The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as nonsense a long time before this AFD was submitted. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 05:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goof Gas Attack[edit]

Goof Gas Attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I just review history. Becuase the history part was a speedy deletion that it wouldn't be a good article. IF you it was edited by users. That mean I view history. Only this logs was a speedy deletion part of this. Decied to edit this page again. It sould be deleted. Only view history of this page. If you can't view history of pages. Only exist with new results. It was deleted. I cannot read this page soon it was deleted. IF these users create a page again. They will be blocked. Using without to much categories. You already in the Wikipedia. It was waited for nonsesne review articles. Becuase i add ((db-nonsense)) and viewed history.--JGJGJGJGJGJG (talk) 17:31, 10 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 08:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Lemke[edit]

Ian Lemke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Of doubtful notability. Has been completely unsourced for many months now. The very model of a minor general (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - doesn't make any claims of notability, Google/News search turns up no reliable third-party mentions. Teleomatic (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete An unsourced biography about a not notable individual. Can find no reliable sources. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: According to Google Books, he has authored or co-authored seven books.[1] Another website[2] lists 14 books. A LexisNexis news search does not yield much coverage, beyond an article that notes that Lemke was a special guest at the Technicon science fiction convention. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:43, 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, JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no attempt at notability, author has minimal history and seems not to have an interest in the article. Sallicio (talk) 03:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Sallicio[reply]
• Delete - no reliable sources about the subject -- Whpq (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as Sallicio. Wexcan  Talk  00:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Notability uncertain.(Shonali2000 (talk) 05:57, 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 keep Ryan Postlethwaite 16:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intellitech[edit]

Intellitech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article fails WP:CORP. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Intellitech. Was speedied under WP:CSD#A7. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Article does fail WP:CORP. There are zero hits on Intellitech on news.google.com. —XSG 20:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, I can see from your point the account is an SPA account. Probably should of added other contributions first. It is interesting that other EDA companies have similar entries that are allowed. I previously pointed out Azuro. Only recently on Jan 30,2008 do they appear on new.google.com. To meet that particular criteria, a TMCnet article picked up their press release. I can't explain why Intellitech doesn't show up in news.google.com as it does appear on TMCNet in numerous places [[3]]. TMW www.tmworld.com magazine regularly run articles on the company's technology, including cover articles, and three best-in-test awards in the last four years.

The company is listed in Wiki List of EDA companies and was not included in that list by me. I tried to update that informatuon and it was deleted as well. Apparently the editors would rather have that entry with a incomplete ? than the information I supplied. That's a bit confusing.

There's not much I can do if you choose to delete it. I thank you for the opportunity to try working with Wikipedia.Jtagchair (talk) 18:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further, Intellitech appears in the Wiki Category:Electronic_design_automation_companies[4]. The entry for Intellitech is an attempt to add completeness to the Wikipedia for companies that appear in other areas of the Wikipedia. It seems odd that entries in Wikipedia that include Intellitech are accepted but to define the word/company beyond the entry is not acceptable. I'm new to this, so perhaps there is some bigger picture I am not seeing that would make that contradiction more logical. Jtagchair (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You can work on the page while this is going on. If you (or others) can bring the article up to WP:CORP, the consensus could change. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the best I can understand, the primary WP:CORP requirement is 'noteworthy'. As prior pointed out, the company name appears in two other Wiki locations, however without the appropriate information and link. Further, Test & Measurement World Magazine (hard copy and online) is the premier source of electronic information in the industry. It' editors have chosen Intellitech products for a Best-in-Test award for three years (one is here: [5] ) The magazine featured an Intellitech customer and Intellitech technology as its cover story last summer.[6] This is not an article submitted or created by the company.Jtagchair (talk) 01:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-press release related coverage of Intellitech by FPGA Journal[7] Jtagchair (talk) 11:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've got great references which demonstrate notability, however these references don't (yet) appear in the article. Find a way to work these references into the article and the article may pass WP:CORP and make it through this AfD... —  X  S  G  08:58, 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, JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Gavin Collins (talk) 11:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as tehre are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability of either the company or its software. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin, in case you didn't have time to read the above, this second source was given http://www.tmworld.com/article/CA6447662.html and this one: http://www.fpgajournal.com/articles_2007/20070612_roux.htm Jtagchair (talk) 21:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

XSG, OK. I wasn't aware that the references should be in the wiki for Intellitech. I'll take a stab at doing that. Thanks for the constructive feedback and help for the novice as to what needs to be done. Jtagchair (talk) 21:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gavin and XSG, Please note I have frequently given [Azuro] as an example of a company in our EDA industry, which appears in Wiki but did not meet the same scrutiny as Intellitech. It does not have the second sources listed in the article nor do they exsist other than press releases. We should be even handed across the board. Further, the type of article here in wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Electronic_design_automation_companies should not be included wiki if you are not interested in having the companies listed there be in Wiki either. Jtagchair (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Azuro, at least, has many references in the press magazines (in articles written by their correspondents, not press releases. Azuro is the subject of several EEtimes article (the main newpaper in the field). See for example [8] and [9]. Also mentioned in EDN, another large news organization [10] and [11]. This one is from EE Times, Europe: [12]. So Azuro is definitely notable. LouScheffer (talk) 00:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

XSG, I added the notable references to the article. Seems that it reads more 'promotional'though which may offend someone. Jtagchair (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteNot convinced about the notability.(Shonali2000 (talk) 06:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for your input, but it does meet the guidelines of WD:CORP. Please explain all how fellow companies in EDA are acceptable to Wiki and Intellitech is not. Here is Azuro's wiki page, I'm including it since no one is looking at it.

Azuro, Inc. is an electronic design automation (EDA) software company. It is headquartered in Santa Clara, California with a development office in Cambridge, UK.

Azuro develops software for the design of integrated circuits, specializing in analyzing power consumption of the chips. To produce more efficient chips Azuro has developed a program called PowerCentric by concentrating on the clock network. In synchronous circuit designs all changes of state are coordinated by a clock, and this clock edge must be distributed to all parts of the chip. Since the clock signal is distributed throughout the entire circuit it can consume a large percentage of the energy used. Azuro's approach unifies the steps of clock gating and clock tree synthesis. Azuro has a patent pending on a technique it calls iCTS™ for doing this.

Three questions remain unanswered by any of the 'delete' supporters. 1) How is it that this company meets the requirements and Intellitech does not? 2) What usefulness does it hold to list Intellitech in other areas of the wikipedia (EDA companies) but not allow a simple, non-promotional definition? 3) If the definition of Notability from Wiki is: A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. How is it given the prior references, that Intellitech fails this test? Jtagchair (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • I've put Azuro up for AfD as well, as you've fairly pointed out that what is appropriate for the Intellitech article is also fair for Azuro. —  X  S  G  02:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Note that Intellitech is the subject of at least two, independently written, EE times articles: [13] and [14]. Also, in EDN [15] and mentioned in [16]. Seems plenty notable.
  • These "independently written" articles are minor rewrites of corporate press releases. They're hardly references. Intellitech is non-notable. —  X  S  G  02:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the other hand, the editors think their readers might be interested. So at least some people familiar with the field think they are notable. LouScheffer (talk) 03:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, seems to meet WP:CORP, albeit in a rather specialised field. Please note that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS with regards to Azuro is not usually considered a valid rationale for keeping. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
• (Keep...now), I wikified the article, found two third-party citations, added references, and took out redundant see also section.--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 06:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - seems to meet the standards set forth in WP:CORP. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:01, 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 merge into NBC slogans, done at User:Some Person/NBC slogans. Neıl ☎ 15:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Place to Be[edit]

The Place to Be (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is part of an effort to remove articles about non-notable television network promotional slogans. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Watched By More Americans Than Any Other Network for the original nomination in the series. Gladys J Cortez 20:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - into a "slogans" section on NBC, perhaps? —XSG 22:29, 2 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 23:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not the place for THIS to be. While a lot of money is spent on adverstising campaigns, and they often are memorable, they come, they serve their purpose, and they go, never to be heard from again (except on a Dick Clark or Ed McMahon special). I don't see anything wrong with doing an article about all of NBC's slogans over the years. Individual articles about individual ad campaigns, however, are another matter. I'm sure that we all remember several different songs that we learned from commercials for McDonald's or Coca-Cola. But that doesn't mean that "You Deserve A Break Today" or "Coke Is It" (and those were a lot more notable than "The Place To Be") are worthy of their own entry in an encyclopedia. If anything, this illustrates the throw-away nature of a slogan for a network's new fall TV season. Mandsford (talk) 01:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with similar AFD'd articles into one article. I could have sworn there was an article on the slogans. The topic is encyclopedic, but there's no need to have individual articles on each one. 23skidoo (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge to NBC article. I cannot support 23skidoo's proposal to merge these articles to a separate article on NBC's slogans, because a television network's slogans are not sufficiently notable to justify a separate article from the television network itself. Just about every TV network ever in existence has had heaps of advertising slogans, and slogans are pretty trivial anyway. --SJK (talk) 09:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I have attempted to merge the page here: User:Some Person/NBC slogans —Some Person (talk) 05:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per my comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We're NBC, Just Watch Us Now, I think this is an excellent compromise solution and I am very impressed with the work Some Person has done. Can we close these AfDs and move the userspace version to article space? Gladys J Cortez 06:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• MERGE into parent NBC article. NN in itself.--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 08:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - just another non-notable slogan of the month. Not sure it's even worth mentioning in the parent article. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:04, 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 merge into NBC slogans, done at User:Some Person/NBC slogans. Neıl ☎ 15:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Come Home to NBC[edit]

