it. // Liftarn (talk)
Delete I see the argument to keep, but without sources I can't approve it. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I see the problem. It's tricky because the newspapers have gone to recycling years ago. // Liftarn (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 15:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failure of WP:RS; I can't find any at all. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A failure, and not a notable one, if not a hoax. When an article is written with AfD keywords in it, suspicions rise. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence any such project even existed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:06, 15 February 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. — Scientizzle 16:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kalee Carey

This article was prodded by B (talk · contribs), with the concern: "No evidence that she went pro or evidence of significant media coverage beyond merely reporting game statistics." I feel that playing at college level and having an ESPN bio is at the very least sufficient to warrant a wider discussion. Procedural nom, no opinion. A ecis^Brievenbus 22:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Virtually every Division I football or basketball player has a recruiting bio from rivals.com and scout.com. The ESPN "bio" was just the 2003 press release from when she played in the McDonald's All-American game. There is no evidence of coverage that exceeds merely reporting of her minor role in games. --B (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 15:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just playing collegiately does not make one notable. There are over one hundred Division I basketball programs, and every one of them releases a bio of their players to the media. Even the teams that have no shot of winning a game all year. Without any pre or postseason awards or significant national attention, this is just one of thousands of student athletes who pass through the halls of their respective schools each year. DarkAudit (talk) 04:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not standing out from the general run of players and therefore not "notable" within that context. I'm sure she's wonderful, and I know she could beat me in a game of HORSE, but she should play out her career without the burden of Wikipedia articles. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:43, 15 February 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. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Chertow

Article does not explain notability, has no references, and the only external link is to the personal commercial website of the person the article is about Dimension31 (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep seems notable [63], [64], [65], [66], copious other ghits. JJL (talk) 01:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problems are he doesn't seem to have won anything in wrestling, he no longer wrestles so he won't win anything in the future, the article doesn't have any references, and the article seems to be an advertisement for his wrestling company.Dimension31 (talk) 03:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although he may not have won anything, per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Athletes he has "competed at the highest level in amateur sports" by virtue of being in the Olympics and hence meets WP:N. JJL (talk) 19:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article is an ad, and advertising is against policy. I wouldn't care if he were the Pasha: he's running a business and using Wikipedia for page rank boosting. If the advertising were evacuated, we'd end up with a three line entry, which is, again, not an article. If it isn't an article, it doesn't belong. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: The article is not actually an article. It has no citations and is just an advertisement for Chertow's own commercial website.Dimension31 (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is within WP:BIO standards by being an Olympian (see here). It needs clean-up, yes; but he is notable. Metros (talk) 03:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but splatter it with cleanup tags until it's not such a mess (although neglecting to revert the last vandalism edit was a bit much). By virtue of being an Olympian as well as a few other things - Wrestling Broadcaster of the Year apparently - the subject himself appears to be notable. The remaining question was whether the article minus the useless stuff - High School GPA?! - still left an article with content and an assertion of notability. I think it does - but barely. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:02, 23 February 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/Merge to Guardians of Ga'Hoole. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guardians of Ga'Hoole Book 13: The River of Wind

Contested prod. This book does not meet the criteria for notability of books - no sales data, it's not been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works, not been adapted into a film, etc. Pairadox (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - major series in it's field or genre. Highly popular - this is the latest entry in the established series. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That's the entire series, which has it's own article. Nothing in the article indicates this single book is notable in it's own right. Pairadox (talk) 02:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 15:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Guardians of Ga'Hoole, doesn't seem to be independently notable although part of a notable series. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some relevant arguments from a similar issue in the past: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Running on Empty (Hardy Boys novel) --Auto ^{(talk / contribs)} 03:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect: Per TenPoundHammer and WP:BK. Autocracy (talk · contribs) is referring to an AFD that is over 10 months old when WP:BK was not an accepted guideline. Now the notability is pretty clearly not there. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:49, 23 February 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 withdrawn given new version. Will ^(talk) 01:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hal Turner

AfDs for this article:

