< February 1	February 3 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 06:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kokoro no Tamago[edit]

Article is too short and too vague, not enough information. Momusufan (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep valid stub. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 00:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ As Blanchardb said, it's a valid stub. Fg2 (talk) 01:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Broadening to Keep or merge after further consideration. Fg2 (talk) 05:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 02:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it was never released as a single, per WP:MUSIC it should be merged into ~~Buono!, unless there's an article for the album~~ into Honto no Jibun, the article for the single I hadn't noticed this is the b side from. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note This song is the B track to the single Honto no Jibun. Momusufan (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, as Quasirandom has ably proposed. -- Hoary (talk) 02:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the single it's a b-side of. B-sides are rarely notable in and of themselves.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Woww!... Okay! THE Hello! Project's BUONO!!! Of course I agree to strong keep this KOKORO♥ちゃん. I think so valid stub. done. OAS ^{talk to me} 17:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sigh. Ok, let's go through the motions here: WP:ILIKEIT and all that... TomorrowTime (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It's a B-side of a single. Unless something earth-shattering happens, it'll never be more than a stub saying as much as I've said in the first sentence of this argument. If something earth-shattering should indeed happen, the article can be re-created then. TomorrowTime (talk) 20:41, 3 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, WP:SNOW close. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Miller (Yuba City)[edit]

Article about mayor doesn't establish notability. Simply states he's the mayor of Yuba City, California; no refs, nothing besides that except who he succeeded. jj137 (talk) 23:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:N#Politicians. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 00:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Noble Sponge (talk) 00:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, This page really does nothing more than repeat the information listed on the "Yuba City" page. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO and WP:LOCAL. --Dhartung | Talk 05:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by the nominator. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mamie Thurman[edit]

~~Non-notable murder victim.~~ Withdraw nomination per comments below. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - there were several books written about this woman and it seems to have some notability. --74.167.246.83 (talk) 23:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I missed the part about "several books". Are you certain about that? The only one that I saw was a locally published book by a reporter for the Logan Banner newspaper. Who else wrote about this West Virginia ghost story? Keep per above and below Mandsford (talk) 01:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are at least two books about Mamie Thurman: "Ghost of 22 Mountain: The Story of Mamie Thurman" by George Morrison and "Secret Life and Brutal Death of Mamie Thurman" by F. Keith Davis. She also is featured in "Haunted West Virginia: Ghosts and Strange Phenomena of the Mountain State" by Patty A. Wilson—all of which are in the reference section of this article. Notability has been established. See http://books.google.com/books?q=%22Mamie+Thurman%22&btnG=Search+Books (Mind meal (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Keep That there are two books written about this woman some 70 years after her death[1][2] and a third that devotes some pages of text to the story,[3] is sufficient indication to me that she has long-term notability. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:47, 3 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. Sandstein (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Batesmethod of Natural Vision Improvement[edit]

POV Fork of Bates method. The creator Seeyou (talk · contribs) has a problem with the consensus on Bates method. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. User:Seeyou seems to think creating a POV fork is a good way to work around a consensus that has been reached through arbitration, no less. Salt if needed. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 00:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC, ArbCom rejected the Bates Method case as a content dispute. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 09:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To main Bates method. It is a proper name of it and could theoretically be a search term, but it is clearly a POV-fork as its own article. MBisanz ^talk 01:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. KurtRaschke (talk) 02:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a POV fork and a typo to boot. Mangoe (talk) 14:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain me why ? I really do not understand ? Seeyou (talk) 14:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created in order to circumvent consensus on Bates method, which is the textbook definition of a POV fork. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Nom. Edward321 (talk) 23:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete and salt per Blanchardb RogueNinja_talk 09:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename to the "Modern Natural Vision Improvement movement" or the "Janet Goodrich method" or something like that. Also remove POV that it is superior to the original Bates method. PSWG1920 (talk) 23:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete yes I agree that Bates may have modified his method and title used over time, but this is better treated in Bates method. --Salix alba (talk) 10:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seeyou is attempting to circumvent consensus by creating a rival to the Bates method article. Famousdog (talk) 20:47, 6 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 21:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Command & Conquer Factions[edit]

expired prod, I removed prod as it seemed worthy of greater debate. Salix alba (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article essentially is an unnecessary fork of already existing articles. It does not mention or contribute anything the root articles do not already cover with a greater detail, editorial quality, real-world context and sourced analysis. 84.192.115.88 (talk) 11:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 00:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete A7 No notability asserted by Jmlk17 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 00:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mott armory[edit]

This article is in Danish or Norwegian, and the ((notenglish)) template has been removed twice by its creator. Either Delete or Transwiki to a Wikipedia in the proper language. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 23:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Now translated, but no claim of notability; 3 employee company that fails WP:CORP. Jfire (talk) 23:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. No WP:RS. Sting au Buzz Me... 23:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Jfire, tagged as A7. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 23:56, 2 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 05:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sam T. Jensen[edit]

Contested prod. No reliable sources attest to notability: possible hoax MKolt now 23:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems to be a hoax, and if not, it's not notable enough. Cenarium (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources, and you'd think he'd mention it on his MySpace. --Dhartung | Talk 06:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as probable lies, fails WP:V.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is a hoax. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete hoax Logastellus (talk) 19:18, 6 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 Nakon 17:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gatlinburg Police Department[edit]

Much like with Rockland Paramedic Services' AfD, this is locally notable and doesn't appear to be notable outside the immediate area. As it stands, the stub is more about Gatlinburg than the PD. Travellingcari (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless there is something really notable about a small town or city police department, it is not likely to be notable, and this is an example. Large city ones usually do, unfortunately, have their very public and well-referenced scandals and are consequently notable. DGG (talk) 04:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is one of a cluster of related articles that have dubious notability, but seem to have enthusiastic creators. Others include Pigeon Forge Police Department (down the road from Gatlinburg), Bristol Tennessee Police Department (deleted), Kingsport Police Department (deleted), and Sevier County Sheriff's Office (deleted; Gatlinburg and Pigeon Forge are in this county). There are several red links at List of law enforcement agencies in Tennessee for small-town departments, suggesting that there are contributors who think these articles deserve to exist. Also see Category:Lists of United States law enforcement agencies by state. So they don't waste their time, the article creators involved with these lists and categories need feedback on why most local police and fire departments are deemed nonnotable. --Orlady (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - "there are contributors who think these articles deserve to exist" is enough grounds to create any article. "need feedback on why most local police and fire departments are deemed nonnotable" ... no ... then need feedback on what WP:N is and how to dig up notability for each Articles topic. Your point of view seem extreamly deletionist. Yours and the Nominators statements also seem to be relying upon the fact that, if other stuff does not exist, then why should this which is not a valid reason for deletion. Argument from ignorance seems a relevent article to read at this point. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - based solely on the Nominators statement "this is locally notable" ... point out to me where WP:N's "Locality clause" gives validity to your deletion request. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:LOCAL No it's not policy, but there's significant precedent as also discussed here. Travellingcari (talk) 04:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- and have you read the article? You want it kept on principle but the article isn't even about the PD but rather the town. There is no notability to the PD other than "it exists" which isn't a valid reason per notability in my opinion. But as I said at the other discussion, you're entitled to yours as well and we'll see where this ends up. Travellingcari (talk) 04:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No. As I stated, my keep is based solely on an exceedingly poor nomination statment that is based on nonexistand guideline sub-section. Also, thinking that there is any precedent is not correct, as every AfD is evaluated on an individual basis, not according to a list of precedents. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 08:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The entire contents of this article are also included in Gatlinburg, Tennessee, which does not link to this article. If this article were deleted, it would not be missed, since the parent article has the same content. (Note that Gatlinburg Fire Department already is a redirect to the section of the Gatlinburg article that documents details such as the number of fire hydrants in the city.) --Orlady (talk) 05:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG; non-notable small town police department. Jfire (talk) 02:16, 6 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. The article has been heavily improved to meet WP:N and WP:NPOV, consensus changed during the debate towards keeping the article. Note that the nomination has been withdrawn. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wilmington Montessori School[edit]

~~Non-notable school, advertising. Montessori schools are a dime a dozen. Being edited by an editor with an admitted conflict of interest. Corvus cornix_talk 22:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep. I don't usually participate in school related AfDs and so don't have a strong sense of what consensus marks as notable in them, but felt compelled to point out that this one may be more notable than the average Montessori school as a result of its distinction of a governor's prize from the state of Delaware for one of its teachers. If the prize had been afforded the school, obviously, I could defend the notability more strongly. I have been involved in the article tangentially since I came upon it tagged for WP:CSD#G11 earlier today. I stripped it of promotional language and advised the creator how to proceed under the COI guideline. Since then, I have attempted to help him further on my talk page. Since my linking to the COI guideline, he has not attempted to enter any promotional text, but only to add a logo. Having myself revised it, I'm (obviously) inclined to think that the text now is no more promotional than that of any other school. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am more confident in my "keep" given the additions to the article. While it would, of course, be lovely to stumble upon a five page profile of the school in the New York Times, this is less likely to happen with smaller organizations, as noted at WP:CORP. I'd be a lot happier if there were clear-cut guidelines to refer to for schools, but in the absence of those, this one does seem notable to me. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep. looks a valid stub. per Moonriddengirl the COI issue has been addressed. Sting au Buzz Me... 23:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But the notability hasn't. Corvus cornix_talk 23:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it is the subject of a significant published work and thus meets WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What? There are significant published works about Wilmington Montessori School? Please provide evidence. Corvus cornix_talk 00:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You probably missed the 'Further reading' section? TerriersFan (talk) 23:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment That section was added in the last day, well after you posted your comment and User:Corvus cornix responded. Anyway, as as I note below, it's pretty clear that none of those refs meets the requirements for WP:N. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment - the Hembreck paper was in and that is a significant paper. TerriersFan (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:N as it does not appear to have "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" - none are cited in the article and a Google search [4] provides no references. The only claim to notability is that one of its teachers was awarded a prestigious award, but this has no bearing as notability is not inherited - the teacher probably isn't notable enough for an article, so why would this somehow make the school notable? As a side note, I don't see anything which suggests that User:Corvus cornix made this nomination in anything other than good faith - from the evidence presented this is an unremarkable school, and no offence is intended by saying so. --Nick Dowling (talk) 02:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete insufficient information for notability of this one. Elementary schools, of this sort of others, are very rarely notable. DGG (talk) 04:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, elementary schools really need to be exceptional, not just a good school (which I'm sure this one is). Obviously the author's counterargument 1) is of the What about X? variety. Even if there are other notable elementary schools, that does not affect this one, and even if there are non-notable schools with articles, that does not affect this one. Counterargument 2) is more of a comment on the nominator's tone, but obviously saying there are many Montessori schools is not a criticism. There are many Montessori schools, a testament to their success. Counterargument 3) amounts to a claim that "one of the largest" schools is notable, which is debatable, but difficult to prove in any case. Being accredited and complying with the code are base expectations for such schools and not any indicator of notability. Counterargument 4) again invokes accreditations, but these too are not notability as such is available to many schools. Counterargument 5) involves the notability of a teacher, which may or may not exist, but in any case is not directly transferable to the school. --Dhartung | Talk 05:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added additional sources to the article. For more specifics, see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Wilmington Montessori School. Daddy.twins (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~weak~~ keep. Wilmington Montessori School#Further reading does give some evidence of verifiable notability. Re-editing to delete "weak" and add: if only most secondary school articles were this well-produced! ~~--Paularblaster (talk) 23:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)~~--Paularblaster (talk) 09:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see how that's the case: The first ref was written by the current head of the school, presumably while she's been in this job as it's a very recent article, the second was published by what looks to be a closely related educational association, the NY Times story doesn't seem to be about the school and the remaining refs are trivial references on long lists of grant recipients. None of these meets the criteria required at WP:N ("significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject"). --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - taken together the references meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of trivial references do not add up to notability. Corvus cornix_talk 23:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How do several references which don't meet WP:N add up to somehow meet this guideline? I could probably dig up a bunch of trivial references on myself, and I'm sure not notable. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first ref written by the current head of school is a doctoral dissertation and probably falls under WP:V "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued" and WP:RS Scholarship. Two additional references from educational associations, Tomorrow's Child published by The Montessori Foundation and Montessori Life published by The American Montessori Society are periodicals and could not be considered extremist or self-published by WMS; therefore, they also should fall under WP:V and WP:RS. Daddy.twins (talk) 15:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for additional comments on [Analysis on talk page]
To further address Notability, request for assistance on [Additional items for possible notability]

Daddy.twins (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the New York Times article deemed to be trivial by DGG analysis item #4 [Analysis on talk page]
Added additional content to Wilmington Montessori School#Further reading

Daddy.twins (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (changed to keep on the basis of the material added since I first commented.) i am not sure the material from the Montessori newsletters are notable, nor is a $10,000 expense for asbestos abatement, nor state-wide awards, but position of the founder of the school, and the environmental grants, are sufficient. It does seem to take a good deal of work to show an elementary school is notable, but I think it's been done in this instance. Good job. DGG (talk) 03:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It has been a quick learning curve since my first-ever wikipedia post on Saturday morning. I agree that the NYT article on asbestos is non-notable. I had previously removed that entry based on DGG's prior analysis, as noted on the article's talk page. It was added back in by a well-meaning editor. I think that entry should be struck. Also, I intend to strike the state-wide foundation grant refs, since I have come to better understand the importance of WP:N. I think that the national listing that shows the school in the top 50 in the country alongside several very large organizations could probably remain. Likewise, I think that the national grants/awards (Toyota/NSTA, ING) can remain. After reading WP:V#Reliable Sources I am still unsure of the required notoriety of publications. I understand the preference toward "respected publishing houses", but some additional guidance or comments regarding the use of the two separately published magazines would be appreciated. --Daddy.twins (talk) 15:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - as the "well-meaning editor", I think that the asbestos section should stay. The spending of $10k is not notable; what is notable is that the NYT used this school to illustrate an article on a national topic and on that basis it will be of interest to anyone interested in the school. TerriersFan (talk) 18:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added Montessori Life reference that WMS is "Delaware's oldest and largest Montessori school"
- Henderson, Amy (2004). "The Journey Forward". Montessori Life. Retrieved 2008-02-05. In addition, as head of Wilminglon [sic] Montessori School, Marie helped to develop Delaware's oldest and largest Montessori school from a one-class program into a 440-student school on a 25-acre campus. --Daddy.twins (talk) 21:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Based on that (though I don't think the magazine is a reliable source since it has a vested interest in Montessori schools), I think that the school qualifies as notable. Corvus cornix_talk 00:12, 7 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 05:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Cabot Lee[edit]

Being the father of someone notable doesn't confer notability. According to his obit (it's accessible via the PDF link) and a 1931 Time Article that mentions him very briefly, among other coverage, there doesn't appear to be any indication that he's notable Travellingcari (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable. My initial thought was to merge him into his daughter's article, but I'd even be willing to discuss deleting her article, since she wasn't even a First Lady. Corvus cornix_talk 22:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Never thought I'd see a NYT obit as evidence of non-notability, but there it is. Jfire (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable. Macy's 123 ^{(review me)} 23:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Alice Hathaway Lee Roosevelt should not even have a stand-alone article, let alone her father. Delete both and merge into Theodore Roosevelt somehow. (Mind meal (talk) 02:51, 3 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. WP:BLP1E weighs in favour of deletion unless or until a better home for this content is found. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael LaHood, Jr.[edit]

Procedural nomination. Original CSD-reason was A7, this has been declined. Declining editor indicated that the discussion on the article's talk page should be brought to AfD. Personally, I think both arguments have their merits and remain neutral. Malc82 (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Info The concerns I initially raised were WP:BIO, WP:HARMLESS and WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. User:Dtrebbien (the original author) countered these arguments at the article's talk page. Malc82 (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Meredith Emerson was recently deleted as was the baby who was thrown off the overpass in Hawaii (can't remember his name to look it up, I believe that one went to Deletion Review as well. I can't see the Emerson AfD, however I believe the logic was she was more suited for WikiNews than an encyclopedia. I believe the same applies here, however if the article could be sourced to why he was notable other than for being killed, I'd change my vote. Travellingcari (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with this case, but from preliminary Google'ing, it seems that her killer has not been found. There is a suspect, but he has not been convicted.

Pled guilty and sentenced to life in prison. Travellingcari (talk) 02:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In contrast, the co-trial for the murderer of Michael LaHood was very public, internationally, because of the capital punishment case of Kenneth Foster who was sentenced to death per Texas' then-new "law of parties" statute. « D. Trebbien (talk) 23:41 2008 February 2 (UTC)

Also, there is a page for Natalee Holloway, so the line is very blurred. « D. Trebbien (talk) 23:43 2008 February 2 (UTC)

No comment on that other than WP:OTHERSTUFF, which generally is not a valid argument. Travellingcari (talk) 02:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why you cited WP:OTHERSTUFF; I can interpolate one of the given examples to "Delete We do not have an article on Meredith Emerson, so we should not have an article on this." as a counter-point. « D. Trebbien (talk) 16:47 2008 February 3 (UTC)

No, her argument is "we just deleted article x because of rationale y, which also applies here". That's not a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Jfire (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page begins with:

The following are a list of arguments that can commonly be seen in deletion debates for templates, images, categories, stub types, redirects and especially articles which should generally be avoided, or at least, supplemented with some more arguments.