Come Home to NBC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is part of an effort to remove articles about non-notable television network promotional slogans. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Watched By More Americans Than Any Other Network for the original nomination in the series. Gladys J Cortez 20:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - into a "slogans" section on NBC, perhaps? —XSG 22:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:OR, uncited. As much info needed on this slogan (simply how long it lasted) is at List of NBC slogans Doc Strange (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or failing that, Merge to List of NBC slogans, or similar. Kevlar67 (talk) 01:13, 5 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 23:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP (provisionally), as much as I personally find the subject matter boring and uninteresting, I feel that it should be keep for the following reasons:
  • It is part of a legitimate list, and if this article is deleted, then all the others on the list that have internal links should also be deleted (then, as logic dictates, the whole list should be deleted, because if the content of the list not note-worthy, then the list is not note-worthy)
  • It is encyclopaedic in content.
  • It is not up to me to decide what is noteworthy because what is not note-worty to me, may be to another. As long as it follows the WP guidelines (encyclopaedic, referenced, and third-party cited) then I feel it should be included in this encyclopedia.
  • Here is the provision: it DOES, however, need references and third-party citations. If the author (or someone else with an interest) doesn't include this basic necessity for notability then it should be deleted.
  • The "localized versions" subsection is a bit redundant and unnecessary, though.Sallicio (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Sallicio[reply]
• Delete Essentially, this is an article about a particular advertising campaign that ran twenty years ago. While a lot of money is spent on adverstising campaigns, and they often are memorable, they come, they serve their purpose, and they go, never to be heard from again (except on a Dick Clark or Ed McMahon special). In the case of a TV network's promotions for its new fall season, they come and go in a space of a few weeks. And they're almost never memorable; some of the most lame, generic material is that which is used for a "new fall season" promo. Come home, this fall NBC has it all, you'll be talking about this tomorrow... everything except for "Please, we beg of you, don't change the channel"... it's the lowest level of ad campaign. The really creative stuff isn't wasted on a promo lasting a few weeks. As Sallicio concedes, this is both boring and uninteresting.

I don't see anything wrong with doing an article about all of NBC's slogans over the years. Individual articles about individual ad campaigns, however, are another matter. I'm sure that we all remember several different songs that we learned from commercials for McDonald's or Coca-Cola. But that doesn't mean that "You Deserve A Break Today" or "Coke Is It" deserves its own entry in the encyclopedia. And definitely not "Come home to (local NBC affilliate)" Mandsford (talk) 01:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sub-trivial topic, with no sign of real-world impact or notice. It's also completely unsourced by anything reliable: all I see for references are "Youtube, Youtube, Geocities, Youtube, Yahoogroups", etc". --Calton | Talk 15:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with similar AFD'd articles into one article. I could have sworn there was an article on the slogans. The topic is encyclopedic, but there's no need to have individual articles on each one. 23skidoo (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into one article about that network's slogans. Edison (talk) 03:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge to NBC article. As per my comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Place to Be, I do not think a TV network's slogans deserve a separate article from the TV network itself. --SJK (talk) 09:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - have attempted to do so here: User:Some Person/NBC slogans —Preceding comment was added at 05:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Per my comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We're NBC, Just Watch Us Now, I think this is an excellent compromise solution and I am very impressed with the work Some Person has done. Can we close these AfDs and move the userspace version to article space? Gladys J Cortez 06:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, m'kay? Blast Ulna (talk) 06:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - just another non-notable slogan-of-the-year. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:08, 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 merge into NBC slogans, done at User:Some Person/NBC slogans. Neıl ☎ 15:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's All Be There[edit]

Let's All Be There (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is part of an effort to remove articles about non-notable television network promotional slogans. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Watched By More Americans Than Any Other Network for the original nomination in the series. Gladys J Cortez 20:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - into a "slogans" section on NBC, perhaps? —XSG 22:29, 2 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 23:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's not. I agree with XSG that this should be merged. This coincided with NBC's turnaround from last place to first, but it's little more than a piece of trivia in the Tartikoff and Cosby story. Mandsford (talk) 01:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge. Hell, the ONLY references I see are two Youtube links. No even CLOSE to notable, encyclopedic, having a real-world impact or notice, etc. --Calton | Talk 15:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with similar AFD'd articles into one article. I could have sworn there was an article on the slogans. The topic is encyclopedic, but there's no need to have individual articles on each one. 23skidoo (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I too agree that this article should be merged. I have a concern about the notabilty Canyouhearmenow 03:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into one article about that network's slogans. Edison (talk) 03:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge to NBC article. As per my comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Place to Be, I do not think a TV network's slogans deserve a separate article from the TV network itself. --SJK (talk) 09:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I have attempted to merge the page here: User:Some Person/NBC slogans —Some Person (talk) 05:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per my comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We're NBC, Just Watch Us Now, I think this is an excellent compromise solution and I am very impressed with the work Some Person has done. Can we close these AfDs and move the userspace version to article space? Gladys J Cortez 06:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge like all the other NBC slogans...how have they lasted this long?--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 08:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - like all the rest. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:18, 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 merge into NBC slogans, done at User:Some Person/NBC slogans. Neıl ☎ 15:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be There[edit]

Be There (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is part of an effort to remove articles about non-notable television network promotional slogans. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Watched By More Americans Than Any Other Network for the original nomination in the series. Gladys J Cortez 20:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - into a "slogans" section on NBC, perhaps? —XSG 22:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or maybe to Being There, failing that. — CharlotteWebb 13:09, 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, JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into an article about the 1983-84 NBC season, which, as the article notes, was one in which all of NBC's fall premieres was a failure, or into an article about NBC's advertising campaigns in general. This was truly a slogan worthy of the year that gave us Manimal. A generic, unmemorable slogan in a season of unmemorable television shows, and not notable enough for its own separate article. Mandsford (talk) 01:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with similar AFD'd articles into one article. I could have sworn there was an article on the slogans. The topic is encyclopedic, but there's no need to have individual articles on each one. 23skidoo (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into one article about that network's slogans. Edison (talk) 03:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge to NBC article. As per my comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Place to Be, I do not think a TV network's slogans deserve a separate article from the TV network itself and hence cannot support Edison's and 23skidoo's proposals to do so. --SJK (talk) 09:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I have attempted to merge the page here: User:Some Person/NBC slogans —Some Person (talk) 05:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per my comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We're NBC, Just Watch Us Now, I think this is an excellent compromise solution and I am very impressed with the work Some Person has done. Can we close these AfDs and move the userspace version to article space? Gladys J Cortez 06:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge like the others.--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 08:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete like the others --Orange Mike | Talk 14:22, 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 merge into NBC slogans, done at User:Some Person/NBC slogans. Neıl ☎ 15:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're NBC, Just Watch Us Now[edit]

We're NBC, Just Watch Us Now (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is part of an effort to remove non-notable articles about television network promotional slogans. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Watched By More Americans Than Any Other Network for the original nomination in the series. Gladys J Cortez 20:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - into a "slogans" section on NBC, perhaps? —XSG 22:54, 2 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 23:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I respect the author's knowledge of NBC's television programming, and I would support an article combining the slogan articles into one retrospective of the network's advertising strategy. But like all of the other slogans, this is a footnote, a piece of trivia, that coincided with the television season. "Be there", "Just Watch Us Now", "Come Home", etc. are among the least notable of the many advertising campaigns in history. Mandsford (talk) 01:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with similar AFD'd articles into one article. I could have sworn there was an article on the slogans. The topic is encyclopedic, but there's no need to have individual articles on each one. (Apologies for doing a C&P job on my comments for these similar articles. This probably was one occasion where they could have been rolled into one nomination) 23skidoo (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into one article about that network's slogans. Edison (talk) 03:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. What will be done with the links for individual instances (such as the link for this article showing a customized WAVY version of the Just Watch Us Now campaign from a 25th anniversary special)? WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 13:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge to NBC article. As per my comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Place to Be, I do not think a TV network's slogans deserve a separate article from the TV network itself. --SJK (talk) 09:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I have attempted to merge the page here: User:Some Person/NBC slogans —Some Person (talk) 05:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is an excellent compromise solution and I am very impressed with the work Some Person has done. Can we close this AfD and move the userspace version to article space? Gladys J Cortez 06:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Some Person's project, as it keeps the info while incorporating in into the list. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 15:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• MERGE all the others.--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 08:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - like all the others —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemike (talk • contribs) 14:30, 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 Keep. Discussion of a move/re-name can continue at the article's talk page. Sancho 17:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AIBA African Olympic Boxing Qualifying Tournament 2008 - Light flyweight[edit]