This article should be deleted due to BLP concerns - most (if not all)of the article's history contains some sort of BLP violation, such as a significant amount of POV or uncited statements, and should be deleted per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff#Summary_deletion_of_BLPs. Yes, the subject is notable. But, as the article's history shows, the chance of a neutral, cited version given the subject's reputation and the /b/ attack are slim to none. Will ^(talk) 01:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The last pre-blanking version at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hal_Turner&oldid=191392123 seemed fair. Deleting a reliable article on a notable subject because the subject doesn't like it is unwise. Removing valid and well-referenced negative material because the subject wouldn't like it is also unwise. See the history of Prem Rawat for example. And note that the previous AfD reached a consensus of "speedy keep".--Eastmain (talk) 02:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Went through an AFD a year ago, seems to have references for mostly everything. --Auto ^{(talk / contribs)} 03:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Mostly" isn't good enough for a BLP. Will ^(talk) 03:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did not take the time to vet the entire article and verify every statement (though I did sample some and verify some references; Hal Turner just doesn't interest me).... until we pass the AFD, the page is blanked anyway. However, uncited material should be dealt with. This article far on the good side of the bell curve for references. --Auto ^{(talk / contribs)} 03:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep other than a few unsourced statements which can be easily removed, it looks neutral enough. It can be semi-protected to avert slanderous vandalism. --Asmodeus Samael (talk) 04:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - before it was blanked, it contained enough sources to prove notability. I also think we should ask Hal Turner if there are any problems he has with the article. Maybe he is fine with it. William Ortiz (talk) 05:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Read the nomination: yes, Turner is notable. And we don't need to ask living people about their biographies to see there's a problem. Will ^(talk) 05:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think Hal would want his bio here as the whole Hal Turner raids stuff actually got his previously unknown internet radio show a lot more popularity. William Ortiz (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The article, before it was abusively blanked, provided three dozen reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability in the clearest possible manner. As is unfortunately becoming a disturbing trend, the excuse of supposed WP:BLP issues is being maliciously abused as an excuse to delete the article. If there are WP:BLP issues, they need to be identified and cleaned up. Using WP:BLP as an excuse to delete this article is liking using an atom bomb to kill a fly: it might solve the problem, but the side effects are far worse than the supposed cure. Appropriate administrative measures should be taken to prevent further such abuse. Alansohn (talk) 07:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to have been a reliable enough article before it was blanked, might need some work but there should be an article on the guy. Winterborn (talk) 08:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep POV issues can be fixed by means other than deletion. The nom even admits that the subject is notable -- so it may be hard to keep it NPOV, big whoop. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Advertising a white supremacist is not a good thing, and we can leave the "monitoring" to the SPLC and other noble ventures. There is no "notability": there is only popularity, and these are not the same things. Anything, anything at all, on the web will generate "hits." www.carbonatedmilk.com will have hits. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely Keep Turner was recently exposed as an FBI mole in the white supremacist movement. Aside from being involved with many violent racist protests in the U.S., his repeated calls for the murder of various lawyers, judges, and human rights advocates during the time he fed information to the FBI makes him quite noteworthy. Frank Pais (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: As the nomination only cites WP:BLP concerns, the negative information in the article is well sourced by mainstream organizations and newspapers. Further the article in it's last form was as neutral as one can be for a white supremacist. I simply do not see the BLP issues, nor have they ever been pointed out. Any unsourced information can easily be deleted. However, I do question whether the subject has sufficient notability to warrant an article (I recognize I am in the minority on that issue, and concede the point). Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cited good and everything. BLP concerns are not a reason to fully delete an article unless it's an attack page. I have restored it with the BLP warning tag, and I've also sent it to WP:RPP so we can get some full protection while we deal with this. ViperSnake151 18:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close We did this less than a month ago. Nothing has changed. If there are BLP problems than remove them and move on. Mønobi 00:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, check the datestamps. Thirteen months ago, yes. Will ^(talk) 00:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm blind :s Mønobi 00:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Important comment: Myself, Sceptre and Dihydrogen Monoxide have worked on this article in one of my sandboxes, and a better referenced and more neutral version has now been placed in the article space. J Milburn (talk) 01:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted as blatant advertisting: WP:CSD#G11. CIreland (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mikri Arktos

Has been brought to deletion before, and apparently has been deleted, however was just craeted new today. Ghits of only 830+ and only 1 hit was the actual subject of the article. Queerbubbles (talk) 13:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: recreated content. Afd is the wrong venue. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, about a minute after I loaded it here, a speedy tag was added. Mistakes happen, as do people typing over eachother. Good to see I was right in that it had previously been deleted. Queerbubbles (talk) 15:31, 15 February 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 for deletion, default to keep. I'm disregarding the last comment for being, well, sloppy. Sandstein (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Social insertion