One of those arguments to be avoided is "Delete We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this.", one that you made. « D. Trebbien (talk) 17:58 2008 February 3 (UTC)

I'm well aware of what OTHERSTUFF refers to. "We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this" is not the same as "We deleted x for reason y, which is a reason to delete this article as well." This is called a precedent and is a valid argument. Jfire (talk) 19:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is your y "Michael LaHood, Jr. is more suited for Wikinews"? « D. Trebbien (talk) 19:47 2008 February 3 (UTC)

Keep See the Talk page. Also, where are interested individuals to look if they have questions about the victim? I can tell you that there is practically no information on him in the first 22 pages of Google results. « D. Trebbien (talk) 23:34 2008 February 2 (UTC)
- Comment Look to the news? I see a fair amount of coverage not to mention the first four hits including a site dedicated to him. I go back to WP:MEMORIAL on this. Travellingcari (talk) 02:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Michael LaHood, Jr." was my query and I opened and read practically all of the results in the first 22 pages of Google results for this. There is practically no information in all of this; there is a sentence here and there, which is how I pieced together that which is currently on Michael LaHood, Jr., but I was somewhat disgusted that all of these pages are basically about Kenneth Foster's trials and "tribulations". The phrase "Michael LaHood, Jr." was mentioned, but his role was always marginalized to "that guy who was shot in the head clear through by a bullet from a .44-caliber pistol fired at close range". Those details are all there.

I saw http://michaellahoodjr.com/, too, but if you visit the page, it currently says "Coming soon". There is no indication that this will ever become a remembrance site, however.

« D. Trebbien (talk) 16:42 2008 February 3 (UTC)

Delete The arguments from WP:BIO and WP:MEMORIAL have not been addressed; dtrebbien even admits above an inability to find significant coverage in reliable sources. Jfire (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments as to the inapplicability of WP:BIO and WP:MEMORIAL have been given on the Talk page. Also, I do not admit an inability to find significant coverage in reliable sources; There are hundreds of sources that mention him, the problem is finding information about him.

What is on the article page is information that is replicated in many of those sources. « D. Trebbien (talk) 17:52 2008 February 3 (UTC)

"Inability to find information about him" is the very definition of lack of substantial coverage or verifiability. Jfire (talk) 19:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"What is on the article page is information that is replicated in many of those sources." « D. Trebbien (talk) 19:47 2008 February 3 (UTC)

Delete. WP is not a memorial. Quale (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please comment as to why you think WP:MEMORIAL applies? I have argued on the article's Talk page that it doesn't. « D. Trebbien (talk) 03:19 2008 February 5 (UTC)

Your argument on the talk page is completely without merit. LaHood is known for nothing of encyclopedic interest except for his tragic death. He does not meet any criteria of WP:BIO, and if he had not been murdered you wouldn't have written the article. This is a textbook case of WP:MEMORIAL. If there is to be an article on this at all, it should be written about the crime itself or the criminal. I am really puzzled how you can argue that this isn't an obvious memorial. Writing an article about a person solely because he was a victim of a crime is usually a bad idea. Quale (talk) 16:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the criminals in the case, Kenneth Foster, has an article, which I invite you (and anyone reading this) to read because you mentioned writing an article about the criminal. Ask yourself after reading it why you wouldn't tag that article with AfD or ProD. (If you would, then there is no point reading further. I am begging the question to try to demonstrate that this is not a "textbook case of WP:MEMORIAL".)

These two articles are extremely similar when you think about it. Foster is not notable by himself and there certainly wouldn't be an article on him had he not been involved in the crime, according to your reasoning. Also, depending on whom one asks (read the blogs that mention "Kenneth Foster" for an idea of whom), Kenneth Foster, like Michael LaHood, was a victim (in his case, of societal injustice) and the page is indeed a memorial to the "tragedy" which played out in the courts. And Kenneth Foster was mentioned just as often as Michael LaHood, through hundreds of independent sources, a few of which are in Italian and German. So I have to ask, if you wouldn't tag his page with AfD, then why would support an action to delete Michael LaHood, Jr.?

And how many people have their name mentioned all over the Internet like that? I think that if someone is mentioned well over a hundred times in well over one hundred, independent sources, then they certainly are worthy of note, or notable, because those well over one hundred writers have already chosen to note him.

These are important things to think about. « D. Trebbien (talk) 05:51 2008 February 6 (UTC)

Temporary keep and redirect eventually. The first paragraph of the article is a memorial, the second paragraph discusses the tragic murder. In general, victims of crimes have done nothing to get into the tragedy, and for reasons of decency we avoid writing articles about them. However, this this is a death penalty case making the crime notorious and hence "notable"; an article on the murderer might be justified. One might argue that it should not be so, but the murderer does receive more attention and achieves more "notability" (though in a horrible and negative way) because of the trial and execution. In this case an article could be made at Mauriceo Mashawn Brown, (#370 in List of individuals executed in Texas). At present, that article has not been created, and deleting this article will lose the only bit of information we have on a notable murder. Once the article on Brown is made covering the crime, redirect this article there. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment there's already an article on Kenneth Foster. The crime may have been notable, the victim isn't. D.Trebbien doesn't like WP:OTHERSTUFF or precedent but there has been some set. Meredith Emerson has made it back to deletion review. WP:BLP1E applies here, as someone indicated above -- he wouldn't have been notable at all if not for being killed. Travellingcari (talk) 12:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, with the article on Kenneth Foster, we can redirect this article there. I agree with you that BLP1E applies in this case (hence my "temporary keep" qualifier). (As a side note, OTHERSTUFF arguments can be good or they can be bad depending on the circumstances of the argument. One should consider such arguments as any other good faith argument.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, I am ok with the idea at Meredith Emerson's deletion review where it was requested that the article be undeleted and moved to Murder of Meredith Emerson. If there is a Murder of Michael LaHood, Jr., then Kenneth Foster, Michael LaHood, Jr., and Mauriceo Mashawn Brown can redirect there. « D. Trebbien (talk) 15:35 2008 February 6 (UTC)

Delete, Wikipedia is not a memorial. While LaHood's death is tragic, there are sadly enough murder victims to make that category not inherently notable, and the controversy surrounding the trial is really about the accused, not the victim. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 12:19, 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 (no consensus). TigerShark (talk) 23:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guilty pleasure[edit]

Article is essentially a definition of the phrase, more suitable to wiktionary, and is completely unsourced. Loodog (talk) 22:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has definite possibility beyond a dictionary definition. Sourcing shouldn't be a problem, see [5], [6], [7], [8] [9]. Jfire (talk) 23:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as shown by Jfire, I think this article has potential beyond being a wiktionary thing. matt91486 (talk) 01:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but source, both practical and spiritual/moral aspects to this phrase. Interestingly, does not mention food (say, chocolate), and no obvious article such as dieting or weight loss addresses cheating. --Dhartung | Talk 06:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Loodog (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are no reliable, indpendent multiple references that discuss this phenomenon (and I mean really discuss it, and not just mention the phrase). No references == fails WP:RS, WP:V etc. S. Proudleduck (talk) 22:54, 3 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) 05:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rum Babas[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. Searches yield nothing notable, nor does anything confirm the so called award nomination. I don't even know the last names of all the members. Lack of references/sources keep notability at nothing. Delete Undeath (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:V and possibly fails WP:MUSIC, there are some minor claims to notability like being nominated for an award and a member being in a notable band, but right now I see nothing here to verify that this is not a hoax. No All Music Guide entry, the band's name plus the city they come from returns nothing relevant on Google.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some references that are non-reliable and can not be cited exist, which leads me to believe that this is not a hoax. However, if you look at the ARIA list of award nominations ([10]), you can see that for 1990 and 1991 the list of nominees is not present, only the winners are listed. So while I think it is possible that the band meets WP:MUSIC, with no references present, it definitely does not meet WP:V, unless someone has an old newspaper or such. SorryGuy Talk 02:38, 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talbert W. Swan, II[edit]

Non-notable local activist, fails WP:BIO. While his family has some prominence in his hometown (the patriarch is in the state legislature), subject's own claims to notability are scant; of his several books, the only one that's broken four millionth in sales rank on Amazon is at #1,671,692. A Google search turns up a meager 69 unique hits [11], led by this article and the homepage of his church. The article was created by an SBA that hasn't been seen since, and has remained orphaned and unimproved for over a year. RGTraynor 07:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 03:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google search doesn't turn up anything that stands out aside from various Christian noticeboards.

Keep per Lquilter; good idea searching G news, I didn't think of that. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 06:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google news search does, though, as the article suggests. 500+ articles in which the name appears, plus it appears he's the ~~named plaintiff~~ defendant/appellant in a Mass SJC case. --Lquilter (talk) 04:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's 500+ articles if you enter all results listing "Talbert" or "W" or "Swan," as you did. Using the name "Talbert W. Swan" that becomes only 26 hits [12], every one a quote from him in a local paper about some issue or another, and not, as WP:BIO and WP:RS require, about Swan himself. The three hits that are not concern a 12-year-old court case, all of which are rejections without comment on appeal. If someone can come up with verifiable, independent, reliable sources about the subject, I'd like to see them. RGTraynor 06:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say this is promising, as he's quoted. He's also quoted in the Washington Post ([13]) and a San Diego newspaper ([14]). That warrants at least a stub, in my opinion. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 06:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Errr ... the governing rule isn't whether his name has ever been in a newspaper. To quote from WP:BIO: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject ... trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." (emphasis mine) Once again, where are the articles about Swan, as WP:BIO requires, and what elements of WP:BIO do you feel he fulfills? RGTraynor 13:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not that his name was in the newspaper, but that he was actually quoted as a source for the article. Of course, you're right, those aren't very good primary sources, but I'm checking out more of the sites that pop up in Google to see if there's anything better. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 13:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being quoted in the paper is neither necessary nor sufficient, but if someone has been quoted many, many times, then that's a suggestion that they have some notability that causes them to be quoted. As it turns out, Swan is prominent as an anti-gay crusader, and while I didn't recognize the name at first, once I started reading, I was like, "oh, him"." --Lquilter (talk) 14:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; I said that the times he's been quoted seem to indicate that he's notable if various news sources refer to him for information. Still going through Google as time permits. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 16:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

just to clarify in case of misunderstanding - I was really responding more to RTrayner. glad you're reviewing the cites. --Lquilter (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, I was just saying I agree. ;) Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 20:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The things Swan's written certainly bolsters the premise that he fancies himself to be an anti-gay crusader, but claims that he's actually prominent as one would have to rest on some genuine secondary sources per WP:RS about him. I've yet to find a single one. RGTraynor 17:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete unless sourced. Google News does indeed have quit a number of quotes, but very little in the way of declarative statements about him beyond identifying his job and employer. There's too little for a encyclopedically neutral article. --Dhartung | Talk 05:25, 26 January 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 22:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless something specific and sourced gets addedto the article.DGG (talk) 04:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the two above me that the quotes are not enough, they seem trivial to me, which fails the significant coverage standard of WP:N. SorryGuy Talk 02:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the coverage provided appears trivial. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 12:20, 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 Withdrawn by Nominator Non-Admin Closure. Tiddly-Tom 17:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leah Lawrence[edit]

~~Yet another unelected Canadian election hopeful; Wikipedia is being used to raise their profile. Standing for office alone does not meet WP:BIO#Politicians~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ros0709 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 2 February 2008

Speedy Keep (ie withdrawal of nomination). There is a greater issue than can be addressed here. Wikipedia has various rules and guidelines for notability (which set the bar quite high for inclusion) and using it as a soapbox. IMO this one article considered alone does not meet the guidelines. However, the article 27th Alberta general election as it currently stands positively encourages articles for each of the candidates. Furthermore, to allow some bios and not others - especially to allow the encumbant due to their holding office but not the unelected oponent - perversely seems to go against some of the WP objectives. Therefore, and especially given the overall neutrality of the article, I request the AfD be closed. Ros0709 (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the following comment refers to the original proposal for deletion, not the withdrawal of the nomination.

I beg to differ, if you look at the page 27th Alberta general election, you will see that almost all encumbent as well as un-elected candidates have been permitted entries. Leah has won the nomination of the party holding power, and is running in what will be a closly contested race to win back the seat for this party. This is not the profile of a fringe, wanna-be candidate. Her entry is not only notable for these reasons, but is also newsworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BigBrocktoon (talk • contribs) 22:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this un-elected person running in the same election not face deletion? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christina_Gray Gray] BigBrocktoon (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have only nominated a couple of entries for deletion I have seen created; I think they should all be reviewed but cannot be deleted en masse - each needs addressing individually. In response to your points: (a) Wikipedia is not a news service and long term notability needs to be established. Candidates who are not elected will quickly disappear and be forgotten unless they are notable for other reasons. That is to say, being an election candidate in general is not an indicator of notability and does not in itself warrant inclusion; (b) Wikipedia policy states that a similar article exists is not a valid reason for keeping an article. Ros0709 (talk) 11:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Being a candidate does not in itself prove notability, but her other accomplishments may be sufficient. --Eastmain (talk) 07:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ros0709, I understand the difficulty of your job, please consider the other accomplishments of this individual prior to deletion, Eastmain, thank you for your observation. BigBrocktoon (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an administrator. Whether the article stays or goes will be decided by an administrator using the arguments put forward here. Ros0709 (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 07:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 07:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Leah’s bio is of historical significance to Alberta, given her past accomplishments, and that she will continue to be a significant factor in the history of our province. To delete this entry is to delete history, inconsistent with the need for appropriate content in an encyclopedia.Advisor11 (talk) 19:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This individual is clearly notable without being elected. She's a well-known writer in Calgary, co-founded Climate Change Central, and she's a newspaper publisher. Whether or not she's elected is irrelevant. Editing is clearly the proper alternative for this individual's entry. Mustang1988 (talk) 21:24, 3 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 Nakon 17:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VOIS.com[edit]

Fails WP:WEB, sources are nothing but blogs. These neither pass WP:V nor establish notability. Crossmr (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Crossmr. --real _decimic 22:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Problems with sources and notablitly. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bad sources = bad notability.Undeath (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 08:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 08:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mashable, while an Internet-only publication, is big enough to be notable and a reliable source. The Alexa data demonstrates enough traffic for notability. --Eastmain (talk) 08:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEB traffic ranking isn't one of the criteria usable to demonstrate notability, and the mashable link is only in regards to their award, nothing else. Unless it can be demonstrated that those awards are notable and recognized as such.--Crossmr (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Also the website has an award from Mashable, and even it's a blog this looks pretty strong. --PET (talk) 08:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the award a notable award? that second link is also a blog. Even if it wasn't a blog its hardly significant coverage as required per WP:WEB.--Crossmr (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Mashable has a Wikipedia article that means it's notable. --PET (talk) 11:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it means the website is notable, doesn't mean their awards are. Notability isn't inherited.--Crossmr (talk) 14:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And what exactly do you want to prove that awards is notable? It's an award given from a big "blog" that HAS a wikipedia page. You can see some photos + VIDEO with the awards here. So it wasn't just a blog post, it was an event. --PET (talk) 14:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite simply would the awards qualify for an article on their own? Is there significant coverage of the awards by reliable sources independent of the subject (that would include those nominated or trying to be nominated for an award there). If there is, then the award qualifies as notable per wikipedia's standards and can be used to establish the notability of the site, because outside of that there hasn't been anything provided which remotely establishes the notability of this site. If the coverage for the awards does exist I might also recommend starting a stub on it using those sources for future reference.--Crossmr (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just search google for "Open Web Awards". You will find a lot of links of blogs. I don't see why an award made by an important website is not notable. It was hosted on a big event, I gave you a link where it proves as a big event (video, pictures, lights, shampagne, big hotel). This was the first edition of the awards so it may not be so notable as the oscars :). What else do you suggest to do so the article can stay? --PET (talk) 00:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs do not establish notability. They're not reliable sources per wikipedia's criteria except in extremely limited fashion (in the event they're not really blogs and in fact operate like a newspaper with editorial oversight, or the blog is written by the subject of the wikipedia article, and can be reliably identified as such). From WP:V The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. If you want to use the Mashable awards as evidence that this website is notable then you need to demonstrate that those awards are notable per the guidelines since it hasn't previously been done. That's the only thing that can be done, because none of the other presented coverage meets the notability guidelines.--Crossmr (talk) 04:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you answers. How do you think we can prove Mashable notabilty?