AIBA African Olympic Boxing Qualifying Tournament 2008 - Light flyweight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Apart from the article being named incorrectly - it really isn't notable. The article doesn't assert the notability and is only about a WP:NN qualification tournament. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 20:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Now moved to a more sensible title. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:12, 3 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 23:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- I think that any qualifying event for the Olympics is notable --SJK (talk) 09:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep: I have no idea what it is but it seems to barely fall within regs for notability.--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 08:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename (again) why should this focus on only one weight class? AIBA African Olympic Boxing Qualifying Tournament 2008 or 2008 AIBA African Olympic Boxing Qualifying Tournament would be better, and the info from other weight classes could be included. (It's called "AIBA 1st Africa Olympic Qualifying Tournament-Algiers, Algeria" here.) Notability is fairly clear as an Olympic qualifying international tournament, and I've linked some sources that provide coverage.[17] [18] [19] — Scientizzle 17:00, 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 deleted. Prodego ^talk 23:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

K-Doe[edit]

K-Doe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Claims of notability, but Just Another Non-notable MySpace Personality (tm). Corvus cornix_talk 23:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion: Non-notable. Already deleted past attempts to create article and none have the notability. --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 23:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To infinity and beyond delete, in lay speak, per JANMP above Travellingcari (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion - no evidence of notabilty. --Fredrick day (talk) 23:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, this is just as unimportant as any of those clunky MySpace bands that get put up once every minute. _contribsSTYROFOAM☭1994^TALK 23:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• A7 per total lack of notability, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:35, 10 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.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleon Noir[edit]

Napoleon Noir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Harry Potter fanfic character with 25 ghits, many of which are not in English and don't appear to relate to the subject. No apparent speedy category, so it's here. Recommend Delete. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 23:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I feel that these claims are false. There are 422,000 ghits, but many are, i admit, not related to this subject. But seeing as this is an underground HP fandom character (small sites, using free services) that do not appear on google, then it shouldn't matter. I welcome any edits to the page, as i feel that it is not fully finished and has not reached it's full potential. Any ideas or comments for the page are also welcomed. IronOne (talk) 23:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Please familiarize yourself with WP:N (our notability guidelines) first. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete Article (and likely character) author's assetion of 422,000 ghits is demonstratively false. [20] The first page of ghits seems to show they're mainly about Toussaint Louverture and a mixed drink, though pictures of somebody's dog show up before the first non-Wikipedia hit for about this non-notable fan character. Edward321 (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I agree with your assessment, to be fair, the 422.000 ghits count was based on a query without quotations.[21]--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Edward321. Doctorfluffy (talk) 02:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as silliness. --Tony Sidaway 13:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm too lazy to come up with an appropriately bad Harry Potter joke right now. --Calton | Talk 15:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Actually doesn't this thing qualify for speedy under the "web content" provision of WP:CSD#A7? --Tony Sidaway 16:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I tried under G1 (Aztecs, end of the world, etc.), so it seemed bad form to try again under a different criteria. But I think there's an assertion of notability, even if it is unsubstantiated. Could this qualify for a WP:SNOW close? // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 16:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, this is a classic snow close. Saying somebody is a fan fiction character is not asserting notability because it's a de facto statement that this character does not appear in the books or films or anything else from the pen of the author JK Rowling.--Tony Sidaway 22:01, 13 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.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mandi Henson[edit]

Mandi Henson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete. References do not establish notability. Claim of national recognition not supporterd by evidence. WWGB (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , per nom. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm sure she's a lovely person, but....Be best (talk) 12:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 18:03, 12 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. krimpet✽ 03:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Kart Drunk Dash[edit]

Mario Kart Drunk Dash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:N, WP:NFT. PROD tag was removed by author. EJF (talk) 22:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NFT; no assertation of notability, appears to be made up. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NFT, but also because it's not notable. — Cuyler91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 22:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 06:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete totally NN drinking game, looks made up Doc Strange (talk) 16:08, 11 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 --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 15:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nörthwind[edit]

Nörthwind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

El Retorno Del Rey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable, fails WP:BAND. No sources at all, no evidence of notability. No recognized label or charted songs. Not much of anything at all. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for failure of WP:BAND. I've bundled in an article on the band's second album. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, no reliable sources, only brief mentions in a Spanish news website (google news archive) Cenarium (talk) 11:48, 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 Delete. Fram (talk) 13:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Off Minor[edit]

Off Minor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article fails to assert notability under WP:MUSIC. Has realeased only a handful of records on a small non-notable indie label but has no coverage in second party sources neonwhite user page talk 22:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Argument on their labels and records seems somewhat irrelevant; there are plenty of bands who've only released a few records on small labels that still have pages. It dosen't matter how many records or what labels they're on, because they still have popularity and are connected to several other notable bands. However, I agree that there aren't any refrences or sources on page; will add.Howl5 (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, doesn't appear to meet any of the WP:MUSIC criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete per Lankiveil. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC criteria. --On the other side ^Contribs|@ 04:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete:NN per WP:BAND--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 08:32, 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.--Kubigula (talk) 21:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DarkSun[edit]

DarkSun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band, fails WP:BAND. No reliable sources (sorry, MySpace doesn't count), no evidence of signing by a major label or a song on a recognized chart. Article borders on fancruft. Only thread of notability I can find is that the band split off from another band with an article. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for failing WP:MUSIC. I don't think Nörthwind is all that notable either, might wanna check into it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I was working on it as you wrote. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nörthwind. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• My bad. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Nothing bad at all. You're just fast, and smart. :-) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is unlikely to be deleted. I do agree that I need to enunciate the band's notability better. I think it could be btter just to tag on the article ((unsourced)) because you're right about one thing - it needs references. Rockk3r Talk to me15:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree. Unless you're able to find reliable sources references that I couldn't find, there's just not enough there for DarkSun to pas the notability standards. But feel free to add any you find. My mind can (and has been) changed. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the band's official website says that they have worked with many important bands like: Primal Fear, Sinner, Rage, Angra... Also says that their album El Lado Oscuro had a great acceptance by the public and was named one of the best Spanish heavy metal albums of the year, they have releasedn 3 studio albums in 5 or 6 years and they are recordind their 4th one DarkSun Website, They wouldn't lie on their website. If this is not important tell me what is then. Rockk3r (talk 13:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• They wouldn't lie on their web site? Really? I think I have some prime real estate in the South Alabama Swamps I'd like to sell you at a great price.... Of course they may lie on their web site! People do it all the time! Yeesh... - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above, no reliable sources, I've found information on them on a couple of Spanish news website [22] but the coverage doesn't appear to be substantial enough (on the band itself I mean) and there are not enough sources, i.e., WP:MUSIC is still not satisfied (I've just noticed that WP:BAND redirects elsewhere now). Cenarium (talk) 11:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no reliable third-party sources that indicate that this band meets any of the WP:MUSIC criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:21, 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 No consensus to delete.. Black Kite 01:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Gay Sweden[edit]

Mr Gay Sweden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declined A7 based on older version of the article. Previous out-of-process deletion (deleted as a revert when previous versions had content). Figured it should come here for scrutiny. Remaining neutral. - Revolving Bugbear 22:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Google finds two articles but I can't judge whether they're reliable as I don't read Swedish. Neutral until someone can provide info on the sources. Travellingcari (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. I put speedy on it for lack of content because it was less than a stub when I found it. I did not realise that it had had more content previously. I thought it was a brand new article as it was on the New Articles list. There is now enough content for a short article, so my original reason for suggesting deletion is now addressed. I have no opinion on its notability but it needs better references. With decent references I will change to "keep". --DanielRigal (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was technically a new article because it was deleted out-of-process as a redirect after it was unilaterally blanked. I restored the old version. - Revolving Bugbear 23:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I'm sure the required supporting material can be found relatively easily and the article expanded. I'd work on it myself but would probably be best to have someone from Sweden to take full advantage of Swedish language sources. Wexcan  Talk  00:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete until and unless significant coverage can be found. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Mr Gay Europe. Aleta (Sing) 00:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand, or merge into Mr. Gay Europe. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Mr Gay Europe - two stubs might make a start. ZueJay (talk) 17:06, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 08:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gukgi[edit]

Gukgi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The results ar for a movie, I find no evidence that this competition, when it existed, was notable. Travellingcari (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article has no context (which would qualify it as a speedy delete), there are no claims of notability (which would also qualify as an A7 speedy), and there are only 1,340 ghits. — Cuyler91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 23:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no attention since about this time last year. Wexcan  Talk  01:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteNot convinced about notability(Shonali2000 (talk) 06:04, 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 delete. Should more information become available closer to the release date, I encourage User:TBrauns to recreate the article, making sure that only reliable sources are cited (this excludes iMDB). Spebi 09:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drag Me to Hell[edit]