There's no proof for this topic's notability. I was unable to find anything on the internet to prove that this term has any significance as an anarchist topic. All websites that mention this term in such a context are minor anarchist sites. Carabinieri (talk) 15:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been listed as an Anarchism Task Force article for deletion. скоморохъ 20:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Delete: Movementarian stuff: fails notability for a non-profit, hasn't had political achievements. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, social insertion is not unique to anarchism, so the article should be expanded to include other usage. I'm doing a little digging to see if I can find a good reference. If not, then I suggest merging it with one of the articles on South American anarchism. Social insertion is an extremely important trend in anarchism, but the actual adoption of the term is fairly new. Also, the nominator is incorrect in suggesting that all of the websites that mention the term are minor. A Google search brings up both NEFAC and IndyMedia, which are major websites relating to anarchism. And that's without looking into the Spanish-language material, which itself is substantial.Aelffin (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My recent updates have vastly improved the article and I believe it should be kept, though possibly merged with Especifismo. Aelffin (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Those links you have added do not prove notability. They're all from anarchist websites and thus do not prove any real relevance.--Carabinieri (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment NEFAC, Alas Barricades, and Anarkismo are all respected sources in anarchism, and IndyMedia is not an anarchist website. Aelffin (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can post news on indymedia. It's far from being a reliable source. NEFAC, Alas Barricades, and Anarkismo may be important within the anarchist scene, but them mentioning this concept does not prove notability. They are not independent of the subject. Further, use of extremist sources as secondary sources is generally discouraged. See WP:N and WP:RS on what kind of sources are needed to prove notability.--Carabinieri (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, doing a really easy Google Book search, tons of stuff comes up using this term, if somebody feels like sourcing the article. Murderbike (talk) 19:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those hits don't deal with the term as it's used by anarchists. If someone wants to write an article about this concept in general, I would welcome that, but this article is far from that. Looking at some of those books, this term appears to be just a synonym for social integration. --Carabinieri (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you're setting up a Catch-22 if you insist that the term must be used in an anarchist context while simultaneously insisting that anarchist websites are inherently biased. Second, how do you figure NEFAC, Alas Barricades, and Anarkismo are extremist? Aelffin (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, what I am looking for is secondary sources. If this term was notable, there would be non-anarchist sources describing the anarchist ideology mentioning it. You can't write an article without secondary sources. Second, "'Extremism' is a term used to describe the actions or ideologies of individuals or groups outside the perceived political center of a society" is the definition used in the article about extremism. Anarchism quite clearly meets that definition.--Carabinieri (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're mixing up popular perception of anarchism with actual anarchism. Wikipedia does not describe Anarchism as an extremist philosophy, and many of the huge number anarchist books, magazines, and other publications are considered quite reliable by Wikipedia standards--anarchism is radical, not (in most cases) extremist. Also, none of the citations in the social insertion article are affiliated with FARJ, the originator of the term, so they are clearly third-party sources. Aelffin (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that anarchism is perceived to be part of the center of society? Come on! BTW, the anarchism article has a pretty long quote saying that anarchism is "Usually considered to be an extreme left-wing ideology". According to Merriam-Webster radicalism and extremism are synonyms. As to your claim that those sources are third-party: the author of the Alas Barricades article is a member of the Federación Anarquista de Rio de Janeiro, which according to the Especifismo article propounds this concept. The author of the NEFAC text obviously supports social insertion: he asks the question "how we approach the oppressed classes and how we contribute towards the advancement of their autonomy from political opportunism", giving social insertion as the answer. Finally, the anarkismo.net source is a declaration of principles calling for the application of the social insertion concept. How can you claim these websites are independent sources?--Carabinieri (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They may be proponents, but only one of them is actually affiliated with FARJ. That's like saying we can't quote Richard Feynman on physics because he is a physicist! We'd have to delete 99% of Wikipedia by that criterion. While some anarchists are extremists, most hold views compatible with the mainstream of society. The word extreme, the way it is used in the Merriam-Webster quote above simply means "far" not "extremist" and not everybody agrees with the M-W interpretation. Anarchism is considered by some to be the far left wing of the political spectrum, by others to be a form of libertarian socialism, and still others to be a general trend western history. Finally, only one of the four definitions of "radical" in Mirriam-Webster uses "extreme" as a synonym [67] and neither of the definitions of "radicalism" uses "extremism" as a synonym [68]. Aelffin (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That analogy is just plain wrong. Physics is a science, while anarchism is an ideology. Whether or not those authors are actually affiliated with the organization that invented the concept is irrelevant. They are simply writing about their ideology. Therefore, those aren't secondary sources. That's really simple. By your interpretation of the notability rules, anyone with access to the internet can publish a website about their ideology and then have a Wikipedia article about it. But that's not how Wikipedia works. You have cited no significant, third-party mentions of this concept. As it stands, this topic is not notable. How anarchists view themselves is irrelevant. Islamists usually don't think of themselves as extremists, but they still are.