Later Edit: LINK <- isn't this notable? It mentions VOIS.com and it's an important newspaper in Florida written by a proffesional reporter. --PET (talk) 14:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is what is called a trivial mention. There is no significant coverage of VOIS in that article, simply a name drop. VOIS needs to either be the subject of an article from a reliable source, or a significant part of a larger article by a reliable source. To establish the notability of the mashable awards you need to provide reliable sources (e.g. no blogs, forums, or other self-published sources) that give significant coverage to the awards and are independent of the awards. That means if someone is writing about the awards and asking people to vote for them in the awards, they're not really independent of them. So if a magazine or newspaper or something like that has given some non-trivial attention to those awards then it will help you establish their notability and in doing so establish the notability of VOIS. --Crossmr (talk) 20:50, 5 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. A merge wouldn't have been a bad idea, but there no other programs currently discussed in the Moorpark article. So, even a smerge would probably give this particular program undue weight.--Kubigula (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The High School At Moorpark College[edit]

A Mess and POV problems. Also doesn't show significance Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 21:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 21:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Individual courses run by educational institutions are generally agreed not to be notable, and this seems to be no exception. --Nick Dowling (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The article states that is a high school program, and not in fact a high school. Having reviewed the website for the school in question, I cannot deduce with 100% certainity as to wheather it is a high school or a high school program. The article states its a program, and without any real assertation of notability for said program, I feel that this article can be merged into the Moorpark Unified School District article. Unless of course, more evidence can be produced to show it is its a school in its own right. Zidel333 (talk) 00:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, educational courses (as opposed to institutions), are generally not notable, and I see no reason why this one is any different. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 12:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

According to the website, it is a program of many college level courses to earn a high school degree, not a single course. Zidel333 (talk) 18:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Moorpark College. No established precedent for course programs at individual colleges having articles. JERRY ^talk _contribs 19:42, 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 deleted by User:Faithlessthewonderboy. Non-admin close. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fame Has A Price[edit]

Article about a fictional tv series from a soap opera created by the author. P4k (talk) 21:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per P4k — Ultor_Solis • T 22:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ericthebrainiac has done articles like this before. --Ouzo (talk) 22:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. COI with an inordinate amount of redlinks. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 23:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Author has a habit of making lots of nonsense pages like this. Gromlakh (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as completely non-notable and unverifiable. This may be the most metafictional article I have ever seen in Wikipedia, as it is about a fictional television series within the context of another fictional television series which does not actually exist. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant misinformation, and also WP:SNOW.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:31, 3 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 - consensus favors Keep - Johntex\^talk 14:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Treasure (film)[edit]

No assertion of notability, and appears to fail WP:MOVIE. Prod tag removed by author. Recommend Delete. Dchall1 (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this was an incomplete AfD, but I've fixed it. Collectonian (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, newly created film stub that has had no chance to be expanded. PRODed then AfDed within hours of being started. Film is very likely to be notable considering the starring cast and being listed in AMG and RT. Give time to expand. Collectonian (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Collectonian (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Collectonian. Various members of the cast are clearly notable, so the film is likely to notable as well. In what way does this fail WP:MOVIE? PC78 (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to the film notability guidelines, Notable cast members do not generally grant notability. What is missing is critical reviews and press coverage. You may notice that neither Rotten Tomatoes nor AMG link to any reviews. Yahoo Movies and MSN Movies don't list any either. Dchall1 (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep So far it's a stub and doesn't say why the film is notable, I think we should wait a while before deleting since it does have a notable cast therefore some assertion of notability could be made. The author seems to be a bit confused and I can safely say that he has no idea about the movie guidelines as this is his comment on the talk page: "I disagree with the proposed deletion because Lost Treasure is an action/adventure movie" and made a similar comment on his talk page. I say give the author a chance to expand it though.--The Dominator (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the proposed deletion because Lost Treasure is an action/adventure movie. Please don't delete it. AdamDeanHall (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you here :). Please read WP:MOVIE and provide reasoning based on that guideline.--The Dominator (talk) 22:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn with consensus to keep, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandford scotland[edit]

Just total drivel really. Polly (Parrot) 21:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No question that the article as it's written is a joke but the place appears to exist. Perhaps someone from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Scotland can lend a hand to fix/merge it if it's notable. Travellingcari (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The place certainly exists as a quick search shows. And all such places merit an article by long-standing precedent. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Inhabited place, therefore however poor the writing (this can be fixed) it's a keeper. Will copyedit (and move to correct title once AfD closes). Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination Now that it is no longer drivel. Polly (Parrot) 22:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by Nominator Non-Admin Closure. Tiddly-Tom 07:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Augusta Clawson[edit]

Non-notable author, only gets 80 Google hits. Polly (Parrot) 20:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This woman is more notable than you think. She wrote a book, which has been described as a santatized version of iron workers similar to that of Rosie [15]. There's also an email describing her [16] which is not a reliable srouce however. She is also mentioned in a book [17] Also, Google is incredibly shitty. A query on Google Books shows much more notability mentioning her role in World War II, including this juicy tidbit: "Augusta Clawson, in her role as a Special Agent for the department, was chosen to train and work undercover at a shipyard in Oregon." hbdragon88 (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, FUTON bias. hbdragon88 (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well, the Smithsonian has her welders mask. But also, per Hbdragon, her book has been the subject of scholarly interest and features as required reading for quite a few college courses. Unfortunately I couldn't access the Washington Post story on her death as it is subscription-only, but from what I can see from piecing together various references in passing, Augusta Clawson and her book, Shipyard diary of a woman welder were notable at the time. This is one of those articles that could become something, if sources are found. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As has been said, more notable than you think. Fifty of those Google hits must be Google Books hits. See http://books.google.com/books?lr=&q=%22Augusta+Clawson%22&btnG=Search+Books (Mind meal (talk) 03:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
speedy keep. Obituary in Washington Post, May 17, 1997. --Paularblaster (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination importance is now clear and established. Polly (Parrot) 00:43, 4 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 MErged and redirected to CBS#Logos_and_slogans. Black Kite 17:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've Got the Touch[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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 20:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - into a "slogans" section on CBS, perhaps? —X S G 22:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No reason to delete - this is a very "notable" television campaign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.138.91.91 (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a minute, hold the phone: Look at the original AfD. The ones that were no consensus in the original AfD were Share the Spirit of CBS/CBSpirit, CBS: Television You Can Feel, and Get Ready for CBS--NOT this one. THIS article--the main article of the original AfD--was part of the delete consensus. This is content which consensus has already, nearly a year ago, chosen to DELETE. What's the procedure in a case like this?Gladys J Cortez 20:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have boldly MERGEd the contents of this article into CBS#Logos and slogans. Gladys J Cortez 21:39, 9 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 Merged and redirected to CBS#Logos_and_slogans. Black Kite 17:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Share the Spirit of CBS/CBSpirit[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Share the Spirit of CBS/CBSpirit

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 20:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can be mentioned in the article about the network. Malc82 (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have boldly MERGEd the contents of this article into CBS#Logos and slogans. Gladys J Cortez 21:37, 9 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 Merged and redirected to CBS#Logos_and_slogans. Black Kite 17:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reach for the Stars (CBS promo)[edit]

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 20:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - into a "slogans" section on CBS, perhaps? —X S G 22:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can be mentioned in the article about the network. Malc82 (talk) 23:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have boldly MERGEd the contents of this article into CBS#Logos and slogans. Gladys J Cortez 21:38, 9 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. Nothing to Merge, unlikely search term. Black Kite 17:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Look of America is CBS[edit]

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 20:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - into a "slogans" section on CBS, perhaps? —X S G 22:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can be mentioned in the article about the network. Malc82 (talk) 23:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete already covered as much as it possibly can in List of CBS slogans without becoming WP:OR Doc Strange (talk) 05:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have boldly MERGEd the contents of the slogan articles (where there is content, which in this case there really isn't) into CBS#Logos and slogans. Gladys J Cortez 21:38, 9 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 Merged and redirected to CBS#Logos_and_slogans. Black Kite 17:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great Moments[edit]

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 20:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - into a "slogans" section on CBS, perhaps? —X S G 22:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have boldly MERGEd the contents of this article into CBS#Logos and slogans. Gladys J Cortez 21:42, 9 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 Merged and redirected to CBS#Logos_and_slogans. Black Kite 17:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Get Ready for CBS[edit]

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 20:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - into a "slogans" section on CBS, perhaps? —X S G 22:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have boldly MERGEd the contents of this article into CBS#Logos and slogans. Gladys J Cortez 21:41, 9 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 Merged and redirected to CBS#Logos_and_slogans. Black Kite 17:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CBS: Television You Can Feel[edit]

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 20:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - into a "slogans" section on CBS, perhaps? —X S G 22:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have boldly MERGEd the contents of this article into CBS#Logos and slogans. Gladys J Cortez 21:41, 9 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/redirect to American College of Healthcare Executives. — CharlotteWebb 12:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Health Administration Press[edit]

Non notable publisher. Only self-published sources are provided, no others seem to exist. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 01:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to American College of Healthcare Executives. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan (talk) 20:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with American College of Healthcare Executives. The Health Administration Press is non-notable outside the ACHE. --20:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amlebede (talk • contribs)
Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion —Espresso Addict (talk) 09:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 09:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. It would be useful to preserve the history of the press before it was taken over by ACHE, but this could easily be done within the ACHE article. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:50, 4 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. Sandstein (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of Texas Aggie terms[edit]

Wikipedia is NOT a dictionary, a guidebook, an indiscriminate collection of information, nor is it a directory. This article falls in with all of them. Its primarily Aggie fancruft, and completely unnecessary. Those terms of note are already covered elsewhere, either with their own articles, or in the context where they are used. Collectonian (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep!!, I spent a lot of time on that page. it is well sourced, and is important for wikiproject Texas A&M. It was created to keep the Traditions of Texas A&M University page less cluttered Oldag07 (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Moreover, there is a whole category of Glossaries[18]. I don't see this page any less relevant then most the entries in that category Oldag07 (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oldag07 has started canvassing for people to come help protect the article, leaving messages for with BQZip01, BlueAg09‎ and Karancas. Collectonian (talk) 20:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying three users about a discussion is not a violation of WP:CANVASS. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Selectively notifying three users who are pro-Aggie articles is canvassing and the AfD guidelines. Collectonian (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying three users can be a violation of WP:CANVASS, as WP:CANVASS stipulates "multiple", and last I checked, three is multiple. Notifying specific users about the issue is definitely running the risk of Votestacking and is obviously an attempt to influence the outcome of the vote. Otherwise, I personally believe that the posting was limited and the message was relatively unbiased, though the transparency was questionable. —X S G 23:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have the page watchlisted, so I would have found this AfD anyway. Karanacs (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto with Karanacs. As for your comments, well, that is your opinion and others disagree. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, these are some people who are actively involved in the article. Notfying them is not canvassing. If he asked some user from another discussion, then it would be accurate to call it canvassing. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - violates WP:NFT. Non-notable outside the university. --Amlebede (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal You've obviously not read the sourcing or choose to ignore it. This stuff is clearly notable outside the university. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amlebede, it doesn't matter. Notable does not necessarily mean well-known. « D. Trebbien (talk) 04:12 2008 February 4 (UTC)

Keep This is an article on college traditions and the sourcing indicates that they are quite notable. It seems a reasonable spinoff from the main article on the university. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and also WP:NOT, including a list of information. Travellingcari (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Rebuttal Technically everything on wikipedia is a list of random information Oldag07 (talk) 13:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I disagree about violating WP:NFT, clearly these terms weren't created in a day by some buddies. However, I do think that these terms are non-notable outside of the university, as all references relate directly to TA&MU and very little else. I also don't think this glossary belongs on the TA&MU page, so it oughtn't be merged back in. If anything, it belongs in a Wiki for TA&MU... —X S G 22:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination - there's no evidence that these terms are notable outside of the university. --Nick Dowling (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above assertion is factually incorrect - I originally started the article and I am not associated with the university. I have simply encountered several of these terms in my Wikipedia editing and decided to create a helpful tool for readers. With this article, these terms can be wikilinked as they appear in other articles.

Proof that many of these terms are known and notable outside the university can be found by checking the 44 inline sources given in the article, including:

The Daily Nebraskan
Playboy Magazine
Houston Chronicle
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
US News and World Report
Texas Monthly
Sports Illustrated
ESPN
Christian Science Monitor
The Daily Texan

Johntex\^talk 04:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep These terms are perfectly valid and explaining them in every instance is unnecessarily cumbersome. Terms not used in an article somewhere should not be kept.

dictionary - it is limited in scope

guidebook - where is this a guidebook in any way?

an indiscriminate collection of information - uh...you have the exact opposite here: a discriminate collection of information

directory - uh...where is this a directory?

In the interests of full disclosure, I have asked an admin from University of Texas to weigh in on the matter. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I posted a notice regarding this discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Texas A&M/Announcements. →Wordbuilder (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable. People outside of the university do not care about these terms, thus it lacks notability on a world scale.Undeath (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that the sources for this article include the San Diego Union-Tribune, the Daily Nebraskan (University of Nebraska school paper), ESPN.com and Sports Illustrated, all newspapers/websites that have nothing to do with Texas A&M. Karanacs (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is actually a spinoff of Traditions of Texas A&M University, per WP:SUMMARY, and does establish notability by using multiple third-party reliable sources. At this time, consensus appears to be that glossaries are allowed. Karanacs (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To those who say that these terms are not notable outside of the university — notice this glossary includes terms used by Aggie opponents. There are more anti-Aggie terms not on this list that can be added with proper references. BlueAg09 (Talk) 02:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and also per WP:NOT. Edison (talk) 02:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of it can probaly go in the relevant articles on the sports, the bonfire, the Corps, etc. Probably all of it is there already.DGG (talk) 04:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentA lot of it isn't. if this thing is deleted, would you like to help move everything?Oldag07 (talk) 13:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Stop trying to get a sympathy vote for this article. If it's deleted, it's because it was non notable. If you spent a lot of time on it, that is your fault. Wikipedia is not a place for this type of stuff. Plus, this argument over moving all of it is not that big either. Articles are moved all the time, it's fast and easy.Undeath (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Spending a lot of time is not something where blame should be assessed (but clearly shouldn't be a criteria for keeping either). I hardly consider it fast/easy if things have to be rephrased and inserted into ~20 articles. As for your comment about trying to get a "sympathy vote", this is a talk page where discussions happen. Convincing someone of the merits of your argument is part of the discussion. Actively discouraging someone from discussing an issue is uncivil, IMHO. He is entitled to express his opinions as are you. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article is a well references article that is used to help Wikipedia readers to understand terminology related to this topic. It should be viewed in the same vein as Wikipedia's baseball glossary. Just as a glossary of baseball terminology helps readers understand that topic, so too does this glossary help the reader understand topics related to Texas A&M. As for allegations of "fan-cruft", I can assure you those are baseless. I started this article and I have no connection to the university. I merely saw a need and acted on it to help Wikipedia readers. Johntex\^talk 02:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Notable in the amount of non university related sources. Joe I 03:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources seem to establish that the terminology is fairly widely known or referenced beyond the campus of A&M (or the state of Texas). This glossary does a good job of pulling all the Aggie terms together in a concise, well cited manner that the causal user would probably find useful. Jacksinterweb (talk) 03:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Johntex. Also, I am not associated with the university in question. →Wordbuilder (talk) 04:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But, rename to List of Texas Aggie terms. →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a wealth of sources. "Some phrases are also used by non-Aggies, such as persons associated with a rival school" and some will probably enter local vernaculars at some point due to their ubiquity. This seems like perfect reference material. « D. Trebbien (talk) 04:10 2008 February 4 (UTC) (I, too, have no relation to Texas A&M)
Keep - Well cited and many sources are independant of the university itself. -Malkinann (talk) 04:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Highly useful for interpreting the odd colloquial references used in the various Texas A&M articles. Amerique^dialectics 05:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be very well sourced and other wise notable. Ursasapien (talk) 05:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with the nomination, the article breaks a number of rules for what Wikipedia is not. Also, even with various references, the article is still cruft. As WP:NOT states, "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Additionally, hardly any of the other glossaries are related to topics surrounded by a non-educational fan base. Even Star Wars and Star Trek do not have glossaries. —Noetic Sage 05:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: Can you explain what you mean by "...are related to topics surrounded by a non-educational fan base. Even Star Wars and Star Trek do not have glossaries." Are you implying Aggies aren't educated? or that this is not any relation to an educational page (which in fact it is)? or what? Are you saying that fan bases are the basis for whether or not to have a glossary? I'm assuming plenty of good faith on this one and I think you meant well by it, but you have me really confused on this one. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, *I* was the one that said Aggies aren't educated. :-) Seriously, I don't understand the post from Neoticsage either. Could you please leave him a talk page message and see if he can please come and clarify?