Drag Me to Hell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:CRYSTAL and future film guidelines. Film has not finished production, and only "source" is IMDB. AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL Ward3001 (talk) 22:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Variety has an article on this upcoming film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.28.210 (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• As does Joblo.com, and there is an IMDB.com page for the film.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjwells (talk • contribs) 09:16, 12 February 2008

• Per the future film guidelines, "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles, unless the production itself is notable per notability guidelines." This film has not been released and nothing is notable about its production. AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but edit to reflect more information than IMDB. Let's link to online articles confirming the movie's existence, regardless of phase, and give this article more substance before deleting it. Rockhound (talk) 02:11, 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 Delete by User:Alexf (CSD G11: Blatant advertising) non-admin close. —Travis^talk 00:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GoYin[edit]

GoYin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article contains no information to show that the company is notable. Instead of creating a link to MLM, the article reexplains the concept which can be found in another entry. I did not delete that part because it makes up half the article's content. The ingredients are described from the marketing standpoint from the company. Instead of describing the ingredients as stated on the nutrion facts label without bias, it breaks it down on the reputation of a superfruit even as according to information gathered here, lychee is an alleged superfruit. the article is redundant on what the product is. If I delete it, there will be no content left. The company mentions a marketed compensation plan without clearly defining what type of network marketing it is. This is basically why I put this article for deletion. Holannakata (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete G11, seems to be blatant advertising to me. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as spam. No WP:RS so fails WP:ORG anyhow. Sting au Buzz Me... 23:29, 10 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 original author's request (below)combined with no significant contributions outside that author's work. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chrono commando[edit]

Chrono commando (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable video game element. Sources cited have no info on the subject either. See also Wikipedia is not a (game) guide. hateless 21:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with you. I am new to wiki so still learning all the things your not supposed to write but go ahead and delete it. It only took half hour to make so its not a big deal. February 10 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshValov (talk • contribs) 21:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as the info is better in game website than here. I recommend that the creator look into The Command and Conquer Wikia--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the Game Website? JoshValov (talk) 05:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not a game guide. This unit is not notable in the wider world, either. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:24, 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 merge... to be performed by an editor. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Tourism Queen International 2006[edit]

Miss Tourism Queen International 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable pageant decision. 2007 edition article was deleted at AFD.

Also nominating:

• Miss Tourism Queen International 2005
• Miss Tourism Queen International 2004 PageantUpdater talk • contribs 21:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge the lot of them to Miss Tourism Queen International. The article is currently lacking, but there's evidence of notability and that article could be fixed up. Travellingcari (talk) 22:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• After carefully weighing the article’s substance, its notability, and including the reliability of sources, I highly recommend for the deletion of the article for lack of notability to be included in an encyclopedia as described above and as noted by other editors.--Jet Perry (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, per Travellingcari. Wexcan  Talk  01:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Miss Tourism Queen International. The pageant itself is notable, but not so much that individual year articles are appropriate. That said, it's obvious that someone has worked hard on this, so it's worth salvaging what we can. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
• Merge into a single article. I !voted for the deletion of the 2007 event Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Tourism Queen International 2007, on the grounds of lack of the actual sourcing that would be expected for a really notable event of this nature and this holds here as well. The combined article would presumably talk as it now does only about the winners each year, the event does not seem to be notable enough for the detailed list of delegates, nor the detail of what countries were not represented. There is a place for that kind of detail, which is the event's own web site. DGG (talk) 01:25, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 12:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Skillings[edit]

Pamela Skillings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable business person whose main claim of notability seems to be a blog and a yet-to-be-released book. No significant independent coverage. Notability tag was added in October 2007 and removed two days later without significant additions by account who recently has been spamming Wikipedia with links to Skillings' website (with deceptive edit summaries). Possible WP:COI and WP:ADVERT issues; editor who added the article is an WP:SPA. Torc2 (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not notable. Notability not established from blog and/or future book. Agree probably spam. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No reliable, independent references. Pburka (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no reliable sources to support notability -- Whpq (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Popular columnist on About.com and Lifehack.org. Numerous references in Yahoo Finance, Investors Business Daily, Christian Science Monitor Plato6006 (talk) 12:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC) — Plato6006 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • comment of the sources added, only one (the Yahoo article, and even that is questionable) meets WP:RS. The others are blogs or self-published material. This does not establish significant coverage. Also worth noting the similarities between the user names of Plato6006 and the article creator, Jbean6006 still raises WP:COI issues.
  • comment I disagree with your assessment. The coverage is from national periodicals Yahoo Finance, Investor's Business Daily, Christian Science Monitor. Honestly, I really don't see why you're taking issue with the article itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plato6006 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:N, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." So let's review this source by source:

1. LifeHack.org - is a primary source, not independent coverage.
2. Christian Science Monitor - Is a single quote from Skilling, not an article about her. It is a trivial mention that does not help establish notability.
3. ^ Yahoo Finance - Us mostly about the topic of job satisfaction, not about Skilling. Her name is mentioned and she is often quoted, but it's not really about her. It's weak evidence of notability.
4. ^ Pamela Skillings - Not independent, promotional in nature.
5. ^ Skillful Communications - Not independent.

With that addressed, I hope you'll respond to my questions: Are you affiliated in any way with Ms. Skilling or her company? And are you the same editor as the one who created the article? —Torc. ^(Talk.) 23:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I looked at the blog site extensively, and it does not seem to be spammy. It seems more along the lines of the Tim Ferris blog. She does seem to be a legitimate author with a book from Random House and other notable references.(Also, since I just started I don't think its fair to call my account "single purpose" - it has after all only been a day. My other interests include philosophy, pop culture, physics. Please don't immediately discount my opinion. Doing research on proposed deletions seems one of the easiest ways to begin contributing - Cheers). Plato6006 (talk) 4:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • comment - You voted twice? —Torc. ^(Talk.) 23:19, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 08:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gilmore Community School[edit]

Gilmore Community School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable elementary school, and the 'article' is nothing more than a business card, Note also the infobox whose elementary school listings are nearly all redlinks from AfD/speedy deletions. No evidence of any notability Travellingcari (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, doesn't assert notability in any way. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as nn to School District 41 Burnaby in line with WP:SCHOOLS proposed policy which states, "A school article that fails to establish notability will not be deleted, if the school can be confirmed to exist, but would be appropriately merged and redirected." I fully realize the policy is a proposal but until it gets sorted out best to go with the redirects. Sting au Buzz Me... 04:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the school district page as suggested above. (jarbarf) (talk) 08:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. --Daddy.twins (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as nn. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as per WP:N and WP:SCHOOLS as cited by Sting au. Cite WP:SCHOOLS enough and maybe it will become de facto policy. Noroton (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed with redirect, I've just taken care of all the remaining elem schools that hadn't been deleted and redirected them to School District 41 Burnaby. I didn't do this one because of the AfD but as nom, I'd obviously support it and consensus. Travellingcari (talk) 21:49, 14 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) 04:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sheri Staplehurst[edit]

Sheri Staplehurst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable individual. No sources given for any of this information. She returns 10 Google hits, none for the radio work. Metros (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know she works behind the scenes in radio, from a friend in the industry... --Solumeiras (talk) 20:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I heard it from a friend" is not a reliable source. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not notable; working "somewhere" in the radio industry is not enough! NB: Cf. Lara Rorich. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. Pburka (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not notable. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability, and no soources to verify some of the information such s radio work. Directory listings establish that she is a model, but there are no articles about her. -- Whpq (talk) 18:09, 12 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) 04:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lara Rorich[edit]

Lara Rorich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable individual. She returns 34 Google hits and not a single one proves notability or proves she's a radio presenter. Metros (talk) 20:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I know she works behind the scenes in radio, from a friend in the radio industry... --Solumeiras (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well "I heard it from a friend" is not verifiable or a reliable source. And working "behind the scenes" is not entirely notable. Metros (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not notable. Working "somewhere" in the radio industry is not enough! -- MightyWarrior (talk) 21:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not notable. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no reliable sources. And this is the second model from MOT Modelling listed in AFD. Are they spamming their clients into wikipedia? -- Whpq (talk) 18:10, 12 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 08:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seneca Doss[edit]

Seneca Doss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not much claim of meeting WP:Notability; 12 non-wiki ghits, none of which show notability. No sources in article that indicate notability. Contested prod. Fabrictramp (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Also Wikipedia:Autobiography issues. --Fabrictramp (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per WP:NFT. Æetlr Creejl 20:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. All web hits I can find are self promotion. Pburka (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not notable. No evidence of notability presented. NB: editor who created article appears to be a WP:SPA. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability -- -Whpq (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteUnconvinced about notability(Shonali2000 (talk) 06:06, 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 for lack of reliable independent sources. Fram (talk) 13:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sixearch[edit]

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)).