--Carabinieri (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, the article Anarchism doesn't define the ideology as "extremist", WP:N has nothing to say about "extremism" and WP:RS explicitly states that "extremist" sources may be used (with caution) in articles about themselves. In my opinion, your interpretation of anarchism is too narrow, and your interpretation of Wikipolicy is too loose. Aelffin (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree quite strongly, but that's not the point. This article does not meet the notability criteria. That's the real issue at hand.--Carabinieri (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search for "social insertion" and "anarchism" returns 584 results. A Google search for "inserción social" and "anarquismo" returns 926. A search for "social insertion" alone yields 17,800 results while "inserción social" gives 66,100. The term is clearly very common both inside and outside the anarchist milieu. Just because we haven't had time to sort through every website in both languages to find the best sources doesn't make the subject non-noteworthy. Aelffin (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:GOOGLE and WP:GHITS on why that is not a valid argument.--Carabinieri (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOOGLE says that Google hits alone rarely establish notability, but that's not what I'm saying. I'm using Google to establish that it's a common subject, therefore may be of interest to Wikipedia readers. This, combined with its use in important, reliable anarchist websites I think establishes its notability within anarchism. WP:GHITS asserts that it is the quality of the hits that matters, which is exactly my point. Aelffin (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for the Feynman analogy--it's your own argument that fails to distinguish between science and political movements. Your argument is that a source which is a proponent of a particular idea is disqualified for use as a source on the subject it propones. Wikipolicy doesn't say that, it says that a source should not be used to establish notability for itself. If I were trying to use the FARJ website to establish the notability of FARJ, that would be using a source to establish notability for itself. No matter what field we're talking about, an analogy puts us back in the same place: "John Stuart Mill cannot be used as a source on utilitarianism because he was a proponent of the utilitarian ideology." But clearly, as an expert on the subject, that makes him particularly qualified, doesn't it? Aelffin (talk) 23:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Stuart Mill cannot be used to establish the notability of the article on utilitarianism. He can be used as a source, but he doesn't prove notability. Similarly you can use FARJ writings in the article about them, but they don't establish the group's notability, just as the articles by proponents of social insertion don't prove this topic's relevance. You just have to come up with independent sources. Anyone can write about their particular ideology and publish it on the internet, but Wikipedia requires more than that for there to be an article about this ideology. You said you haven't had the time to sort through the google hits to find good sources. I'd advise you to do just that. If you can find significant third-party mentions, I'd be more than happy to withdraw this AfD.--Carabinieri (talk) 13:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, anybody can publish on the internet and anybody can publish in a book or periodical. You don't need a special license or degree or any qualifications whatsoever to publish a book. I publish science textbooks for a living, and I can tell you that this idea that print media are somehow more legitimate than web-based publication is mistaken. One day in the editorial department of a major publishing house will teach you that. The way to establish a source's credibility is to look at its fact checking and vetting of information, not to simply say "well, it's the web so anybody could have written it" because the same is true of books. The one advantage the web has is that it's an open system, so you don't have to conform to peer pressure to publish, whereas the editorial process in most print media (especially periodicals) ensures that those published share ideological common ground with the editors. If anything, the web is more neutral. As for being independent, I explained above the difference between a source talking about itself and a source talking about something it is a proponent of. Aelffin (talk) 13:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Has been discussed by at least a few publications that are noteworthy within the anarchist movement, e.g. Northeastern Anarchist. I don't see that WP:N requires that something be taken note of outside of the specific area underwhich it falls; for instance, we have articles on philosophical concepts that have been discussed in philosophical journals or notable philosophical books, but have not been discussed outside of the community of philosophers. Likewise, that a term is notable within anarchism is enough notability for Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VoluntarySlave (talk • contribs) 07:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete doesnt assert notability extremely sloppy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomgaylove (talk • contribs) 06:10, 20 February 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.