Clarification: I realized when I was typing that it probably didn't make sense. What I mean is that including a glossary of terms for a university is not anywhere on the level of the other glossaries (Chemistry glossary, List of established military terms, etc) because it is cruft and is not encyclopedic. It is cruft because "the entire topic is unknown outside fan circles, or because too much detail is present that will bore, distract or confuse a non-fan, when its exclusion would not significantly harm the factual coverage as a whole". Hope that helps.—Noetic Sage 06:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, the list of lists that Neotisage points to is actually very instructive. It shows that we have American words not widely used in the United Kingdom, Australian English terms for food and drink, Australian English terms for people and other similar lists. Now, I'm not saying Texas A&M has their own dialect in the formal sense of the word. Nor am I comparing them to nations of people, but the idea is the same on a smaller scale. As Wikipedia grows we are inevitably covering a broader set of topics. There is nothing wrong with that. I would have no objection to renaming this as a List instead of a Glossary. Johntex\^talk 06:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move: to List of Texas Aggie terms instead. Although the prefix of the article is Glossary, it is still considered an article in the mainspace. Perhaps if it is moved into the Lists category the article would be better judged and be on a more lenient scale. See what I did on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florida Institute of Technology/College of Engineering if you need "inspiration". FYI: This is not the solution to every single AfD, but in this particular instance, this article is more suited for a List of X page. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 05:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename To List of Texas Aggie terms per naming standards. Lawrence § t/e 16:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I could live with this compromise Oldag07 (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I would be OK with that also. Johntex\^talk 22:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If the problem is with the name of the document, please just change it and withdraw the AfD. I have no problem with either name. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Changing the name of the article to a list does not in any way affect its notability. The article still does not satisfy the criteria there. The content of the dispute here is not about naming but about the article itself. Wikipedia is still not a dictionary. Specifically, this article is a slang guide, which is exactly what is not desired. —Noetic Sage 03:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notability is proven by the 44 inline sources, many of which are national press. Many more reliable sources could be added if you wish. For instance, if you Google terms like "Aggie" or "teasip" or "12th man", you will get hundreds of sources for each of those terms alone. Johntex\^talk 14:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like most of the people concerned about this page have come to an agreement. change this page to "List of Texas Aggie Terms". I don't know when this page is finally archived, and when this paged should be moved. Oldag07 (talk) 02:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oldag07, if you look at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion, it says that discussions must remain open for at least 5 days. That would make this page eligible for closure. However, there is a backlog. If you check that page you will see that some nominations from Jan-30 - Feb 2 are still open. So, please be patient for a few more days and an admin will be by to close. It looks to me like the consensus is actually to Keep at the current name. 14:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johntex (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 we are not a dictionary. Spebi 21:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Offending Team/Glossary[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Youth Offending Team/Glossary

(Currently only the A's of the glossary.) This is a cleaned up version of Veraguinne's first offering. A large amount of content fork material has been deleted. I think I have now persuaded Vera that an associated "Referral Orders Manual" should be posted elsewhere (see this discussion). I think this glossary belongs with the manual rather than here. If kept, the article deserves a better title such as "Glossary of terms in the youth offending industry". -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm inclined to agree that the two can't be separated. SJB (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not appropriate. Deb (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Blatant violation of WP:NOT. --Amlebede (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a dictionary. KurtRaschke (talk) 02:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've missed the point if you consider it a Dictionary. SJB (talk) 10:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:NOT#DICT.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary --SJB (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I've added more text, the Glossary appears able to stand alone, without the need to refer to the Manual. SJB (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have just added more text, but it isn't showing on the page. Could someone please explain, thanks.--SJB (talk) 21:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary...try Wiktionary instead. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{round of applause} 21:39, 8 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 06:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christian 30 Countdown[edit]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian30 for previous AFD and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Music News Scoop for a related current AFD. 1.5 years ago, there was an advertising campaign for this website complete with sockpuppets trying to get it onto Portal:Christianity. This time around, at least they are making it a little less flagrant of a commercial, though it still has no external sources and makes the fantastic claim of 250K viewers. B (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable radio show. the only Google result for it is the Wikipedia page. [19] --Amlebede (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, attempt to evade AfD result. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. -- Dougie WII (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt for all the reasons listed above. Springnuts (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also this related AfD. Springnuts (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete is not notable, has 2 ghits, both to Wikipedia, makes false claims. Also i'd suggest some salt Doc Strange (talk) 16:30, 3 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. Nick Dowling (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keyboardblotting[edit]

This article cites no usable references, and is believed to constitute a hoax. John254 19:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ((prod)) tag removed without explanation, term gets zero ghits. Hqb (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sounds like a hoax to me. doesn't sound like it would be all that good a way to clean a keyboard either. Cryo921 (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems to be a prank article. No google results. [20] --Amlebede (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - first reference is a dead link, second ref is unrelated. No sourcing - delete it.Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Fair Palestine[edit]

A non-notable amateur film that gets very few google hits, and no significant coverage in secondary sources. Pollytyred (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all the google hits i get are on youtube or similar sites. No claim to notability at all. Cryo921 (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Never asserts notability Doc Strange (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not for the reasons above but because this page was created by mistake and its defense:

Ok even though i created this page by mistake the movie is still credible and has been the work of many students in Palestine for over 2 years. This movies purpose is to show the western audience (You) that Palestinian teenagers are just like everyone else, the movie is in english, both Shakespearian and normal. If you had cared to click the you tube hits you would have gotten the trailer to the movie that we created. We have an official website [www.rnjpalestine.net] and the DVD release will be in June. For more info i'm here. Oh and many arabic newspapers covered the event, something you might not find in google when searching for the movie in english.--jo (talk) 19:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, you have to remember this is English Wikipedia. If we can't find sources for the movie in English, then it's NN in the English world. You could add it to the Arabic Wikipedia if you like. Youtube also doesn't assert notability for anything if it hasn't been discussed in greater detail at other relevant sources. Doc Strange (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The movie is in English so why would we have it on Arabic Wikipedia? --jo (talk) 00:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Violates Wikipedia:Notability (films). Film is not widely-distributed and did not receive any awards even in Palestine. The main website of the film [21] suggests that it is targeted toward an American audience and was created in a local setting. --Amlebede (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentTrue it was created for an American audience but distribution hasn't begun yet we all have assignments and exams and no one has time to sit in front of a mac to make the DVD so we can have it copied so it can be distributed.Were only 17 and were finishing High school--jo (talk) 00:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete i changed my mind, i mean were going to have to start a wikipedia page one day and were going to have to go through this anyways so now and not later. If any of you saw the youtube trailer you would see that for children in Palestine an occupied country with no resources or money this is great just getting the trailer out, so why are you opposing this, i mean we are here, we have a movie that isn't at all bad and we just want to get to more people.--jo (talk) 00:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added a couple of references to the article from the English-media sources available. Considering the film first premiered about two weeks ago, it is very likely that there will be more English-language coverage in the coming weeks and months, particularly as it is distributed and shown in other locales. True, we could delete for now and recreate when the coverage in English is more copious, but why do the same work twice? Further, as jo points out, there are a number of Arabic language news sources that covered the film's premiere in Ramallah. I am wondering why these cannot be used to confirm its notability. (Doc Strange says above that if it's NN in the English language media world, then it's not notable to English wikipedia.) Could someone point me to the relevant guideline/policy sub-section that supports this view? Thanks. Tiamut^talk 17:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ans. WP:V does allow non-English sources. See WP:RSUE, Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. An English-lang film could in theory be deemed notable based on non-English sources.

Thanks for the info HG. Jo provided some Arabic-language sources on my talk page. I'm reposting them below. Tiamut^talk 21:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I recommend looking at Wikipedia:Notability (films). (For instance, sufficient if: The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. Or: The film represents a unique accomplishment in cinema, etc.) The student film-makers should understand that inclusion in wikipedia is a significant hurdle and no reflection on the quality of their achievements. Thanks. HG | Talk 17:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for bringing those to the table. So the three links Jo provided me are:

These three links show that the film got coverage in the mainstream media of three different Arab countries, largely because it is, per the notability guidelines, "a unique accomplishment in cinema". The articles all find it interesting that these Palestinian high school students produced and acted in a film they wrote using Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet as the basis though set in a modern day Palestinian city. The film premiered at the major theater in Ramallah to an overcapacity audience of 800 people where it was met with general accolades just a couple of weeks ago. Other screenings will be forthcoming and it's sure to gain more coverage as time goes on. By my reading of the notability guidelines HG provided and these articles links Jo provided, I think the article should be kept. Tiamut^talk 21:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Info. For what it's worth, WP takes note of many High school film programs in the United States but this film may well be unique within the Palestinian context. HG | Talk 22:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tiamut - mainstream coverage, and constitutes a unique accomplishment in cinema. Addhoc (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep per Tiamut: notability established (and just to remind some contributors to the discussion: there are no guidelines or policies that require the main sources be in English). --Paularblaster (talk) 13:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and also: there's a very recent Reuters transcript of some TV coverage of the film. Is raw Reuters a reliable source? --Paularblaster (talk) 13:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks fo the Reuters. Though of limited value in establishing notability (absent corroboration of its usage), the feed is reliable for informational content. HG | Talk 14:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to leave a note to the closing admin and others : it seems that the page has been redirected to In Fair Palestine: a story of Romeo and Juliet (movie). The deletion template has not been appended to the new page. Should I go ahead and do this? Or is someone about to close the discussion anyway? It's been six days now. New sources have been found in the Arab press, all that are deovted just to a discussion of the film, it genesis and premiere. Those, plus the unique accomplishment aspect leads me to believe that notability has indeed been met. Thanks for your time. Tiamut^talk 18:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tiamut ..in it´s context it is rather unique, Regards, Huldra (talk) 06:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article has been rescued w/strong sources indicating notability <eleland/talkedits> 03:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment/keep, if this article is kept the scriptwriters of the movie are willing to improve this article and add more to it, they just don't want to put a lot of effort into something that might be deleted.jo (talk) 11:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are enough references in the article to justify its existence in wikipedia. More the topic is interesting. Ceedjee (talk) 17:32, 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 A7 by Hiberniantears. RMHED (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis Productions[edit]

This article does not demonstrate notability, does not cite any sources and refers simply to a number of Youtube uploads. Wikipedia ia not an advertising space. There may also be a conflict of interest as the author of the article may also be its subject; if not then the entire page would constitute original research. The article was proposed for deletion, with reasoning explicitly stated, but the author removed the tag. Their explanation of this was that the subject may become notable in the future; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The page may in fact be eligible for speedy deletion. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, could and should be a CSD A7. The article's title and the author's name combined return only the article we're debating on Google.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't even find any evidence of this existing on YouTube either. Doesn't need an AfD if it fails WP:V that badly.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

L33t (programming language)[edit]

Looks like insufficiently notable "programming language." Delete. --Nlu (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See previous debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esoteric programming languages the result was delete. --Salix alba (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Esoteric_programming_language#Examples or very weak delete--Sin Harvest (talk) 05:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Its not particularly notable, but I dont think its not notable either RogueNinja_talk 11:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete not particularly interesting in computer sense as a Brainfunk derivative. Does not seem to beet WP:RS. --Salix alba (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent sources to establish notability. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:26, 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 Deleted- not notable then, not notable now.. Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Young Leek[edit]

Completely non-notable young rapper, who hasn't even released any albums or delivered any mainstream hits. Fails WP:MUSIC. I'm amazed this article has been alive over a year. Reverend X (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC or Speedy delete per previous AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Recreation of deleted material and obviously A7. EconomicsGuy (talk) 18:37, 2 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 - consensus favors keep. - Johntex\^talk 14:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of terms used for Germans[edit]

A list of mostly poorly sourced offensive and inflammatory terms for Germans. Has already been transwikied and serves no encyclopedic purpose. Should be deleted as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of ethnic slurs. EconomicsGuy (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is obviously not indiscriminate, as it addresses a specific topic in a comprehensive way. The relevant not is Wikipedia is not censored: "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive." The sourcing can be improved as I have demonstrated by adding two citations. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unencyclopedic mix of slang and derogatory synonyms/euphemisms. JJL (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and a very strong one at that. This is an encyclopedic reference. The offensive words in the article are the subject of the article, they are not used to offend. In reading the article, I learned several new words that I oughtn't use when referring to a German. I also learned a bit about the origin of each word as an epithet. Removing offensive language from wikipedia in this context is like whitewashing history. —X S G 19:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if Wikipedia is not a list of ethnic slurs, as EconomicsGuy suggests, please explain this. —X S G 19:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's been transwikied into wiktionary where it's more appropriate, so no reason having two copies of the same article. Cowman109^Talk 04:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some of the content can also be used in a dictionary, but the subject is encyclopedic DGG (talk) 05:23, 3 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 - consensus favors deletion due to lack of proven notability

Tamas Menyhart[edit]

non-notable supporting actor, unreferenced, prod removed TubularWorld (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Previously deleted per CSD A7. (deletion log) Kakofonous (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - According to IMDB, he only had very minor roles in somewhat noble films. [22] --Amlebede (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Come on now. Can someone have a fair chance to have a Wikipedia page? Yes, his IMDb credits are low and their updates takes a long time! If you take a look at his resume on his MySpace, he's had more credits than on IMDb. He had just signed to a big management and this will take off his career. Give a guy a chance for him to grow more notable. He is working his rear off to be more out there. MeanChe (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - He is currently not very notable. As of today, he only has 270 Google Hits. [23] When he actually becomes notable, he will have a wikipedia page. Myspace is not a reliable source. --Amlebede (talk) 23:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, when he has a decent resume on ill-updated IMDb and has the notablity like Tom Cruise, he gets to have a stable Wikipedia page? MeanChe (talk) 01:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. It's telling that when you filter out the words "youtube" and "myspace" the google hits are less than 100, some of which are Wikipedia and directory-style entries.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the end, Tamas's article is going to be deleted anyways. Go ahead and get it over with. I find it no point to continue on with this. MeanChe (talk) 17:21, 3 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. Tikiwont (talk) 10:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toad (color)[edit]

Contested prod: A good faith search for references found no references supporting "Toad" as a recognized color name, nor could a recognized name be found for either color coordinate offered, the link given as a reference www.davidlittle5.tripod.com/frogstoads Toad is is dead and even if it was not a dead link would not be a WP:RS. There would seem to be a connection between the editor User:David Little and the reference offered at www.davidlittle5.tripod.com, which leads me to question if this article is original research. David would seem to be a relatively infrequent contributor who also edits under User talk:68.44.104.45 After the IP received a final warning Diff for removing templates on Toad (color) without addressing the concerns, User:David Little began making similar edits Diff Jeepday (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've never heard of this color. Georgia guy (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Author claims it is his own invention. Wikipedia is not a place for original content. —X S G 19:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If we start writing articles about every single color, Wikipedia would more than double in size. --Amlebede (talk) 21:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and appears to be original research. PaleAqua (talk) 23:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone. Also, read Talk:Toad (color) for a laugh. JuJube (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ROMALOL! This underscores why the article should be deleted Majoreditor (talk) 03:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable sources and looks OR-ish. Majoreditor (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You can't really come up with a name for any particular RGB color and then say it's an encyclopedia article -- it's original research. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 05:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Toad color is green or brown. ALL toads of the world are green or brown? In English, toad are name of amphibious unrelated in zoology terms. Fail in precise definition also. Zerokitsune (talk) 19:20, 3 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 - consensus favors deletion due to lack of reliable sources to prove Notability - Johntex\^talk 15:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Listfield[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable artist with only a limited amount of local coverage. Scottlistfield also created the page for Jason Chase‎ which is up for deletion. Apparent conflict of interest with Scott Listfield article and possible conflict with the Jason Chase article, indicating an effort of one or two artists to raise their profile through Wikipedia. freshacconcispeaktome 17:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —freshacconcispeaktome 17:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination and for the fact that he is a fan of the Spice Girls. Oh, and due to the lack of notability gained by in-depth exposure by reliable sources. --Russavia (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - created by the artist himself. violates WP:COI. --Amlebede (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has some google-fu in real media, but Maryland Hall for the Creative Arts consigns him to "local and regional artists" [24]. May be later. Mangoe (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Modernist (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fuck you I'm taking down my own page. If you want to be critical of my conflict of interest, that's fair, but I'm sorry that being in Wired Magazine, the Boston Globe, and New American Paintings, along with showing in Boston, New York, LA, and Miami is too "regional" for you self-righteous assholes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottlistfield (talk • contribs)

Comment It's not your page to take down. There's a process that needs to be followed. That's why you don't write about yourself. freshacconcispeaktome 23:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was transwiki and delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sensel[edit]

Unsourced non-notable alternative terminology does not need an article of its own; the term could instead by added as an alterantive (assuming a source is available) on the pixel page that discusses this meaning. Dicklyon (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-this sounds like a dictionary definition. Wikipedia is not a dictionary.TrU Co ⁹31¹ 18:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Cheers, L A X 21:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary, should be OK there.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:15, 3 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 appears to be clear consensus that the future existence of this team is highly speculative and that it therefore does not meet the notability criteria. None of the keep comments have raised any evidence or compelling arguments that this reasoning is flawed. TigerShark (talk) 23:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philadelphia Major League Soccer team[edit]

Included in this discussion are the following miscellaneous pages as they are invariably related to the article:

This article seems to be a bit of WP:CRYSTAL and is written in a way that makes it appear that Philadelphia actually has a Major League Soccer team. While Philadelphia is in the running for a MLS expansion team, the city has not been selected as an expansion city yet. The article seems to have been created in response to Pennsylvania approving funding for a stadium complex in Chester, Pennsylvania.[25] You may also wish to note that the source I just provided is from the official MLS website and they note that the expansion team selection process is not complete yet. Bobblehead ^(rants) 07:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Bobblehead ^(rants) 08:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some funding for the stadium has been granted. This does not a franchise make. Including this article under "Phila MLS team" clearly implies there is such a thing. There isn't a Philadelphia franchise at present. I hope that there will be one, but there isn't. If the creator of the page wants to keep this info on Wikipedia, I suggest it be moved to a category/page more representative (one dealing with potential expansion teams, for example). I'd be more than happy to see this page return when a team is actually awarded to Philadelphia. Posthocergopropterhoc (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Recreate if Philadelphia is actually chosen. We don't have articles on individual country's bids to host the world cup, and I can't really see how this is different. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article per WP:CRYSTAL (template & category have to be dealt with separately). No harm mentioning the proposed team in the main Major League Soccer article but such speculation should not have an article of its own yet. Qwghlm (talk) 10:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article - per Qwghlm. The MLS Template states that Seattle will be an expansion team in 2009, no mention of Philadelphia...yet. Recreate when/if it becomes a franchise. GiantSnowman (talk) 12:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Title is clearly misleading and wrong. Peanut4 (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - the title isn't misleading as MLS clearly intends to add Philly in the very near future. Here's evidence: [26]