Sixearch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article was speed'd twice. Non-notable software. Keeps coming back. Now it has three references, all are articles written by the developers. No independent third party references can be found. Looking for another delete with salt please. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and season, results limited to forum threads and nothing even close to an RS Travellingcari (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I left a notability tag and a few User talk messages, but couldn't get any appropriate response from the main editors of the article, User:Illuminated and User:Lewu. This article came to my attention when Illuminated added it to List of search engines. Stuff shouldn't be in that list if it's not a genuine search engine with a real user base, something that requires reliable sources that have taken notice of the search engine. Hence the appropriateness of this AfD. EdJohnston (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

OK.. There is no need for salt here. So from what you said getting published does not count as a third party approval then. This is unfortunate... In this case, if you plan to delete it again, please at least leave it till Tuesday (US time) and I will either remove it, defend it or improve it. BTW how big is the user base to be considered as notable? Is there a guideline for the number in Wiki?

For the record, the second delete was done before I even finished writing the article. I don't know that you can't leave an article hanging for couple of hours. I took a break, went home and it was deleted before I finished my dinner. :( Glad to see people working hard on cleaning Wiki though. (This is a compliment not a sarcasm.) Please don't get a wrong idea, I'm not trying to spam Wiki here.

To EdJohnston: The an anonymous contributor, 75.60.173.151 who removed the notability tag was me, my login time expired so it didn't log my name.

Illuminated (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep I have edited the article to highlight aspects of the project that may constitute evidence for notability. This is a collaborative network designed to support context-aware, adaptive, social search and a mature prototype application that supports the network has only been released publicly in recent weeks. This explains the small number of google hits for the query 'sixearch' since this name was only adopted with this recent prototype. Previously the sofware was known by the original project name '6s' or '6search' however it is difficult to determine the hits since these are not uncommon terms. Since this network is completely decentralized, it is also difficult to determine the number of users. We can only determine the number of users who have volunteered to participate in a user study. I believe this number is in the order of 100. I also added information on NSF funding and awards. The IBM award was based on a proposal to leverage UIMA to extend 6s. I can add that i have been invited to give presentations about sixearch to at least 10 academic meetings around the world in the last few months. Sixearch is considered a major example of 'social search'. Hence it was appropriate to link this article from the 'social search' section of List of search engines. If it is determined that these factors do not constitute sufficient evidence to establish notability, it would be useful to know what would be considered appropriate for a decentralized system like this, for which no usage statistics are yet available. Thanks.

Fmenczer (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC) — Fmenczer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

comment - the awards and the grants you referenced do not mention the software at all. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 19:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Why wouldn't this be appropriate for the 'non-commercial use' section of Social_search, much like the University of Minnesota's MovieLens page under Collaborative Filtering. There's very little information on the social search page to begin with.

--Jjdonald (talk) 01:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)— Jjdonald (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

comment - because the "if that can be here then this should be here" argument does not apply. The article needs to establish notability. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 19:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I disagree with regards to the notability motion- Sixsearch is a growing research project at Indiana University. It has a burgeoning user-base across departments and name recognition within the web mining and social web academic sphere. This software represents as viable, notable development project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.106.32 (talk) 04:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is nice you think it is notabile. Now please show us independent third party references that help establish this per the notability guidelines. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 19:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sixearch has been continually developing and improving since 2003 and it already has many users in various areas. With a limited number of existing social search application, Sixearch is the only example of using the unstructured approach (without using any distributed has table or ontology). I think, for a non-commercial (not self-promotion) open source application like Sixearch , which also has proven its notability by published many papers in conferences and book chapter, it is appropriate to include it in the Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewu (talk • contribs) 07:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC) — Lewu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep For the same argument above and one more thing. Just because the article was speed deleted twice does not make this version not appropriate for Wiki. Illuminated (talk) 16:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and that is why it was brought here and not speedied again :) Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 19:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - there are no reliable sources independent of the subject covering Sixearch. -- Whpq (talk) 18:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I can't find any third-party sources to assert that this is notable software. Support salting the article title, given the history of re-creation. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:28, 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 as Wikipedia is not a dictionary as stated throughout the discussion.--JForget 02:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Headliner (concert)[edit]

Headliner (concert) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

As it stands, no more than a dicdef, and I can't see that it can be anything more. Already defined in Wiktionary. Emeraude (talk) 13:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. WP:WINAD is policy, and to expand on this would be original research.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Kakofonous (talk) 17:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep satisfies WP:Notability as it is a well established term. While I do not see this article ever being large, I do see it becoming a concise but well-written one in the future. Zidel333 (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That's exactly the point. A well-established term belongs in a dictionary.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Definitely has potential beyond a dictionary definition (which it currently is). Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you please provide some evidence that this is the case without violating core content policies WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:NOT#IINFO?--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:38, 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, SorryGuy  Talk  19:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• delete dicdefs, no matter how notable, belong in a dictionary not an encyclopedia. Travellingcari (talk) 20:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - def only. will never be encyclopedic. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's a separate project for dictionary definitions you know. That's where definitions of 'terms' belong, however notable.--Michig (talk) 20:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and Wiktionary already has an article regarding this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuyler91093 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 10 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 06:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Global Remote Sensing, LLC.[edit]

Global Remote Sensing, LLC. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A search indicates that the concept of global remote sensing is notable but there's nothing to show that this company is in any way notable to pass WP:CORP. Although I can't find the source online to confirm copyright violation, the article is a blatant c/p from somewhere and without any information, this article cannot be encyclopedic. Travellingcari (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (unless sources pop up to prove notability and legitimate content is added). I can't find anything to show this company is notable, either, and there is little or no content there that's encyclopedic - it's all like a business directory listing and statement of business plans, not the kind of stuff we cover. Wikidemo (talk) 05:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Gavin Collins (talk) 12:00, 11 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 Boldly redirected to Laser (dinghy) by User:Gtstricky, no need to keep discussion open. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laser 8.1[edit]

Laser 8.1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This page seems unfit for an encyclopedia. It is a just a random collection of information on a boat. The boat itself is not very important. It is an not suitable for an encyclopedia. Tcpekin 19:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete, no assertion of notability. --Dhartung | Talk 19:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete information found appears trivial and without context, I don't see this as an article. Can it be merged somewhere? I don't know enough about boating to find it a home. Travellingcari (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect - to Laser (dinghy) Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and did the redirect since it seemed like a no brainer. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:11, 10 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 Also undid the user talk redirect, thanks for the notice, Sting au. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Katalyst Global[edit]

Katalyst Global (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non notable company Excariver (talk) 19:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nn. Looks like WP:COI might be involved as username of article creator matches a company founders name at the article. User talk page was turned into redirect to the article too. So shows they were only interested in plugging the company. No WP:RS so fails WP:ORG. Sting au Buzz Me... 23:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Gavin Collins (talk) 12:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:CORP. COI issues are also troubling. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:29, 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 delete. Spebi 06:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lynguent[edit]

Lynguent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non notable company Excariver (talk) 19:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is a lot of information out there on the company. The subject is growing, so let the article develop.--Riley2008 (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn - Can't find anything I'd see as WP:RS so fails WP:ORG. Sting au Buzz Me... 23:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Gavin Collins (talk) 12:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I fail to see how listing sites that publish press release meets WP:CORP, WP:RS, WP:V or WP:N. Vegaswikian (talk) 09:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The references so far are all company press releases, and I couldn't find anything better. Subject does not appear to pass WP:CORP.--Kubigula (talk) 17:55, 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. John254 01:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectual dishonesty[edit]

Intellectual dishonesty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Finishing incomplete nom by User:Kaiwhakahaere. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is more than a year since a notice was put on this asking for references. No-one has bothered in all that time, so it is a totally unreferenced entry which makes it very much opinion and not able to justify inclusion in an encyclopedia like Wikipedia.Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 21:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. WP:Sofixit. There is plenty out there _directly_ addressing the concept. The concept of intellectual dishonesty has received widespread coverage "...by sources [that] address the subject directly in detail" "...in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article is on the agendas of two WikiProjects, it will be improved eventually.--Son of Somebody (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:SOFIXIT; existing sources indicate that this is a subject of note. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The phrase is frequently used in the popular culture, especially on talk radio.--Focusfrost (talk) 01:39, 13 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 CSD G11 by User:Spebi. Non-admin closure. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Target Travel[edit]

Target Travel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non notable company Excariver (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Gavin Collins (talk) 12:12, 11 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 12:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EGM Green[edit]

EGM Green (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non notable company Excariver (talk) 19:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The references seem to pass the test of multiple coverage by reliable sources. --Eastmain (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep agree with above(i worked on this article full disclosure)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Gavin Collins (talk) 12:14, 11 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 all to Triumphant Quartet. JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Inman[edit]

Scott Inman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There is some coverage, mainly naming the subject and his father's being in a band and band appearances. Nothing that he, or the award he won is notable. Also nominating the following related page because it's his father who also doesn't appear notable in any way:

Clayton Inman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Travellingcari (talk) 05:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect both to Triumphant Quartet. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can i add David Sutton (singer) to this debate for the same reasons as above? --Montchav (talk) 16:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And Eric Bennett and Jeff Stice while we're at it. --Montchav (talk) 16:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentI'm not even positive Triumphant Quartet would pass WP:BAND, let alone the members. I can't find evidence of its notability short from "it exists". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travellingcari (talk • contribs) 18:34, 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, SorryGuy  Talk  19:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no references , individual non-notable --B.C ^{say what ?} 20:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Triumphant Quartet. The group is only borderline notable, individual articles for each band member is pushing it a bit too far, I think. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:38, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 08:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EMRI - Emergency Management And Research Institute[edit]

EMRI - Emergency Management And Research Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non notable company Excariver (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I see non-trvial coverage in Indian press including: Times of India and Hindu. Travellingcari (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, The article, while not about an extremely high-profile subject, does not seem to me to be "non-notable." It certainly could use some work, but that is another mater. I invite Excariver to convince me with something more than a simple assertion. Pzavon (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep we have deleted such articles for individual US county organisations, but this one is of national scope.DGG (talk) 22:26, 10 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 WP:CSD#A1 -- pb30<talk> 21:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Total Sport[edit]

Total Sport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

If you're going to start an article, do it properly. Lee Stanley (talk) 19:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - there is no information (as in nothing) in this article ,unless some information is provided it should be deleted --B.C ^{say what ?} 19:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - no context. Æetlr Creejl 20:14, 10 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. There were not multiple independent sources that give significant coverage of this subject. The references only confirmed the existence of the company, were internship postings, or were simply passing mentions in the context of another subject.Sanchom (talk · contribs)

The Campus Special[edit]

The Campus Special (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non notable company Excariver (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - there is no assertion of notabilty. In fact, there's nothing but an infobox and an underconstruction tag that's been there for a few days with no actual construction taking place. -- Whpq (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article now has actual content, but there are no reliable sources to establish notabilty. The references provided are not indpendent of the subject. -- Whpq (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question - I will try to add more sources such as news sites that mention the company and career centers that work with the company. How many sources do i need to site until people will think this is a real company? Msu123 (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reply - The question is not whether the company is real, but rather whether it is notable. We have fairly strong rules about notable companies, and how to document them; and I'm not sure whether this one qualifies. Your sources are rather weak, and marketing-related (which weakens their reliability, for reasons that I'm sure you understand as a marketing student). --Orange Mike | Talk 14:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I apologize for any actions that i may have taken that aren't in accordance with the wikipedia rules. I am starting this page for a school project. Please let me know what i need to edit in order to comply with the rules. Msu123 (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Could you explain what school project this wiki article is for, and disclose any connection you might have with the subject of the article? -- Whpq (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answer - This is an extra credit assignment for my marketing class. Just about every student at our school and these other universities know these coupon books around campus and they didn’t have an entry on this site so I picked them. Besides being a student that has seen the book I don’t have any other connections with them. Msu123 (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Circulation seems notable enough. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 21:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - They are coupon books given away for free, and not a circulation magazine so I'm not sure if you could call it circulation. In any case, there's no sources for the number. -- Whpq (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I didn't post the number of books they print. Msu123 (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: We (at least I am) are referring to the statement in the article They are based out of Atlanta and Chicago and print 2.5 million coupon books annually for 70 public & private universities. -- Whpq (talk) 21:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Ok thanks, I thought you were refering to a by school basis. I've tried to change many of the statements and use more sources. My goal is to keep this from being deleted, so I have no problem with removing things like "2.5 million." Please let me know your thoughts! I need the extra credit!! : ) Msu123 (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - but needs sourcing to the financial press, not to college papers and the like. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Considering this is the best source I could find, and it provides no real information upon which to base a proper article, I'd have to say there's insufficient coverage for a global encyclopedia. — Scientizzle 17:14, 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 delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 22:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ASPIDER Solutions[edit]

ASPIDER Solutions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non notable company Excariver (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This article certainly reeks of WP:SPAM. Also, I haven't been able to find much about the company, so the article wouldn't meet WP:V. This appears to be an upstart company, not (yet?) notable enough for Wikipedia. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It hasn't established notability and doesn't tell you anything about the subject. Thanks, George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^{Help and assistance} 00:17, 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. One WP:SPA ignored, arguments for deletion were valid. Arguments for keep were of the inherited notability variety, which are not deemed valid. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Stinemetz Law Firm[edit]

The Stinemetz Law Firm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non notable law firm Excariver (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Note coverage in Houston Business Journal and in other reliable sources. --Eastmain (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. I originally tagged this for speedy and then removed it when more references were added, but I warned the author that it read like a news release and still needed work. Alas, the material added since then has made that situation worse, not better. The law firm is marginally notable, and the article is very much promotional despite the sources. I don't see this article getting any better, and I suspect there's also a COI involved here as well. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I wrote this article in an attempt to give presence on Wikipedia of what I think is a trend in the legal services industry. It appears though that I am running afoul of rules that I was not aware of, for which I sincerely apologize. I also truly respect your efforts to keep Wikipedia clean of promotional rif-raf. I am willing to rewrite the article per some specific guidelines. I understand that some may think that it is not notable. Which I think is in the eye of the beholder. There are hundreds of articles out there on Wiki dedicated to law firms, and the only difference with this one is the number of attorneys they employ. They all have the same business model. This one doesn't, and it is representative of an emerging trend. However, if the majority consensus is that it should be deleted, then so be it. By the way, I also wrote the original article on the high school that I attended. Perhaps that was a COI as well. --Ivodjambov (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your understanding. In a nutshell, each subject stands or falls on its own merits and notability. Those law firms which have articles already have usually made themselves notable through participation in notable cases, longevity, well-known partners, or other things that have put those firms in the public eye. Frankly, there are a number of articles about law firms that don't really belong, but we haven't gotten around to them yet. (We have a lot of articles to keep an eye on around here!) We also get lots and lots of articles about companies of all kinds that are written by owners or employees that are meant to promote the company, so we keep a particularly close watch for those. As for your high school, I suspect that nearly every such article here has substantial work done by current or former students, so as long as the articles aren't overtly promotional, COI usually gets a pass on those articles. Besides, high schools are held to be pretty much automatically notable by longstanding convention. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Note coverage in Houston Business Journal. That guy Stinemetz was also quoted in today's Wall Street Journal. --Laddicks (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Citation, please? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • i don't know about the WSJ but here's an assorted list of references from the Financial Times: http://search.ft.com/search?queryText=stinemetz&aje=true&dse=&dsz= --Ivodjambov (talk) 02:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • and a couple of references from the Houston Chronicle http://search.chron.com/chronicle/search.do --Ivodjambov (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I'm seeing a trend here. We seem to be doing a good job of asserting the notability of Doug Stinemetz, but not necessarily his firm. Many of the links provided refer to his work with his former firm (and the only Chron link relevant to the firm simply refers back to another ref in the HBJ). I'm beginning to wonder of a beter course of action would be to have an article about Doug Stinemetz himself, with a section about the firm as a part of that. I realize it's a semantic difference, but it's an important one. How does that sound? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:33, 12 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 Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JProductivity[edit]

JProductivity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non notable company Excariver (talk) 19:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not notable? The company and especially their Protection product are very good. I think Protection is the only licensing framework of choice in the Java world. Nothing else could compare... So it's definitely important product and the company itself for the Java community. And overall, there's not too much Software Licensing offerings listed in the DRM category. Therefore just another good addition would not be bad at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.73.0.193 (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the company's products being "very good" is concerned, please read WP:ILIKEIT. It doesn't matter if they are good or bad, what matters is whether the company is notable, for instance through coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If "being good" had been a criterion, we wouldn't have had an article on Microsoft ;) Aecis^Brievenbus 23:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning towards delete, there's no indication that the products are any different from the loads of products on the market, and the only coverage I have been able to find is this press release on Business Wire. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "very good" should not matter at all. However, when talking about licensing software development companies there are very few companies. Licensing Solutions is very niche market with Macrovision being the dominant player. I would disagree that jProductivity products are no different from (as you put it) "loads of products on the market" - however this is just a metter of openion and I belive should not be a reason for deletion. Plus there is no way to indicate such info in the article without sounding impartial. Regardless if jproductivity's products are different or not different - they have niche product and competing in the tight market (i.e., licensing solution) dominated by Macrovision. As for coverages - there are few. For examples: SDTimes By David Rubinstein;JavaWorld;JavaLobby;PRNewsWire;EON BusinessWire;ThomasNet. There are a number of examples of companies "not as notable" as Microsoft that have articles about the companies on Wikipedia - for example Designers_Management_Agency (I would not want to bring more example of such). I would appritiate if you would strongly consider to reconsider your "Leaning towards delete" position. I would like to write an article about companie's flagship product "Protection! Licensing Framework" and it , of course, would not be possible without reference to the company itself. Please contact me via email if there is anything I could be of help. Regards Karra.sun (talk) 01:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Notability on Wikipedia is determined not by whether we think a subject is notable, but whether there are reliable sources which indicate that others have found it reliable. All I see are press releases. Regardless of the merits of the product, there are no independent reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 19:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I did some more research and here are the sources I was able to find which are not press-releases. Dr. Dobb's by Rick Wayne; Dr. Dobb's by Shannon Cochran; Application Development Trends By ADT Staff; Application Development Trends By Rich Seeley; Computerworld By Mark Hall; Delphi Informant Magazine By DI Stuff; Java Developer's Journal-JDJ By SYS-CON Media Staff and , as mentioned previously, SDTimes By David Rubinstein. I am giving my "best shot" if you still think that this is not enough - oh, well... One question though, when we talking about companies in a very niche market (such as jProductivity in licensing market) what level of notability WP would expect? You would agree, I hope, that niche markets are not getting as much publicity, reviews, etc. in comparison to the companies/products in the the mainstream marketplace for several reasons - one of which is "because these markets are small (niche)" and "not that much interesting to write about". To quote WP's article on Niche Markets - "...they (niche markets) are by nature small in comparison to the mainstream marketplace...". So, does this means that no company in the niche market have a chance to be written about in WP? because unless such company/product is moved into mainstream then there is almost no chance to become "notable" from WP's point-of-view. Note: this company (to my knowledge) is very much notable in licensing marketplace. Anyway, if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to send me email. Regards Karra.sun (talk) 18:34, 13 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 - literally 2 google hits for this, both connected to this article. Just a schoolkid's waste of time. ~ Riana ⁂ 19:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was that close to my life[edit]