JaMikePA (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment That story does not say Philadelphia will definitely have an MLS team. Yes, it looks likely, but at this stage, it just isn't so. Peanut4 (talk) 15:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to an appropriate article discussing the ongoing selection process. Re-create later if developments warrant. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Currently violates WP:CRYSTAL. We can add the team to Wikipedia next year if it becomes notable. --Amlebede (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented.
- Delete. The sun rising tomorrow is "almost certain." My going to bed in the next couple of hours is "almost certain." Expansion teams are never "almost certain," and violate WP:CRYSTAL until an official announcement from Commission Garber himself. A Philly team is likely, no question, but said "preparation for the event" could very well lead to nothing. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 01:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is well documented, citing sources. I would greatly appreciate it if policies weren't taken out of context to suit your own opinions. JaMikePA (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As a comparison, Chester Stadium is not WP:CRYSTAL because an official vote opened up funding for the stadium and thus made its construction imminent. The article in question, however, cannot boast such a degree of certainty (although the article erroneously says that Philly will participate in MLS as if it was, as I said before, the sun rising tomorrow) until the franchise is ultimately awarded. The best we can say is that it has front-runner status to be team 16, but that is still WP:CRYSTAL. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 01:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if there are sources that say what you just told us, doesn't that make the article already suitable?DGG (talk) 05:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it is. But if you could specify what it is you think I told you, perhaps I can tell you what I think is WP:CRYSTAL and what is not. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 06:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there are sources to show it is being discussed that it may be the front runner for team 16, teat would seem sufficient to avoid Crysal Ball.20:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete. A casual reader would think that Philadelphia already has been awarded an MLS team after reading this article. Misleading and a clear example of WP:CRYSTAL Mikerichi (talk) 12:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Agreed. As this article is written it seems like Philly has already been awarded a franchise or at worst is the front runner for a franchise. Limasbravo (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resubmit AFD, please There are problems with this AFD which make it more difficult to process. I see that there are far more deletes. However, AFD's is a discussion, not a vote. Some people are commenting on the template and category. Others comment on the article. There should be a separate AFD. I see more merits in the article than in the category. Comments that the article is poorly written is not a delete criteria. Notability, not quality of writing, is a criteria. WP:CRYSTAL is not an automatic reason for deletion. There is already a company formed. I believe there are some reasons for keep (the company). This article could be written to become a potentially very interesting article on what was done to start the team, even if the efforts were unsuccessful. Since AFD's are a discussion and not a vote, I ask the deciding admin to consider "no consensus to delete, default to keep + consider resubmitting separate AFD on template and category" Archtransit (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So... What you're saying is that this article shouldn't be deleted because the article should be renamed FC Pennsylvania Stadium L.L.C. and all of the current content should be removed and replaced with information about what the company and the government of Pennsylvania have done to get a MLS team moved to Chester? Isn't that pretty much a deletion? I'm also confused on what you mean by some people are commenting on the template and category. The only comment I see on the category and template is one saying that they should be handled separately (I'm guessing on WP:TFD and WP:CFD). I'll admit that I should have seen that comment and moved the template and category off this AFD, but from what I can tell everyone is commenting on the article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that preparations are being made and that fan groups have already been organised (with a reasonable amount of press coverage) means that this is an interesting and potentially useful article. Sure, the team does not yet exist, but I still believe the subject of the article is an notable one. Robotforaday (talk) 21:19, 9 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. Sandstein (talk) 21:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung MP3 Players[edit]

Do we realy need a list of something that can be found on the company's website? RT | Talk 16:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Listcruft Almost no content besides a list that lacks context. Kakofonous (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to the Samsung Electronics page. —X S G 19:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:LC. KurtRaschke (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:NOT#IINFO.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possible selected merge, a different way of saying "delete". See WP:PRODUCT. If one of the products is important because it was the first, consider mentioning it in the Samsung article. Nice list, User:Bep-and-matt, don't get discouraged! Archtransit (talk) 17:36, 6 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:Bibliomaniac15 ,non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Kingdom of Seamróg[edit]

Author cannot provide any sources that suggest this kingdom actually existed. Only two references are provided. One is to a book that I can't find any evidence is real. The other is a link to a non-existent website. I did my own research on Google, found nothing at all. Suspect this is likely a hoax. Gromlakh (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely Patrick Hillery would have issued somewhat of a statement against someone else claiming to be a head of state in Ireland? This has to be a hoax that must be Deleted. Nyttend (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX Doc Strange (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete all. JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

City of La Harpe Township, Allen County, Kansas[edit]

Many townships such as this exist in Iowa, where many cities are coterminous with their townships, but Kansas law states that many cities are independent of their townships altogether. I can find no proof that this township exists; Google reveals nothing but Wikipedia and mirrors, and of the external links on the bottom of the page, one does not list this township, and the other goes to a nonexistent page. It's not even listed in the GNIS database, which includes townships among its 2,000,000+ entries. Obviously it's not a hoax; I think this is a well-meant accident. Nyttend (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for identical reasons:

The only difference between these and La Harpe is that the city-data links work, but if you look at them you'll see that they're to much larger townships: Humboldt is 25.2 mi², and Iola is 44.0 mi², but the City of townships are 1.43 mi² and 4.22 mi² respectively. Nyttend (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if they fail WP:V. I can't find any usage like this in reliable sources, and we already have La Harpe, Kansas, Iola, Kansas and Humboldt, Kansas. They don't seem like duplicates, but as you say, a well-intentioned accident. --Dhartung | Talk 18:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all These are not townships but municipalities independent of any township. While they are categorized as a county subdivision (i.e. an MCD equivalent), they are not townships. The technical term is "independent place". This is analogous to the case of cities in Virginia which are not part of any county but on the same geographic level as counties. We wouldn't call these Virginia cities as counties. nor would we create separate articles for the city and "county". Furthermore, everything in these "township" articles is already in the city articles. --Polaron | Talk 02:20, 3 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. Sandstein (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Writing to Instruct[edit]

Prod contested. Basically a guide to how to write. Fails WP:NOT#GUIDE, WP:NOT#DICT. Redfarmer (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kakofonous (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOR. —X S G 20:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#HOWTO. Tx17777 (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The term "writing to instruct" gets a ton of ghits, but this is like a poorly written personal essay or how-to guide, and there's little salvagable from this.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix[edit]

This is just another update to Street Fighter II. Are we going to write articles on Street Fighter II' Champion Edition and Super Street Fighter II Turbo just because they had new sprites and some gameplay changes ? Also, all the notable info on this game is already covered in the Street Fighter II article. Master Bigode (talk) 16:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this game definitely fits the notability guidelines, and is enough of a change over the previous incarnations that it ought to have it's own article. Trying to force everything in to Street Fighter II (as some editors have tried to do lately) just doesn't work. You'll note there was a proposed merge up for over a month that resulted in no consensus (and yet a few editors opted to try and merge it anyways). This deletion seems like an attempt to force the merge on the editors who disagreed with it. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hadoukeep (sorry, couldn't resist) Very notable update to Street Fighter II, previews of the game and interviews with the producer of the game ([27]) verify that there are enough significant changes in both presentation and gameplay that this would warrant a separate article. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone, particularly Locke Cole. JuJube (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and too many variants on SF2 to lump them altogether in a usable entry. Blunted (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC) — Blunted (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 00:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shoryukeep (blame NeoChaos), notability is not an issue and there is legitimate opposition to a merge. The differences go far beyond nip-and-tuck in gameplay, sound and visuals. The game is a retooled version of one of the most iconic video games of all time, distributed online for online play. In terms of access, distribution, competitive play and historical significance this is more important than the other versions put together. It's 2008, the gaming press are getting twitchy about this one and SF mania is about to go nuclear, sources will be popping up discussing this in far more detail than a subsection in an existing article can cater to. Let it become a stable, growing article on its own, deal with the other versions in a separate 'Street Fighter II variants' article if necessary and let the main SF2 article be an unmbrella covering the guts of the games. Someoneanother 01:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This interview is the kind of source which will be creeping out, note that it's just a couple of days old, there is no way you can cover these details as an afterthought in an already crowded article. Forget gameplay tweaks and graphical updates, the information available will be reception, development and the impact of introducing a player-versus-player juggernaut onto a worldwide network of players. The information in SF2 is a couple of bullet points, that doesn't represent the subject at all. The previous games were released before the internet revolution, with sources having to be dug out of magazines, that isn't the case here. Someoneanother 16:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Street Fighter II has no development section and no reception section - it's 32kb long already and nowhere near complete. More sources: Kotaku has a wodge of them, Shacknews preview Destructoid Interview, Games Radar preview (details on how controls have been changed), and in-depth developer blog discussing changes (part 1). So you're going to cover all this, all the reviews, development etc. within Street Fighter II, in addition to a development and reception section covering the other games? The ultimate state of all the SF2 games within WP is going to be tricky to implement properly, but one thing that is obvious is that SF2 as a merge destination is not appropriate at this point in time, regardless of how the information is divided in the future. Let this one build up and see how the land lies when the other games are sorted out. Someone another 18:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all the info and redirect (no gimmicky puns for me) to Street Fighter II. The game isn't really that unique enough to warrant a stand-alone article. All the information about the changes made in the game could be added to the Street Fighter II, which they are. Jonny2x4 (talk) 02:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Street Fighter II has turned into a mess: this is now one article that talks about seven different games. Each of these games easily meets notability criteria, so why are we insisting on shoveling them all into one article when they could exist on their own (even if only stubs until more information is available about each game)? —Locke Cole • t • c 02:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Read my suggestions for improving the Street Fighter II article at Talk:Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix. Jonny2x4 (talk) 15:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect We aren't insisting on shovelling all the games into one article but there is no point in even having the article, all the information covered in the original article Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix is covered into the merged article Street Fighter II. Also if you decided to split Street Fighter II article into seven separate ones you will end up restating duplicate information over and over again. --Sin Harvest (talk) 03:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The SF2 article's listing for this game looks like this:

Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix

Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix is an upcoming title on the PlayStation Store and Xbox Live Arcade download services. The game is based on Super Turbo, but with sprites and backgrounds replaced by high-resolution artwork drawn by UDON Comics, and remixed music is also in development.[5] HD Remix is currently planned to include two game modes: an arcade accurate version of Super Street Fighter II Turbo and an upgraded version of the same game with over 100 changes from the original Super Turbo. Other features will include[6]:

Online and offline multiplayer
A training mode
Voice chat
A 'Quarter Match' mode which allows players to spectate and jump into online matches
Worldwide rankings and leaderboards arranged by character and country
Indepth statistics tracking
A display mode that fits the game into a 16:9 aspect ratio without impacting gameplay
HD 1080p display for HDTV's

Now compare that to a single 3 page interview about this particular game. Representative? In this interview a member of Capcom's online doohicky says "We’ve been reading our forums a lot, of course, and one of the overwhelming request is, “We want an HD Street Fighter.” There are obviously some costs associated with the art in creating such a thing—it’s not a cheap project—but it’s a project that’s worth pursuing to bring Street Fighter at least a bit more current than it has been. I think Hyper Fighting,” when you look at it, as good as a game as it is, when you play it on an HDTV, it does look like an arcade game from the ’90s. It’s not a bad thing…but we wanted to see what an arcade game…what a 21st Century Street Fighter would look like. This is a step toward that." That's just two sources, never mind the inevitable deluge of reception information that's going to be coming. A little list of a few changes is not going to cover this subject. Someone another 16:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The SF2 article listing is exactly the same as the article being nominated, if the article was expanded with information from the interview (and doesn't just redundantly repeat what is already been said) then yes I would keep but as it doesn't contain any information that isn't already covered in the SF2 article than I don't see why it shouldn't be redirected. Also I would like to point out that the excerpt of the interview that you have given doesn't contain any new information anyway, everything that was said in the excerpt has already been covered by the SF2 article.--Sin Harvest (talk) 00:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're missing the point: we don't delete notable articles because they're too small, we either tag them as stubs or we expand them. Imagine if Abraham Lincoln were on AFD because it were too short: would you really vote to redirect/merge that into something else "just because" even though the subject is clearly notable on it's own? The game isn't even out yet and we're already trying to force this into an article it doesn't even belong in.. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The current state of an article is of much less relevance than potential when it comes to AFDs or merging. Subjects shown to be notable aren't flushed down the crapper if sources appear showing that the subject is in fact notable. By the same token, if sources demonstrate that enough information is available to stand an article on its own two feet, why merge it and restrict the amount of room available for expansion, or to be undone again when it is expanded? That big interview came out 2 days ago, but was predictable enough. Enough development info is out there already to enable the article to hit GA or A standard, once reception information is available. What's gained by merging? Except for losing the infobox? Expansion happens, referencing happens, let it happen. Someone another 01:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If you guys think that the SF2 article is too big, why not move the ports section into a new article or delete it altogether ? Doesn't look as big now, hum ? Master Bigode (talk) 00:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a fine suggestion but a separate issue, IMO, from whether or not this game is notable enough to warrant it's own article (again noting that we do not merge/redirect simply because an article is too short). As to information being duplicated in Street Fighter II, really Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix info has little reason to be included in that article at all. There ought to be a link at the end to spinoffs/updates where individual articles can better explain what's new/different, as well as how those changes were made and why (not to mention anything else). —Locke Cole • t • c 01:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - "noting that we do not merge/redirect simply because an article is too short" actually Wikipedia:merge says "If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic. For instance, parents or children of a celebrity who are otherwise unremarkable are generally covered in a section of the article on the celebrity, and can be merged there." of course I agree it is contentious to say if the article is not expandable within a reasonable amount of time. --Sin Harvest (talk) 07:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Of course it's unreasonable to expect the article to be very long considering the title hasn't even been released yet. There's opportunity for expansion even now, but once released, there's even more opportunity. Merging this would likely inhibit expansion (because the parent article is already large and unwieldy, adding more won't make the situation better). You'll also note I didn't say anything about the likelihood of expansion in my original comment (I personally believe it is very likely this article will be expanded, especially as the game is released and immediately thereafter). —Locke Cole • t • c 04:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - This information is better presented in the parent article for clarity, avoiding fragments, and reading ease. User:Krator (t c) 08:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - This is not to say that the XBLA version is not notable, but that merging will help improve the quality of both this and the SF2 article. The amount of "new" stuff in the HD version is sufficient to include as one or two paragraphs on the main SF2 page. This approach is done with very good results (eg avoid repetition of information and a more concise read for the viewer) for other XBLA games that are HD remixes (see Rez, for example). --MASEM 15:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The one thing that won't happen is improvement of this game's coverage, merging doesn't react to the volume of sources available and which are going to be available, it ignores them completely and relegates it to being a footnote. Most releases via virtual console or XBLA will indeed require nothing more than a few additional lines, in Rez there's a quote that it is "100% the same game". Rez was released on CD formats and is a relatively recent title, this is a re-jigged game which was seen originally on cartridge formats, before the idea of competitive play via the internet was around. Repetition of information is not what an expanded article on this game would focus on, it's what's changed which is garnering interest and the subject of all these sources. It's more comparable to The Orange Box and the individual articles for games featured on it. Street Fighter II should be a series article, the developer of this one referred to it as the sixth SF2 game, that's what's wrong with the current arrangement. A main article covering all the basics along with a few sub-articles to slot the different games into would allow all the articles to actually improve. In short, WP's coverage of this should not be skewered for the sake of following through a broken article arrangement, if readers don't want the extra details they can look elsewhere. Someoneanother 02:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry but the Street Fighter 2 series is not comparable to The Orange Box which contains five different games, three of the two games concern the Half-Life series with the other two games completely unrelated, as such a simple list and/or short summary cannot describe the differences between the games. Street Fighter 2 series of games however are similar to each other with (descriptively) minor changes between each incarnations which can and has been displayed in short list and descriptions. I once again repeat that the information provided in the article Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix is already in the article Street Fighter 2 almost word for word yet the article has not blown into an unmanageable mess.--Sin Harvest (talk) 09:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Street Fighter 2 is a mess, end of story. It's a mess because so much loosely related content is forced into one article. There's simply no need to merge all those articles together, let alone this one (which is as different from any of the titles preceding it as you're going to get). —Locke Cole • t • c 04:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - It is a mess based on what? The article has an overview section detailing the original game, next is a character table and after that each subsequent version is listed with its differences as its body. Also the article is not overly long the Street Fighter II is roughly only 4600 words in comparison the Mathematics article is 4394 words long, the Final Fantasy article is 4747 words long and Rome: Total War is roughly 6600 words long. As well as this it has been discussed in a previous merger proposal (it is recent) that the Street Fighter II article is about to undergo a rewrite.--Sin Harvest (talk) 07:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the central issue here is whether or not this is a new game or a port. Ports should be merged in a single page while a new game should have it's own page. Consider whether the relations between the original and the HD remix are closer to that of Puzzle Fighter and it's update, or closer to LOZ: Four Swords for GBA and it's Gamecube version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonglove (talk • contribs) 05:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC) — Dragonglove (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I would say neither it is a remake with new content similar to Counter-Strike Source and Counter-Strike. --Sin Harvest (talk) 07:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The potential of the article reaching a larger size due to expanded information on the development process has me feeling this should be a separate article. - Liontamer (talk) 02:59, 7 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. TigerShark (talk) 23:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Life Imprisonment without Parole (LWOP)[edit]

Unredeemable personal essay. I can't see what this adds to the Life Imprisonment article. Recommend Delete. Dchall1 (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Full of original research, POV, starts with an emotionally-laden anecdote, continues with uncalled for analysis like "Despite Schick's lack of thorough analysis". We don't need a POV fork. --Dhartung | Talk 16:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's possible some of this could be reformatted as History of life imprisonment or some such. --Dhartung | Talk 16:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep although the article does read like a personal essay, the history section contains great information that can be reformated to wiki standards. I also agree with User:Dhartung that it could also be renamed, although that would depend on the tone of the essay after the reformating (right now it is a little jumbled together, once it is reformated we can see what information we can glean from it).Coffeepusher (talk) 18:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not intended as a final word, as marked it is "under construction." Give other editors a chance to edit it.