It was that close to my life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completely non-notable neologism. Contested prod. I wish I could make this fit a speedy category, but it's a stretch to do so. Fabrictramp (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO, WP:NFT, WP:OR and probably a gaggle of others. Article proclaims "The phrase: "my life" was coined by the one and only Amanda Williams. There is a new lexicon of vocabulary that she has for the English Language!" This cannot be proved or cited and is original research or perhaps written by said person or her friends. Maybe salt it as well. Doc Strange (talk) 19:16, 10 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. --Esprit15d • talk • contribs 21:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Sanger[edit]

Andrew Sanger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced (by actual reliable sources) bio of a minor travel- guide writer, credited with the writing texts of house travel guides, not creating his own. His last actual book by his own hand was published by a vanity press. Calton | Talk 19:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The biography needs to be sourced, but he's a verifiable, published author who's written quite a few books for reputable organizations such as AA and Thomas Cook[23]. Pburka (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Keep,provide a source and expand --B.C ^{say what ?} 19:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Carlton comments that Andrew Sanger is 'credited with the writing texts of house travel guides, not creating his own.' This is incorrect - almost all of Sanger's titles (many can be bought on Amazon, etc - see search results at Amazon.com search) have been published by major publishers, such as several recent titles by AA Publishing and Thomas Cook Publishing (among the UK's largest guidebook publishers) and earlier titles by Penguin and other large publishers. Several have been co-published by US publishers (see especially Globe Pequot and Fodor's). At Barnes&Noble Barnes & Noble list 32 titles by Andrew Sanger. At abebooks.com, 30 titles are shown, including some of his older works. A brief internet search shows many of these titles in translated editions around the world. Carlton also states that Sanger's 'last actual book by his own hand was published by a vanity press' - this again is completely wrong: according to Barnes & Noble search above, Sanger's last books were published by Thomas Cook Publishing, AA Publishing and Dorling Kindersley. None of his titles appears to have used a vanity press, although he did bring out a novel in 2005 which was published online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David-Freya (talk • contribs) 22:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep That they are at amazon of course is meaningless, but that his work is published in Michelin and other prestigious series is notability.DGG (talk)
• Keep per the comments made in this discussion. (jarbarf) (talk) 08:20, 11 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 or opinion about a possible new article titled Hand Rating System.

Edward Hutchison[edit]

Edward Hutchison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Per WP:NN. No media coverage found on Google, Google News, Yahoo! or MSN. Google hits are his own web site, this Wikipedia page (that was fast as the article was only created yesterday) and numerous forums, blogs and NN poker sites. All of the references in the article are his own web sites. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 18:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The biographical details have been kept at a minimum - and they are the ones which have been sourced to Hutchison's websites. (I would think the info about him being married and having children is accurate!..) The emphasis on the article is on his Hand Rating System, which is an important concept in poker games, e.g. Omaha, because it introduced a Bridge-like system into poker -- and for this there are certainly independent sources! I'll replace the sources of the system's author with independent sources. -The Gnome (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well maybe there should be an article Hand Rating System created dealing with that as the subject and include this person in that article. He's certainly not notable for his own article. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 19:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to be fairly known amongst the poker community, especially Omaha players (see here). What do we do about a person who's famous for one thing and one thing only? Such persons are usually not denied a biographical entry/stub in Wikipedia. (Recall the Glasgow airport worker who beat up that terrorist - can you?) Perhaps the article should be renamed "Hutchison Hand Rating System" and include a biographical summary about its inventor. -The Gnome (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the article should be renamed "Hutchison Hand Rating System" and include a biographical summary about its inventor.

That's essentially what I said. The focus more on the system and what it entails than on the person that came up with it. Your call, but it has to be done before someone else "votes" here, otherwise the AfD will have to run its course. If you don't know how to move an article, let me know. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 20:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind allowing the AfD to run its course; I don't have a strong opinion on the matter, anyway. The comment by 2005 herebelow ("If inventing the point count system doesn't make him notable, then neither is the system itself") is very interesting. -The Gnome (talk) 09:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Omaha point count system is known to some degree; I have never seen anyone refer to it for other games. I would immediately AFD an article on the point count system as it doesn't stand on its own. It's an invention of a person. A similar system can be found at Bill Chen#The Chen Formula. I strongly believe we should be consistent with things like this, so if the point count system is talked about, it should be in an article about Hutchison. If inventing the point count system doesn't make him notable, then neither is the system itself. One further note, the point count system is not very good, but its fame or notability is irrelevant to whether it stinks or not. At this point my contribution would be to weakly Keep but strongly oppose renaming. 2005 (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's also Michael Capeletti's system for example. Hutchison's is supposed to be apply for both Omaha High and Omaha High/Low. Although its inventor, and other players, supports its use for other poker variants, I cannot recall this being the case to any significant degree at all. You wrote, "The point count system is not very good, but its fame or notability is irrelevant to whether it stinks or not". Totally agree. (I will now check out Wiki for a John Patrick entry, if you don't mind.) -The Gnome (talk) 09:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't feel that a case has been made for the notability of Hutchison or his system. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the create article idea. Create Hand Rating System, and bring in Hutchison's counting system, and other notable systems (being careful not to just create an unending list). Short biographical content on creators. Redirect Edward Hutchison to the new article. StephenBuxton (talk) 17:31, 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 that the majority of approval to Keep article.--TrUCo⁹31¹ 15:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)))[reply]

Scary Movie film series[edit]

Scary Movie film series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is redundant, all this information about the Scary Movies are found in the respective articles. The rest is practically trivia, and the plots are repetition of whats in the respective articles. TrUCo⁹31¹ 17:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 17:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The Plots section should be deleted, but the rest deals with the series overall, rather than the individual movies, so it couldn't be merged into them. Also rename Scary Movie series. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete It just has information that the other articles on these movies have. Not nessecary until further into production process. Can always create again later anyway. Mrx9898 (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikipedia is not paper. An overview article for a film series is always a good idea, especially if every film in the series has an article. 70.55.85.35 (talk) 22:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but clean up. See an article like The Fast and the Furious (film series) (which I created only as a stub) as an example of bringing together information about the series as a whole. Spider-Man film series is a pretty extensive example of this, with commentary about the box office performance and critical reception. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Erik. Maxamegalon2000 06:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment-well if it can be made to a page similarly to The fast and the furious and or the spiderman film series, then yes keep but if not then...TrUCo⁹31¹ 00:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep But needs a complete rewrite and sources. Information on production, actors, ideas etc.--The Dominator (talk) 05:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep But clean up- per Erik. Save-Me-Oprah^(talk) 13:50, 12 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 Canaan --JForget 02:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Canaan[edit]

Ancient Canaan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I made it clear to the author of this article that it must either be redirected to Canaan or deleted altogether, since there is no modern Canaan that is commonly referred to as "Canaan". Additionally, the article as it exists now is pointless, and the author has a history of using talk pages as forums about the topics. Since redirecting only results in reverting, Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 17:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By whit what historical rights your making these judgments that there were no Ancient Canaan?

Did you knew that long before the hebrew occupation there were high culture and civilization that was long ahead Europeans.

Im myself a European and I dont no problems with the fact that a lot of the Ancient Creece influence comes from Ancient Canaan, from the ancient Arabs high culture.

There is no way Im going to let these historical facts not to be featured in the Encyclopedia of Wikipedia.ASEOR2 (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And that is exactly what the article Canaan covers. Your article covers none of that. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 17:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a work in progress.ASEOR2 (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Redirect per nom. Seems to be a simple fork. --Veritas (talk) 17:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You people seem to be hidin the presence of Ancient Canaan, because it's doesn't fit in your agenda

How can you deny the high culture of arabs in Ancient Canaan? Circa 5000BC-1000BC?

why you the editors of Wikipedia the Encyclopedia want to depress? You must know that the historical events and people in Canaan does begin far before the times of Hyksos/Hebrew occupation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ASEOR2 (talk • contribs)

• Delete per nom. Any useful content in Ancient Canaan (likely to be very little) can be brought up on the talk page at Canaan as a possible addition. The article is redundant, as the article's creator has not given any clear distinction between the subjects of the two articles, only indicating that the Ancient Canaan article is a "work in progress." Silly rabbit (talk) 17:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Canaan as simple as that. Dekisugi (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Canaan and full-protect the redirect. Deor (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Canaan. A lot of people are likely to search Wikipedia using "Ancient Canaan", so a redirect seems appropriate. But certainly, there's no call for an "Ancient Canaan" article that's different from the Canaan one. -LisaLiel (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• At this point I accept everyones views and will work on for better article for Ancient Canaan page. Or I might as well adopt the Canaan page to work with everyone else. Either way as we agree it. ASEOR2 (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Canaan. Bible sources are not reliable sources (except to source claims such as "In the Bible, ..."), the sources provided do not provide any proofs for the editor's claims, and the editor is edit warring to keep reverting it away from a redirect. There is no reason to have two different articles on the same subject. Corvus cornix_talk 20:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Israel vs ancient canaan? Hello? There is no Ancient Israel if there is no Ancient Canaan.ASEOR2 (talk) 21:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Israel refers to the present-day country. There is no present-day Canaan. Corvus cornix_talk 22:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an argument. The Ancient Israel page should link to Canaan. There is nothing ancient in Israel, compared to Ancient Canaan, Ancient Creek and Ancient Egypt or Ancient Mesopotamia, or or ... continue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ASEOR2 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I will fully and unconditionally support a protected redirect. One that ASEOR2 or one of his sockpuppets cannot revert. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 01:32, 11 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 CSD G12. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 16:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SlBlogs[edit]

SlBlogs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is an advert for a blog host site open only for a few weeks, created by its owner. It is non-notable, commercial and unencyclopaedic. Karenjc (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. 99.230.152.143 (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete G12 The text was lifted directly from http://www.slblogs.org . So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:30, 10 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.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 21:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pyong[edit]

Pyong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Okay, I admit I sort of started this... The page's creator was mad that the page had gotten deleted, and told me that he or she was about to add sources to the page when it was nuked. I assumed good faith, and suggested that he or she re-create the page. However, the sources in this revision are all DeviantART and blogs, and therefore this page's subject fails WP:RS. Suggesting a salt this time. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Insufficiently sourced. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable. hateless 19:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:NFT. Æetlr Creejl 20:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it's been speedied, it's gone to AfD, the AfD was closed prematurely due to the speedying (I started the original AfD). The creator has yet to provide any information that this emoticon is notable. Corvus cornix_talk 20:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and replace with a disambiguation page to Kim Pyong-il, Pyongyang, Won Pyong Oh, etc. Pburka (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because you may have not heard of Pyong yourself, does not mean that it is not notable or not worth mentioning. Many people search after this information, and when people like you guys take it down, how are people supposed to find such things? The point of Wikipedia is to inform people, and give information. That is exactly what I am trying to do, I just want to inform people about the subject, and everyone else is acting like I am posting a page of random keystrokes.

If something from another culture it does not make it wrong. And if it is not familiar around you does not make it any less. Pyong is also from Portugal, but I think Americans should have to right to know about it too.

This is the only page I have ever added to wikipedia because I felt it was something very notable that Wikipedia lacked.

Just because something has originated on the internet and not from a book does not mean it is not valid.

I cannot understand why you are so against the addition of Pyong, I just want people to be informed. I am trying to help, while everyone else is trying to disable others access to information. If you cannot understand a language it does not make it a non-valid source. That borders on racism if you are going to devalue something based on it's culture.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomoya-kun (talk • contribs) 21:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tired of trying to argue this, everyone seems to be power hungry and trying to exert authority over something for no reason. If you think the content of the page is not full yet, that is the point of Wikipedia, people who know more will come along and add their intelligence as well. But they cannot do this if no page exists. Do what you want with the page, but think who are you actually helping? All you are doing is depriving people of information, and maybe feeding your ego, but nothing more. Good bye. Tomoya-kun (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Well actually, others can. They can simply start a page themselves, perhaps with legitimate, verifiable sources as opposed to what you've given us. Please spare us the cries of racism and other garbage. If you insist on behaving in this manner, you don't belong here. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually here in Italy many people use this emoticon on msn and not only, I have seen on my university people having stickers of that red fox and pins... That drawing seems to be well known in the japanmania subculture inItaly. Thus, being that fox so popular and recognisable, I believe the page shoud be kept but majorly revamped and cleaned-upZisimos (talk) 00:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt as non-notable and without reliable sources, and good riddance to Tomoya-kun — who, by the way, is an WP:SPA. Boy, that's a surprise. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• What is wrong with trying to inform people? You act like I killed someone. Wikipedia already has everything I have searched before this, which is why I added it, because it seemed to me something it needed. I added under construction because it is not finished yet, and it says you are to allow a few days before requesting for deletion. I have been given barley anytimeTomoya-kun (talk) 22:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You seem to be missing the part about notability. Just saying something's notable doesn't make it so. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and a recommendation to Tomoya-kun to keep your ego under control and if you say you are going to leave, please leave. JuJube (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • JuJube, be civil and don't bite the newbies.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 21:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went and did research on the type of articles that Wikipedia will allow, is it possible to keep this article as a stub? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Stub Because according to everyone it is short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, but not so short as to provide no useful information. Tomoya-kun (talk) 23:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are two policies that are at the issue here: WP:N and WP:RS. The first one states that articles in the encyclopedia must show notability by being covered in reliable sources. The second policy states what these reliable sources are. None of the links on the page can be considered a reliable source. The bottom line is you haven't proved that Pyong is notable, or important enough, to be included into Wikipedia, and everything we've seen points to Pyong not being close to being notable. hateless 23:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you guys are right. Just delete it then. But is there then another site I can post this information for people to find? Tomoya-kun (talk) 00:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No need to be sarcastic, we're just trying to keep a high standard here in wikipedia. The article need some major cleaning up for syntax and spelling but could be kept according to my opinion Zisimos (talk) 01:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please explain what reliable sources have been provided that would cause this article to be kept. Corvus cornix_talk 02:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything2.com is what you're looking for. They're similar to Wikipedia except they accept anything. hateless 10:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Southkoreanfuncraft --Cloudir sky (talk) 12:07, 11 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.--Kubigula (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Koopa[edit]

DJ Koopa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Apart from unreferenced claims about his role in the rise of internet radio and how well received his remixes are, this seems like a WP:VANITY article. JASpencer (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No real claim to notability. No references.--Michig (talk) 16:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Doesent seem to be notable --B.C ^{say what ?} 17:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 17:55, 10 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 Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Konee Rok[edit]

Konee Rok (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced-by-reliable-sources, promotional article -- created by its subject, natch -- of "music video & film maker". Essentially a listing of unlinked/external-linked credits -- unlinked for good reason. Speedy-tagged, but speedy tag removed --well, I'm not sure why. Calton | Talk 15:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The initial posting of this article needed several changes to demonstrate validty and to follow wiki guidelines. Many of the links and notability points have been added and adjusted to better confirm the information and credits. Further searches and more contributers will help to improve this article. Cityvscity (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy for now, let Cityvscity work on it. Actually, it would be better if Cityvscity worked on a few unrelated articles to get the hang of citations before trying to get the article back to mainspace. Speciate (talk) 07:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks like this article had been improved upon substantially since it's inception.Larryandjai (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - reluctant, but still such a bad article, full of inline external links and unsourced assertions, that I feel it fails verifiability and reliable sources. It is not our responsibility to provide proper sourcing for this piece of self-aggrandisement. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:16, 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 Delete per WP:SNOW. Nick Dowling (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why the english civil war broke out[edit]

Why the english civil war broke out (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

PROD was contested on the grounds that sources were added, but the lack of sources had nothing to do with the PROD nomination. This is a personal essay, and most of its content duplicates English Civil War. Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 15:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Look Mum, my school assignment is on Wikipedia. Seems that there is already an article about the English Civil War. You might want to contribute to the existing article. Mandsford (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Unsourced, O.R. essay. No doubt, anything useful here is already included in the main article on this war, but on the off chance that anything new can be verified, it can certainly be added in. ◄Zahakiel► 16:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an OR essay. It's mostly redundant to the English Civil War article, but I'd go along with Zahakiel's suggestion as well. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 17:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This isnt a questions and answers website , the reason why this broke out should be included in the english civil war article --B.C ^{say what ?} 17:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per OR BusterD (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OR and is redundant anyway. Wikipedia isn't a place to post your school work, No ifs, ands or buts about it either. Doc Strange (talk) 19:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the fact that Wikipedia isn't a place to post schoolwork; this is redundant to existing articles anyway. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:25, 10 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.