I do think LWOP worthy of a separate article, especially now with the lethal injection case before the supremes. Think of it as a stub. Edit it. Change the lede. (I would like to know if any editor could confirm Sgt Schick was eventually released.) Eschoir (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in some form; seems to me like a valid subject, although it does need some desperate content improving and wikification, whether that means mass deletion of unverifyable POV or article rename to better suit the topic. I think inclusion can certainly be warranted if better sourcing and referencing is added where appropriate plus suggestions above. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keepish, but the article just begs for a rewrite of sorts... --Ouro (blah blah) 16:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename History of life imprisonment. I've made a start on revising it. John Vandenberg (talk) 14:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete all. Tikiwont (talk) 10:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Watched By More Americans Than Any Other Network[edit]

Like the now-departed Use your imagination, PBS Kids and you!, this is amazingly far beyond the valley of the useless and non-notable. And it has friends-- [Category: ABC slogans], for the most part, is a veritable smorgasbord of links crying out to be deleted for non-notability. Do I need to nominate them one by one, or is there a better way? Gladys J Cortez 15:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC) Gladys J Cortez 15:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm being bold and adding the following articles to this nomination, as they should all be kept or deleted on the same basis. Redfarmer (talk) 17:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- America's Watching ABC
- It Must Be ABC
- Let Us Be the One
- Something's Happening on ABC
- Start Here (ABC slogan)
- Still the One (promotional campaign)
- Together (ABC Television Network)
- We're With You on ABC
- We're the One
- You'll Love It (ABC Television Network)
Comment: Thanks for taking care of that! Rather than make this into a gigantic bundle of articles, I went through and added the relevant CBS and NBC articles for deletion too. (In my search, I looked at the FOX page, as well, and IMHO, that's the way to include info like this: as a piece of the main article, or "History of ____ Network" or similar.)Gladys J Cortez 20:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is a slogan, not a topic in itself. By the way, WP:BUNDLE explains how to nominate multiple articles in a single nomination; however, I would recommend against trying to put too many articles in one nom. It might be better to nominate them separately. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:NEO and WP:NOT#INFO Mayalld (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not sure that WP:NEO applies, since some were existing phrases used by the networks, but I agree with the nomination - fails WP:N - and with the inclusion of the other articles. Springnuts (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#INFO and WP:OR. Didn't there used to be (or is) a list of ABC/NBC/CBS slogans?. Totally NN. Doc Strange (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait, I found it: List of ABC slogans. All of these are sufficiently covered just by the chronological listing in this article. Anything else is WP:OR Doc Strange (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the above. Travellingcari (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per all the above. CarbonLifeForm (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all these slogans into the List of ABC slogans page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgiamonet (talk • contribs) 04:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete for all. --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:18, 4 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. Tikiwont (talk) 10:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Air Khalistan[edit]

This airline doesn't exist. It is an aspiration, help by people who would like Khalistan to exist. Khalistan isn't an independent nation and doesn't have a state airline. Google produces one page in multiple places; that's the page referenced from the article - which doesn't prove the existence of the airline in itself.➔ REDVEЯS has changed his plea to guilty 15:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Founded:future says it all. WP:CRYSTAL. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 16:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete There is no such entity. Codes do not exist, except for AK which belongs to AirAsia. Indian DGAC has no listing for this entity. In short, speedy as WP:HOAX, WP:CRYSTAL, and stuff you made up in school one day (can't remember the shortcut for that one). --Russavia (talk) 18:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Russavia. MilborneOne (talk) 22:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Utter hogwash masquerading as an article. The user name and contrib trail of the creator, User:IDreamOfKhalistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), should be enough to suspect his/her intentions - Max ^{- You were saying?} 05:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete. I just blocked the creator indefinitely for disruptive POV edits. Daniel Case (talk) 05:45, 3 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 in the sense of "not delete"; no consensus yet whether it should be merged and where to. That's left as an exercise to editors. Sandstein (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1.96[edit]

Original ((PROD)) reason:Why z_.025 (5%)? Not commonly used, even in statistics. Non-notable number. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my work, we use z_5E-8 corresponding to a 1 - 1E-7 confidence interval. Other fields that correctly use statistics use still other confidence intervals. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good for your work. The rest of the world thinks otherwise. Schaum's Outline of Theory and Problems of Probability and Statistics says that +1.96 and -1.96 are "critical values". Andy Field's Discovering Statistics Using SPSS says that 1.96 is "an important value". Michael J. Crawley in Statistics: An Introduction Using R says that these two numbers "are two very important numbers in statistics". So whom is Wikipedia to believe? Arthur Rubin who says that this number is "non-notable" and "not commonly used" simply because he personally doesn't use it in his own work, or statistics textbooks that say that it is "important" and "critical" and that use it all over the place? Wikipedia is for readers who might want to find out about the number 1.96 that they see being used all over the place, not for the Arthur Rubins of this world who don't use that number. 86.20.169.102 (talk) 20:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Merge to misuse of statistics, perhaps? If the choice of confidence interval is not made before the experiment is performed, it should fit. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this number is only notable because of such interval construction, this type of discussion can be put in an article about them, or under Normal distribution, etc. but this article itself should be deleted. It isn't π, after all. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move to a more accurate name. Right out of the gate, Qwfp had three citations from professional statistician's journals. Anton Mravcek (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What name do you have in mind? 95 percent confidence interval in statistics? If I could think of a name under which it would be appropriate, I would have suggested it as an alternate.
  - I don't know, that sounds better than the current name. I would not keep the article under its current name. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 01:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Normal distribution. I see little advantage to a separate article for this aspect of the subject. Tim Ross·^talk 12:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Confidence region or Confidence interval 5%, 2.5%, 1%, are commonly used for confidence intervals especially in medical statistics, these become gold standards in many papers. They are convenient values as often the sample size is too small to use a smaller percentage. Merging to Normal distribution is not ideal as the 5%, 2.5%, 1% are used for a variety of statistical tests t-test, F-test etc. --Salix alba (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Kind of curious about Rubins's work which allows such tight intervals. Care expand?--Salix alba (talk) 14:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WAAS#Integrity. I realize it's a special case. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Curiously 95% comes up in the paragraph just abouve that.--Salix alba (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If there's a merger, confidence interval might be a better place than normal distribution, but of course the information could go into both articles. Isn't it still somewhat conventional for medical journals to treat 5% as a sort of quasi-sacred number for these purposes? Also, in introductory statistics instruction, one sees this number a lot. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (but renaming it to 95 percent confidence interval in statistics is a good option). This number is notable, as seen from the google books results, which include some that explicitly call it "an important number". This particular degree of confidence is extremely popular in many fields, and there are probably more references about it (for example, someone must have discussed the idea that 1 out of 20 published studies is wrong just on statistical grounds! ;-) --Itub (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (changing my deletion nomination) to confidence interval. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to confidence interval or rename to something more appropriate. -- Fropuff (talk) 06:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to normal distribution#Standard deviation and confidence intervals. This has now turned into a discussion of whether to merge, and if so to where, rather than a deletion debate. No-one seems to like the current title and I don't think there's a suitable alternative name to move it to. I admit I misread WP:NUM#Numbers in statistics as a justification for creating an article -- my apologies. If it's to be merged, I think it would be better for the redirect to go to normal distribution than confidence interval as this particular number is a property of the normal distribution, although its importance comes from the use of the normal in constructing confidence intervals. In particular, a redirect to normal distribution#Standard deviation and confidence interval seems appropriate (with a note "1.96 redirects to here"). I'd agree with Michael Hardy that some of the information could go into both articles. I don't think it's appropriate to put the whole content into either though (particularly all the notes i've put in since it was nominated for deletion to establish that 95% confidence intervals are commonly used - though one or two could go into confidence interval). I've copied the content to my user space and i'll think about what bits could usefully go into confidence interval or normal distribution. I think my time would be more usefully spent trying to improve those, so I'd be glad if this debate can be closed soon if possible. --Qwfp (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC) (I am the article's primary author)[reply]
Procedural comment The nominator and I ended up having fairly civilised discussion over at Talk:1.96. I would have preferred if the debate had begun there with a ((notability)) tag on the article (in line with my reading of WP:Guide to deletion#nomination) rather than bringing the matter here within a 24 hours of the article's creation. Thanks to all above for your comments and your time. It's been a learning experience. --Qwfp (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC) (I remain the article's primary author)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, notability has been established by Malcolmxl5's addition of multiple references. (closed by non-admin). RMHED (talk) 17:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First Civil Service Commissioner[edit]

See this PROD-tag, which was removed without explanation (and, in fact, with a vandalism-only revert tool!). The user who removed it has ignored a request for clarification, so AfD it has to be! Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to an appropriate article about the U.K. Civil Service, with re-creation allowed later if significant additional content is to be added. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A powerful and influential post that was created by William Ewart Gladstone in the 1850s to insure the impartiality of the UK Civil Service. There is sufficient coverage in google, news, books and scholar to attest to notability and to provide sources for further expanding the article. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That works for me too. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In general heads of national civil service departments are notable -- and, like this one, will have enough references. DGG (talk) 15:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - He's not the head, that's the Cabinet Secretary. He's some sort of nebulous regulator-y person :D Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - historic post that plays a significant role in the Civil service. The Office of Civil Service Commissioners also should have a page. TerriersFan (talk) 22:22, 6 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. THis AfD is too confusing to relist. Suggest nominator or others do more research and improve article or renominate as appropriate. JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Air Cambodia[edit]

Placed prod, but removed and "Air Forbodia" comment placed. This airline was an airline on paper only, in the planning process. The parent company Phuket Air is defunct, and hence is no longer on any planning board. Sources which discuss the subject in-depth can't be found, hence this airline fails notability guidelines. Note, the only reference is from 2001, yet this airline was not proposed until 2004 Russavia (talk) 15:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia (talk) 15:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia (talk) 15:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an airline that never got off the ground owned by an airline that is apparently inactive (though the Wikipedia article describes Air Phuket in the past tense, it makes no citations of when or how it became inactive--the website is under construction, however). I would say that if this airline ever flies a passenger, then it is worthy of an article. If the story of the failure of "Air Forbodia" were particularly notable and were included, then include it. Otherwise, there is no reason for Air Cambodia to have an article.Brian Waterman, MS, CDP (talk) 16:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It flew at least one passenger in 1996, and enough passengers to get its prices into a travel guide. I wouldn't believe Russavia's claim that sources couldn't be found, if I were you. It's almost certain that he hasn't even done the preliminary step of putting "air cambodia" into a search engine. Otherwise he'd have found the incident where Teng Bun Ma shot a 737's tyre off because Air Cambodia had lost his luggage. As I said when removing the PROD, the nominator hasn't actually looked for these sources, that he claims not to have found, in the first place. Take what is stated in the nomination with a spoonful of salt. 86.20.169.102 (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The airline you are referring to above is Royal Air Cambodge. This airline was planned from 2004, so how could it have possibly flown an aircraft in 1996? --Russavia (talk) 02:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reconsider Above Delete Looks like the article probably needs some expanding, or more research needs to go into it. Is the Air Cambodia that flew in 1996 the same as the one mentioned in the article? The Phnom Penh airport mentions several different airlines that service them--none of them are called "Air Cambodia", so at current, no "Air Cambodia" services the capital city.Brian Waterman, MS, CDP (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No, this airline was mooted in 2004. The airline from 1996 was Royal Air Cambodge, which of course many so-called media professionals would obviously call Air Cambodia; its the same as major TV/print broadcasters (having seen it with my own eyes and heard with own ears) referring to China Airlines as Air China, and Air China as China Airlines. This proposed start-up was going to be called Royal Air Cambodia instead of reincarnating the Royal Air Cambodge name, due to the later's website being taken over by a porn operator. That small factoid still doesn't make it notable of course ;) --Russavia (talk) 18:47, 4 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.--Kubigula (talk) 05:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie and Peter Johnston[edit]

This band doesn't seem to have any claim to notability other than performing the theme tune for a TV show that itself doesn't seem to be particularly notable. Their album didn't chart in the UK (the country of release), according to everyhit ([28]) and they haven't won any awards. CordeliaHenrietta ↔ Talk 15:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Their single did chart in the UK, albeit at only #99, and the article describes some radio play. (Their official website claims rotation on UK national radio and further media coverage.) The Tube (TV series) article says "TX45" was actually the name of its theme tune, so that alone would qualify them under WP:BAND #10. Article needs work, not deletion. Bondegezou (talk) 14:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. However, I see no need for a separate article at Sophie and Peter Johnston (album)! Bondegezou (talk) 14:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sophie and Peter Johnston are noteable for the high critical acclaim they received in the 1980's. They were championed by the influential radio 1 DJ and broadcaster, John Peel who was quoted as saying "Hearing them means as much to me as the first time I heard Little Richard". Their lack of chart success does not detract from their important contribution to music of that era. The band has a substantial cult following.2004tmark (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per above. Wwwhatsup (talk) 05:39, 7 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. Tikiwont (talk) 10:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Neurosurgery Residency Match List[edit]

The material contained within the mentioned article was replicated from an online neurosurgery site and potentially represents a copyright violation. It should be deleted from wikipedia. - UncleHarvey.com administrator —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.53.122.58 (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unencyclopedic. It's not like these are honors or something, these are just a way to pool all the US candidates and divvy up the available positions equitably. --Dhartung | Talk 16:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per potential copyvio issues and WP:NOT. Majoreditor (talk) 03:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — unencyclopedic (analogous to adding admission lists for universities). — ERcheck (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Its not really uncyclopedic, but I could see us deciding that all rank lists are notable, as they show trends in medicine RogueNinja_talk 08:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 09:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, investigation to the copyright violation claims could be warranted. --Agamemnon2 (talk) 16:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are approximately 15,000 medical students matching into medical specialties (residencies) each year. Are we going to start listing each medical student and what field they matched into every year? Are we going to start listing Law School acceptances? MBA program acceptances? Maybe even college acceptances? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.16.52.213 (talk) 09:41, 6 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. Sandstein (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zamonian wolpertinger[edit]

I had speedy tags on this twice, but I removed them after enough context was given and assured me that it was not nonsense, then I put a prod on it but the prod was contested. My concern with the prod remains: this article fails WP:FICT and WP:V, negligible Google hits. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's not notable enough to have it's own article. Perhaps the information could be merged into one of the books' articles. The creation of a Zamonia article wouldn't necessarily be amiss, either, but the wolpertinger is not itself worthy of a separate article. Guinness (talk) 14:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above, the mention in wolpertinger is enough, though it needs to be sourced. - Cenarium (talk) 15:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:FICT clearly. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 19:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tet Lara[edit]

Notability in question. Something is very wrong with this page. It seems that the person has expertise in various fields. However, searching on google yields only 38 hits. I want to speedy this as A7 but I saw a passing mention in one of the Phil. newspapers where they are blamed for shooting endangered species and posing with the kill. I can't find more reliable sources. Lenticel ^(talk) 13:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete If the article is correct, she meets WP:SPORT, but I can't find any references either. Guinness (talk) 14:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - possible hoax as there doesn't seem to be any sports hall of fame in the Philippines yet [29], and as mentioned by the nominator a news story about "Tet Lara" would surely mention her achievements in Soccer if they were true. Teleomatic (talk) 15:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Unless these "songs of praises" are properly sourced, this article--even though it is based on an actual person--should be deleted. Starczamora (talk) 04:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete (both). Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Handshake (band)[edit]

Also included in this nomination:

World Won't Wait EP

Disputed prod on World Won't Wait EP. Band article was previously speedied as A7. Neither the band nor their EP is notable per WP:BAND and WP:MUSIC. Unsigned and makes no claims to notability. Redfarmer (talk) 12:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute: The page was originally deleted due to a lack of notability. However, this has since been addressed under the following guidelines: "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: 6. Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable." Are there further issues which need to be addressed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerrykez13 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are referring to Belisha (band), I'd hardly call them notable. They've been around since 2001 and have not recorded an album yet. If I'm denied a speedy delete on them, I'm bring them to AfD next. As for Handshake, you would need to establish they have been the subject of non-trivial secondary source coverage per WP:BAND. Redfarmer (talk) 13:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to meet WP:MUSIC notability, unsigned band, no independent references. WWGB (talk) 13:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's an article in Essex Folk News (2007), ed. New, J. regarding the rise, history and importance of the band in folk circles. The band were also heavily used in the promotion of Stonehenge for the 'New 7 Wonders' campaign. BBC south covered the event, and the band's performance. A German TV company also covered the ceremony and interviewed the band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerrykez13 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Of what band? If you're referring to Belisha again, you should note that even if that band is notable, being a member of it does not guarantee automatic notability for future projects. When you quoted criteria six, you left out the last part: "note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such." If you are saying Handshake has been important in folk circles, I'd like to see that backed up with sources since the band has only been around two years with one EP. Redfarmer (talk) 13:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: No, I'm referring to Handshake's importance in folk circles. Of course, this is difficult to prove. Essex Folk News publish entirely in print rather than electronically. Perhaps you could buy a copy, it's not that expensive. As for Belisha, I do not know too much about them, so I cannot argue their notability. I presumed that because they had not been deleted that someone considered them notable. But perhaps you're right on that count. Regarding "note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such". A redirect to what? --Kerrykez13 (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - If they were notable solely for having a member that was in another notable band, it is often more appropriate to include a link to the original band's page, in this case Belisha. Note too that, per WP:V, all claims to notability must be verifiable. Redfarmer (talk) 13:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ah, OK. Well, I cannot verify notability, so I accept your point on this. Concerning "it is often more appropriate to include a link to the original band's page, in this case Belisha", I thought I had done that. I had set up a link from the 'history' section linking to Belisha. So is the sole problem now that Belisha is not a notable band? I don't know too much about them, but I believe they have quite a solid background and support base. And have toured rather extensively, have supported Primal Scream, etc. I imagine there's articles out there collaborating this. Although I'm sure a Belisha fan would have more luck finding them.--Kerrykez13 (talk) 14:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        When I said link I meant to say something like a paragraph on them. Sorry haven't had my cup of tea yet today. Redfarmer (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment: haha, no worries. i think you may have a good point for deletion anyway. so well argued! i'm going to head off now, so go and enjoy your tea! if i add a paragraph about Belisha somewhere on the Handshake page AND the notability of Belisha is confirmed on their page, then do you think this may prevent deletion?--Kerrykez13 (talk) 14:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I think if it's decided here the band isn't notable in and of itself, it may be more appropriate to just put a paragraph on the Belisha page until Handshake becomes more well known. P.S. I withdrew my Speedy nomination for Belisha because I found some stuff on them. Redfarmer (talk) 14:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure thing. I probably won't add a paragraph to Belisha, as their musical styles are so different that I can't imagine there's much cross-interest! Feel free to delete the Handshake page, but I'll be ready to put it back up if they become better known! All the best, and thanks for the discussion. --Kerrykez13 (talk) 14:33, 2 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:CSD#G4, recreation of deleted material. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mufti Muneer Ahmed Akhoon[edit]

This article was at one time an identical copy of Muftu Muneer Ahmed Akhoon which was deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muftu Muneer Ahmed Akhoon. For those that can't see the deleted article, this version of Mufti Muneer Ahmed Akhoon is the same as Muftu Muneer Ahmed Akhoon was when it was deleted. Listing for discussion. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 12:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a repost. andy (talk) 14:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as above, per G4. Teleomatic (talk) 15:49, 2 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, WP:NOT a code fragment repository. Salix alba (talk) 15:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C++ perfect numbers[edit]

C++ code fragment coding up obvious algorithm in obvious way; twice PRODed, PROD notice removed each time by same IP without rationale. WP:NOT a code fragment repository, and this does not seem to be suitable for merging into perfect number. The Anome (talk) 11:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree with nominator's rationale. I was the first prodder, and was about to bring it here when it was tagged with a transwiki. I don't know anything about WikiBooks, so I can't comment on whether it would be welcome there. J Milburn (talk) 11:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. This code can be placed at a suitable article. Such as Euclidean algorithm contains code from different languages to find GCD based on this algorithm. In a similar way we may utilize this one as well. But, standalone article? Absolutely nonsense. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 12:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Ros0709 (talk) 13:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to psudo-code and Move to perfect number --T-rex 15:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a collection of disorganised information; it's useless and needs to go.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOT Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 16:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, do not transwiki, do not merge. In addition to the arguments above, the "obvious algorithm" is much slower than it needs to be: for numbers sufficiently small that this algorithm could be run within the lifetime of the universe, one would do far better by hardcoding a table of known perfect numbers and checking for the input's existence within that table. And of course it's hopeless for finding new perfect numbers. So both not encyclopedic and not useful. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. KurtRaschke (talk) 02:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without merge/transwiki. Buggy (claims that 0 and 1 are perfect numbers, which is incorrect), messy (there's an unused variable s, and the indentation is horrific), and unnecessarily system-specific (outputs "sh: PAUSE: command not found" on non-Windows systems). Zetawoof_(ζ) 02:20, 3 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) 02:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Suite Life On Water[edit]

If this is real it's pure WP:CRYSTAL. No information on production, no information on episodes. Key words "supposed to" and "unknown." I'm thinking it's probable WP:HOAX, however, considering there are zero Ghits. Redfarmer (talk) 11:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Redfarmer pretty much summed up what I put on my prod. Also, the history suggests you actually removed my prod when adding the AfD, rather than us both addding at the same time (see diff) but whatever, as long as this is deleted. J Milburn (talk) 11:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was one of those strange instances with Twinkle where Twinkle freaked out because it apparently tried to edit the page at the exact time as you proded it. Twinkle can be a pain sometimes when it's not helpful. Redfarmer (talk) 11:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Bláthnaid 12:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:V at the very least.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - utterly unsourced; violates WP:CRYSTAL; no doubt mainly original research.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Porcupine. Jonathan 17:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Some backing that there was a sequel possibly piloted or planned for The Suite Life of Zach and Cody and there are some references in that article that supports that possibility. However, the references are fan-sites and forum comments on that fan-site and some original research based on a net name registration, not this article. As there is nothing but fannish hoping and speculation about a sequel and even less about what the actual name would be, there is nothing that backs this particular article.--NrDg 22:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Check on TV.com and Google it, it's real. FAGGOTS! Da bomba3 (talk) 03:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment as per Matt Webb Mitovich (February 4, 2008). "Zack & Cody Spin-off Is Afloat — Minus Tisdale". TV Guide. Retrieved 2008-02-04. the title of the planned spin-off is NOT the title of the AfD article.--NrDg 03:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, so maybe it is real- is it notable and verifiable? Is what is said in the article backed up by reliable sources, or is it original research? This series may not get past the pilot stage. And why the personal attack? J Milburn (talk) 09:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The TV Guide blog entry is the only thing I have seen from a WP:RS. It is not enough to base an article on although it could be a source of information. The TV Guide article does NOT back up a series called The Suite Life On Water. I would like to see a Disney press release announcing a new series before we even consider an article on it. It is possible the series won't be picked up and we do not need articles about TV shows that never got broadcast.--NrDg 15:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Move~~ Reuters http://www.reuters.com/article/televisionNews/idUSN0446611820080204 has reported on this with sufficient detail to potentially justify an article The Suite Life on Deck. --NrDg 17:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Suite Life on Deck article has been created with with 2 good references showing WP:N. There is nothing in this article that is useful that needs to be merged. No need for a redirect either as this name is bogus.--NrDg 23:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice job to you and the other involved editor. I guess this is notable now, regardless of whether it is properly commissioned- however, if the show doesn't go ahead in the end, a merge back into the main article about the show may be appropriate. J Milburn (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Terminate. The real spinoff article already exists. Title is phony enough to not even serve as a redirect. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 02:02, 7 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, and allow for possible future re-creation. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prem C. Pandey[edit]

An academic who verifiably exists but who does not appear to meet even one of the criteria set out by Wikipedia:Notability (academics). It's conceivable that he meets the sixth, reception of "a notable award or honor" (which of course leaves the meaning of "notable" open to dispute). Certainly the article claims that he has won a variety of awards, but there's no straightforwardly presented evidence that he has won any that look more as if they might be "notable", while those that look less as if they are "notable" (such as Hari Om Asharam Prerit Vikram Sarabhai Award) tend to have recent edit histories that show considerable input from the users and/or IPs that have so vigorously contributed to this article on Pandey.

I hope that I am not in breach of "CIVIL" if I say that, its subject aside, this article strikes me as a godawful mess. I fully realize that godawful messiness is not a reason for deletion, and that messy articles on worthwhile subjects should be improved, not deleted. The article's history will show that on 25 January I made a concerted effort on just one part of the article: its references. These were a grotesque and incomprehensible mishmash before I set to work; I pruned out the obviously superfluous and came up with a list that I venture to say is understandable. However, in doing this I found that most of the links I left in did no more than quote Pandey as the person answering a reporter's inquiries. As I understood it, he's a respectable but minor academic who once ran a research institution.

Since then, the article has deteriorated considerably. More particularly, one or two editors have let nothing -- automated messages from bots, personal messages from humans such as me, lurid CSS coloring of my personal messages -- dissuade them from adding shovelfuls of links. The greatest number are in the form exemplified by *[[www.ncmrwf.gov.in/imsd/myweb/meso2002 web.htm - 82k]]. This suggests to me that the person adding them not only is clueless about the mechanics (as well of course as rights and wrongs) of adding external links but also may not even have looked at what's (incompetently) linked to, instead simply pasting this stuff in from lists of ghits, all in a desperate and undiscriminating effort to demonstrate more and more significance for the subject of the article.

Since the "contributors" to this article seem uninterested in any advice that they're given, I have no reason to expect that the article will improve; and, as I've said, the subject of the article seems on the "nn" side (though a respectable academic who I hope and expect would be horrified by the promotional activity). -- Hoary (talk) 10:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions and in WikiProject Deletion sorting/India. -- Hoary 10:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. However, I may reconsider if the article is cleaned up during the AfD period. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable academic. ~~Some of the claims also seem fictitious, including that he is the founder or director of the NCAOR, as no mention of him is made on their website [30].~~ Teleomatic (talk) 16:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I was the other editor, working with Hoary to clean up up the article and to try to coach the actual contributors to this article. As Hoary stated, none of this coaching was paid any attention to or even acknowledged. (One has been blocked) I have no reason to expect that the article will improve. Toddst1 (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete thanks due to Hoary & Toddst1 for trying to fix this article, despite their efforts, it's unacceptably poor. It seems like the path to improvement is through deletion. Given the veracity problem raised by Teleomatic I'm unable to take the claims made in the article at face value, and the article's sourcing is just too nutbar to expect the general WP readership to deal with. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Several of the pages that were also created by the same persons look like they need cleanup aor deletion. See, for instance Exceptional Scientific Achievment Medal, which even cites NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal!! --Crusio (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Telomatic, followed by Pete.Hurd, doubts the veracity of the page, and in particular whether he has been the founder or director of NCAOR. It seems he was Director until January 2006, and The Hindu was calling him "founder-Director of NCAOR" in early 2005.Dsp13 (talk) 01:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch - it seems I was a little hasty in drawing conclusions. I still feel notability is an issue however.Teleomatic (talk) 00:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also, a duplicate article was created with the inexplicable title of Imtial. JuJube (talk) 06:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update One of the main contributors has just wiped out the vast majority of the article -- including the that part of the references that I'd spent twenty minutes rewriting (sniff!) -- and within a few minutes also made such edits as this. Mysterious. Incidentally, the text of that editor's user page comes as a bit of a surprise, though of course he/she may just have been using it as a "sandbox". -- Hoary 06:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There seems to be some serious WP:COI issues attached to this page, not to mention the issue of notability. The edit history suggests that it was created by Dr. Pandey himself (see the user names), and if User:Ekbal_anuj is, as the user page suggests, simply another account creation for Dr. Pandey to promote his own article, that's wrong as well. J Readings (talk) 07:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, not quite. Yes, the article was first created (as this incomprehensible stub) by somebody whose name suggests he was Dr Pandey -- but a different Dr Pandey; this one. -- Hoary (talk) 07:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the well-argued nom. AfD is not cleanup, but when an article is this bad, the creator is apparently unwilling or unable to take advice on improving it, there's no real prospect of another editor fixing it in the near future, and the subject is marginally notable at best, I think it's reasonable to make an exception. Deletion should, of course, be without prejudice to an experienced editor writing a more coherent article which establishes notability. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 21:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus for deletion, default to keep. Sandstein (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Brown (mayor)[edit]

Aside from being mayor of Grand Forks, North Dakota, pop 53,230, this man has no other claim to notability. Wikipedia consensus has long found that mayors of small-to-medium sized cities are not deserving of their own articles. Prod tag removed on grounds that Grand Forks is third-largest city in North Dakota. Noble Sponge (talk) 09:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your prod claimed consensus was against "small-town mayors", you've now changed that to "small-to-medium sized cities" in this AfD. Could you point to where this consensus was actually formed so that the actual wording can be seen? IMO size is relative, and the third-largest city in a state should be considered large enough to be worth covering details like this. Keep. Bryan Derksen (talk) 09:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, it's here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#People. Also, there is no mention of mayors of cities of any size being inherently notable at Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians. Finally, he fails Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable only for one event. Noble Sponge (talk) 09:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any relevant information to Grand Forks, North Dakota and then delete per nom. Certainly not notable enough for his own article per WP:BIO. Redfarmer (talk) 13:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and nothing but his name needs to be in the city article. Below WP:BIO and well below my generous personal standard of mayors of cities > 100,000. --Dhartung | Talk 16:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - An obstetrician in a town of 50,000 people is not worthy of an article, but an obstetrician who also just happens to be the mayor of a town the size of Grand Forks is worthy of an article. Aside from simply being the mayor of Grand Forks, it should probably also be pointed out in the article that he has been the mayor during the formative, evolving years immediately following the devastating flood and fire of 1997. Brown has helped to reshape an American city and for that he is notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. --MatthewUND^(talk) 01:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why are obstetrician-mayors notable? Please cite policy. Don't most mayors of smaller communities have other jobs? --Dhartung | Talk 05:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Dhartung--why is the combination notable? Being mayor of a town that size is obviously not a full time job, so there will necessarily be some other profession. Most typically it's law, but not exclusively.DGG (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You misunderstood me. I didn't mean that Brown being an obsterician warrants his having an article. I meant that the fact that...aside from being an obstetrician...he is the mayor of a town the size of Grand Forks warrants his having an article. Add Grand Forks' relative importance in this part of the country (very few large cities here, folks) and the fact that Brown has been mayor for two terms immediately following a destructive natural disaster...I think Brown warrants an article. --MatthewUND^(talk) 00:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's a "Major local political figure" (Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians), has a lot of coverage in the Grand Forks Herald (expectedly), but also pops up incidentally in other publications. Deleting city councillors per WP:BIO, sure, but not mayors of cities. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Examples of this incidental coverage? Noble Sponge (talk) 04:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about here, here, and here. Not too hard to search '"Michael Brown" Grand forks'. Mostlyharmless (talk) 07:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is going to be necessarily subjective, but I'd say that the mayor of a city this size is notable; of course, being the mayor of a city this size doesn't overrule WP:N, but I'd be astonished if third party coverage wasn't available. Moreover, I disagree with User:DGG that "being mayor of a town that size is obviously not a full time job"; I lived for a time in St. Albert, Alberta, which is of similar size, and its mayor is full-time. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If mayors from other towns/cities are able to be on Wiki why not this one? He is a major politician in the state and in the area as well as the fact that his town is of one of notability should make him notable as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tazzaler (talk • contribs) 17:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I prod tagged many mayors of even smaller towns, and my tags were systematically removed. Noble Sponge (talk) 21:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, because PROD is for articles whose deletion is unlikely to be disputed. The subjects of many of those articles have been covered by "sources [that] address the subject directly in detail" which "are independent of the subject". It's what WP:Notability says. I suggest you familiarise yourself with it before you run off to tag more articles for proposed deletion. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - In fairness, users are allowed to prod whatever they like; it's determined to be noncontentious if nobody removes the tag. In the case of those mayors, I removed the tags; but Noble Sponge wasn't behaving inappropriately in any way, I don't think. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:23, 8 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. TigerShark (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Schroeder[edit]

Article fails WP:BIO Hu12 (talk) 08:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)).

Keep - 13 year tenure as editor / publisher of New Zealand's longest running comics anthology.

Keep, notability of significant New Zealanders is still difficult to judge through web means, because our web culture has only recently boomed. Only one of our News Papers even has a web presence that isn't from an agregation site. Further more

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers in New Zealand comix, notably Tim Bollinger the New Zealand comix historian has commented on his notability several times and reviewed his work.

The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, fun time Comix,which is one of the longest running anthologies of New Zealand Comix that is still regularly published, which is a significant and well-known work, in the New Zealand comix scene. and has had multiple independent periodical reviews over the years. Significantly including the work being shown in the documentary The Comics Show which was not only shown on festivals but also on New Zealand Televsion.

The Sando (talk) 09:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too right about the difficulty of judging notability of New Zealanders from their web presence. You should've seen the state of Danny Watson's page until I just had a bash. Also, hope your unbolded keep doesn't get lost in the mire. Vegetationlife (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 11:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wikipedia:Notability_people #Creative_professionals Darren's Kiwi Comics site has been recognised in two independent New Zealand comics awards The Erics and The Gibson Awards. See the front page. Vegetationlife (talk) 15:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also think this discussion needs to be seen in the light of the recent AfD discussion regarding Comics Bulletin (log AfD discussion closed 2008 January 29) (Darren Schroeder is the small press editor of Comics Bulletin). The result was a Keep by consensus. Like this AfD it was also nominated by Hu12. Vegetationlife (talk) 11:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seem to be some national level awards, and national press interviews of him.DGG (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Darren Schroeder's creation and upkeep of the New Zealand Comics Register and his founding role in Funtime Comics illustrates a significant contribution to the New Zealand comics scene. Neepstane (talk) 10:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)— Neepstane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

But now neepstane is here, he or she will inevitably want to stay, because Wikipedia is such a fantastic and worthwhile community Vegetationlife (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Darren Schroeder has also been a significant player in many national comics events, including the New Zealand Comics Festival (as documented in the film 'The Comics Show' (dir: Shirley Horrocks, Point of View Productions, 2007.) This, if nothing else, should indicate that his contribution to New Zealand comics is at a national level, where he fills the role of general archiver, as well as tireless organiser. He is also responsible for rounding up and encouraging, if not publishing, many New Zealand cartoonists who are now reasonably popular.Robynk (talk) 18:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC) — Robynk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

And you're pretty notable yourself, so your opinion should count for something. I might have a crack at a page for you next - women in NZ comics deserve more recognition. Vegetationlife (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KeepHe is a very prominent figure in the NZ comics industry and also recognised in Australia --Calabraxthis^(talk) 13:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is a considered unto Dr. Zaius by my people. Chimp3000 (talk) 11:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)— Chimp3000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Not a ballot has been added based on an earlier comment Vegetationlife made(2 February 2008) .. I wonder what the New Zealand comics community will think ..."I might have to tell them...", which is apropriate based on recent comments [31][32].--Hu12 (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um...you see conspiracies everywhere. Next you'll be calling us all meat puppets. If people are here, I assume, in good faith, they're here because they believe Darren Schroeder is notable. I'm afraid I don't even like comics, so I doubt I'd have much sway in the comics community if they did not. I think he's notable. All the other people who have entered this discussion think he's notable. Radio New Zealand thinks he's notable. And he's notable enough to have been on NZ national television and screened larger than life at a national film festival. What I really wonder is why you've insisted on wasting our time? Vegetationlife (talk) 19:43, 7 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.

Closed as the article was deleted for having an expired PROD. нмŵוτн τ 02:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scooter (Coronation Street character)[edit]

Seems to be a non-notable TV character, sorry SpikeToronto (talk) 08:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE. I suggest that rather than delete this page it be merged with the wikiarticle that already exists for Corrie Street’s minor and recurring characters. That article can be found at: List of recurring and minor Coronation Street characters. Also, after such merger, the character of Scooter should be added to the following articles: List of characters from Coronation Street and List of past Coronation Street characters. (Btw, I did not propose this article for deletion, but merely attempted to create this space so the proposal could be debated.) — SpikeToronto (talk) 08:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid close and merge as suggested/ doesnt need afd to debate it.DGG (talk) 22:55, 3 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 after rewrite. The name can be changed through the "move" function, which does not require deletion. Sandstein (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voice of the shells[edit]

Voice of the shells? Google is silent on the subject. I could see this material showing up as part of an "aural phenomenon" article but I don't believe it warrants its own page. —Noah 07:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Just to be clear, I am familiar with the sound of the ocean when putting a shell to my ear. My point was that "Voice of the shells" is a neologism not worthy of its own article. —Noah 08:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This should have gone speedily. While the effect is well-known I've never heard it called the "voice of the shells" (and Google has nothing either) so it appears to be original research. ~~Plus the text itself is unreferenced and unecyclopaedic~~. Ros0709 (talk) 09:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article itself has been transformed since nomination so I have struck out the comment above. But there is still a huge problem with the name of the article. Ros0709 (talk) 14:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Interesting that we can all identify the subject of this article, yet not give it a common name. Therefore, if it's a well-known topic, that's a suggestion that it might be notable.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But in that case naming it would be original research. Ros0709 (talk) 13:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has undergone quite a bit of referencing since its nomination. Kakofonous (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yes, but should we move it to a new name? An article named Seashell acoustic effect or Seashell resonance might work [33] [34] [35] [36]. —Noah 17:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A few more excellent references from the web. Sorry for not finding these before starting the AfD. [37] [38] [39] —Noah 17:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is now not the notability of the article's subject, but what those looking for information on the topic are likely to search for. HisSpaceResearch raises a good point: that most of us know what this phenomenon is, but there is not a standard name for it yet. I agree that "voice of the shells" is an unnecessarily vague and poetic term, but, perhaps because of the very nature of the topic, I can't come up with one that would be useful in terms of searching. The ones that Noah Salzman have suggested seem useful, though. Kakofonous (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename though I cant think of one offhand, this isnt a good choice. There indeed are references, probably many more--I almost hate to say it-- but Id expect some in popular culture & children's literature. DGG (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. La Voz de los Caracoles is a 1993 Mexican film. No idea if that's relevant, though! Ros0709 (talk) 14:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. If there are still concerns with the article, I would suggest not bringing it back to AFD until it has has been around a bit longer. Camaron | Chris (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden Valley High School (Grants Pass, Oregon)[edit]

~~Non-notable highschool - links/ references are primary in nature, referring to the district or school itself.~~ In the light of revision and user comments below, I will withdraw this nomination for deletion. Keep Wisdom89 (talk) 07:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. By longstanding convention (though sadly not yet codified into full-blown policy - sigh), high schools are inherently notable. See WP:SCL. The article definitely needs work, though. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 08:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in WP:SCL that indicates all high schools are inherently notable. I think you're referring to a redirect, to the appropriate district. Wisdom89 (talk) 08:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Camaron | Chris (talk) 11:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nominated for deletion 3 minutes after creation which is utterly unacceptable and against the spirit of WP:AfD which says Before nominating a recently created article ... Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD.. This is a high school that is significant in its community and the article has the sources needed to meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. —Katr67 (talk) 17:50, 2 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 appears to be clear consensus that the future existence of this team is highly speculative and that it therefore does not meet the notability criteria. None of the keep comments have raised any evidence or compelling arguments that this reasoning is flawed. TigerShark (talk) 23:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philadelphia Major League Soccer team[edit]

Included in this discussion are the following miscellaneous pages as they are invariably related to the article:

This article seems to be a bit of WP:CRYSTAL and is written in a way that makes it appear that Philadelphia actually has a Major League Soccer team. While Philadelphia is in the running for a MLS expansion team, the city has not been selected as an expansion city yet. The article seems to have been created in response to Pennsylvania approving funding for a stadium complex in Chester, Pennsylvania.[40] You may also wish to note that the source I just provided is from the official MLS website and they note that the expansion team selection process is not complete yet. Bobblehead ^(rants) 07:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Bobblehead ^(rants) 08:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some funding for the stadium has been granted. This does not a franchise make. Including this article under "Phila MLS team" clearly implies there is such a thing. There isn't a Philadelphia franchise at present. I hope that there will be one, but there isn't. If the creator of the page wants to keep this info on Wikipedia, I suggest it be moved to a category/page more representative (one dealing with potential expansion teams, for example). I'd be more than happy to see this page return when a team is actually awarded to Philadelphia. Posthocergopropterhoc (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Recreate if Philadelphia is actually chosen. We don't have articles on individual country's bids to host the world cup, and I can't really see how this is different. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article per WP:CRYSTAL (template & category have to be dealt with separately). No harm mentioning the proposed team in the main Major League Soccer article but such speculation should not have an article of its own yet. Qwghlm (talk) 10:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article - per Qwghlm. The MLS Template states that Seattle will be an expansion team in 2009, no mention of Philadelphia...yet. Recreate when/if it becomes a franchise. GiantSnowman (talk) 12:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Title is clearly misleading and wrong. Peanut4 (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - the title isn't misleading as MLS clearly intends to add Philly in the very near future. Here's evidence: [41]

JaMikePA (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment That story does not say Philadelphia will definitely have an MLS team. Yes, it looks likely, but at this stage, it just isn't so. Peanut4 (talk) 15:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to an appropriate article discussing the ongoing selection process. Re-create later if developments warrant. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Currently violates WP:CRYSTAL. We can add the team to Wikipedia next year if it becomes notable. --Amlebede (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented.
- Delete. The sun rising tomorrow is "almost certain." My going to bed in the next couple of hours is "almost certain." Expansion teams are never "almost certain," and violate WP:CRYSTAL until an official announcement from Commission Garber himself. A Philly team is likely, no question, but said "preparation for the event" could very well lead to nothing. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 01:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is well documented, citing sources. I would greatly appreciate it if policies weren't taken out of context to suit your own opinions. JaMikePA (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As a comparison, Chester Stadium is not WP:CRYSTAL because an official vote opened up funding for the stadium and thus made its construction imminent. The article in question, however, cannot boast such a degree of certainty (although the article erroneously says that Philly will participate in MLS as if it was, as I said before, the sun rising tomorrow) until the franchise is ultimately awarded. The best we can say is that it has front-runner status to be team 16, but that is still WP:CRYSTAL. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 01:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if there are sources that say what you just told us, doesn't that make the article already suitable?DGG (talk) 05:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it is. But if you could specify what it is you think I told you, perhaps I can tell you what I think is WP:CRYSTAL and what is not. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 06:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there are sources to show it is being discussed that it may be the front runner for team 16, teat would seem sufficient to avoid Crysal Ball.20:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete. A casual reader would think that Philadelphia already has been awarded an MLS team after reading this article. Misleading and a clear example of WP:CRYSTAL Mikerichi (talk) 12:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Agreed. As this article is written it seems like Philly has already been awarded a franchise or at worst is the front runner for a franchise. Limasbravo (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resubmit AFD, please There are problems with this AFD which make it more difficult to process. I see that there are far more deletes. However, AFD's is a discussion, not a vote. Some people are commenting on the template and category. Others comment on the article. There should be a separate AFD. I see more merits in the article than in the category. Comments that the article is poorly written is not a delete criteria. Notability, not quality of writing, is a criteria. WP:CRYSTAL is not an automatic reason for deletion. There is already a company formed. I believe there are some reasons for keep (the company). This article could be written to become a potentially very interesting article on what was done to start the team, even if the efforts were unsuccessful. Since AFD's are a discussion and not a vote, I ask the deciding admin to consider "no consensus to delete, default to keep + consider resubmitting separate AFD on template and category" Archtransit (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So... What you're saying is that this article shouldn't be deleted because the article should be renamed FC Pennsylvania Stadium L.L.C. and all of the current content should be removed and replaced with information about what the company and the government of Pennsylvania have done to get a MLS team moved to Chester? Isn't that pretty much a deletion? I'm also confused on what you mean by some people are commenting on the template and category. The only comment I see on the category and template is one saying that they should be handled separately (I'm guessing on WP:TFD and WP:CFD). I'll admit that I should have seen that comment and moved the template and category off this AFD, but from what I can tell everyone is commenting on the article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that preparations are being made and that fan groups have already been organised (with a reasonable amount of press coverage) means that this is an interesting and potentially useful article. Sure, the team does not yet exist, but I still believe the subject of the article is an notable one. Robotforaday (talk) 21:19, 9 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. Sandstein (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jade de Guzman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jade de Guzman

This is a common name, and the "facts" are of many different personalities with the same name merged into one and is not accurate. Swashbuckle00 (talk) 07:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this db-bio legit? --Howard the Duck 13:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't know if this article is really about multiple people with the same name as the nom suggests, but the only source cited doesn't mention the subject, and the article has WP:BLP problems. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The "Notable Notes" section certainly isn't the same person in the top and is probably multiple people. The top person, if she exists, isn't notable, and is a whopping BLP violation if it isn't a hoax. --Dhartung | Talk 16:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find sources on this one aside from an article on Philippine Daily Inquirer that is about the shooting of endangered species. If this is the only reason for notability then it should be deleted due to WP:BLP1E. See the related afd for Tet Lara.--Lenticel ^(talk) 22:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. An earlier edit is even stranger:

Jade de Guzman (born Jade Typoco on May 16, 1981) is the Filipino-American co-founder and owner of Business Beanstalk Philippines. She earned her degree in Computer Information Systems in 3 years from Bentley College, Boston, Massachuetts in 2002. Acknowledged as the country’s Call Center Queen, she has come a long way from the modest home-business she and her husband set up in Pasig in the early 2000's, to the country's most prestigious call center in 2006.
According to the 2005 World's Richest People list of Forbes magazine, Jade de Guzman is one of the most powerful women under 30 in Asia, and the 240th in world. She is worth $1.9 million and is not even 25 years old as of this writing.
In recognition of her entrepreneurial excellence, Jade Typoco de Guzman has been named Management Woman of the Year by the Philippine Business Club and was conferred an Honorary Doctorate in Business Management by Ateneo De Manila University. Committed to uplift the lives of her less fortunate countrymen, she organized the Doctor Dictate Foundation, which helps the underprivileged but promising young Filipinos.
Business Beanstalk, which is the trademark of her business name, came from the need of small businesses to procure telemarketing and other call center services in order to grow (like the proverbial Beanstalk of Jack). Jade and her husband, Miguel de Guzman, still personally manage the business and are also owners and major stockholders of Bicol Mining Corporation.
Business Beanstalk has consistently been cited and awarded as one of the Philippines best managed call centers.

I can't tell if it's some sort of "singing of praise" turned bad. Starczamora (talk) 04:43, 3 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; it's already been transwikied.--Kubigula (talk) 05:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andavan[edit]

Dosn't seem to make sense RT | Talk 12:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this article only discusses the word itself. I feel a redirect is in order, but not sure what to. Marasmusine (talk) 12:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, Doesn't meet wiki standards and seems to be nonsense. Possible Speedy? Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 16:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Below standard. Ism schism (talk) 21:44, 7 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, possibility leaning towards keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lilia Zaiarna[edit]

Delete. Notability not established from any independent source. Only citation is a reference to a teaching position in a college. WWGB (talk) 06:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The reference in the article shows that she has won international and national awards, as well as performing internationally, which seems to meet WP:MUSIC. Improved referencing is necessary, but non-English references relating to her early career might not be easily visible via Google. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The reference is her workplace website, the entry possibly written by herself. Hardly "independent". WWGB (talk) 23:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm also worried by the fact that this article was created just three days before a bunch of new accounts turned up and changed it with unsourced reports of her alleged death. Add to this that the original material was mostly copied verbatim from her webpage and thus a copyvio; that the wording is blatantly POV; that the achievements in her career are really not that extraordinary for a pianist; and that there is no independent coverage (if she really died, and was notable, shouldn't there be published obituaries? Is there no discography?) - It's all fishy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this source is not a job posting about a teaching position at a college, nor is it the subject's personal webpage. It is the subject's official biography at the college where she works. The college presumably stands behind this biography. Now perhaps not a truly independent source, but it certainly provides context for notability that could be verified by a person who is competent in the languages of the countries listed and who has access to reference resources from those countries. Examples of this context are: first prizes in the International piano competition in Prague as well as the Ukrainian Competition in composition. JERRY ^talk _contribs 06:16, 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, --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Two relatively less important prizes; no recordings; no major US performances; "performs as a soloist and an accompanist in Miami. " teaching position at minor conservatory/high school; collaborated with famous musicians but not one herself. DGG (talk) 07:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't seem to meet notability for musicians. --Dawn bard (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read item number 9: "Has won or placed in a major music competition." - International ”Carl Czerny” Piano Competition, and performance in Moscow [42]. JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC) JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The given reference [43] merely proves she can play the piano. Where is the evidence of notability? WWGB (talk) 01:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hmmmmmm.... it says that while a US resident, she was chosen to play second piano at a performance in Moscow (Russia). That's saying a bit more than your cousin Jenny sometimes plays chopsticks on her Barbie piano. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:50, 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 Merge all into Mandalorian. Since this requires keeping the articles and redirecting them, and since I will not be the one doing the merging, this will result in a keep closure for all with instruction to editors to merge them accordingly. For more details, please see this AFD's talk page. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mandalorian[edit]

Entirely plot summary. No references to reliable sources. No assertion of real-world notability. While Boba Fett may be a notable topic, the various background fiction the character has spawned has no significance beyond the galaxy far, far away; better suited for Wookieepedia. (Note that "sources" in Mandalorian War are either primary sources or an in-universe reference book that simply amalgamates plot points much like the article does.) --EEMIV (talk) 02:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —--EEMIV ([[User talk:EEMIV|talk]02:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If there is no assertion of notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Better suited for Wookieepedia. --Funper (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes? Our mathematical knowledge would be better suited for specialist peer-reviewed mathematical works. Our astronomical knowledge would be better suited for NASA. We could blow up the encyclopedia without decreasing the sum total of human knowledge. --Kiz o r 15:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that mathematics and astronomy can receive a treatment that is inline with Wikipedia's standards, i.e. as an amalgamation of secondary sources. The nominated articles, however, have no secondary sources, and the one clump of sources in one article provide only an in-universe, make-believe plot summary -- and unlike astronomy and math, this material does not align with Wikipedia's criteria for content inclusion/retention. --EEMIV (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the difference is that articles on astronomy or mathematics such as Asteroid 123456 or Direct sum of modules have no sources, no general notability and little readership. Mandalorian had about 10 times the readership of Direct sum in Dec 2007 and a hundred times the readership of the asteroid spam (the numbers being 9202, 985 and 81 respectively). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonel Warden (talk • contribs) 11:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Don't compare science to star trek. --Funper (talk) 11:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - WARS, Funper. Star WARS. (Don't cheese off the fans--they WILL mess you up.) (wink) Gladys J Cortez 15:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All as there are no primary sources to verfify the content, no secondary sources to demonstrate notability. The article is comprised of plot summary with an in universe persective, which means it falls outside the scope of Wikipedia. This is perfect example of fancruft that is better suited to the Annex.--[[ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavin.collins (talk • contribs) 12:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Recognizable aspect of fictional universe. Primary sources are mentioned in the articles that verfify the content. Plus as Wikipedia contains elements of a specialized encyclopedia, i.e. is not a clone of Compton's or Britannica, but goes further, these article should be improved rather than deleted. We should, however, encourage our editors to use additional sources in the articles as in-line citations, but that's a cause for improvement, not deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Recognizable ≠ notable. The "content" "verified" by the "cited" books is all plot summary, which is insufficient to sustain an article. --EEMIV (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Recognizable to a large number of people all over the world = notable. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Great. Cite that claim. So recognizable and notable, where is the third-party coverage and commentary? --EEMIV (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Check through some gaming and science fiction magazines and see what you can find. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Um, no. The burden of proof is on editors adding or restoring content. I think this material should be deleted. If you think it should be kept, then put in the elbow grease to improve the article. --EEMIV (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        While it may be easier to nominate articles for deletion, it would be far more helpful to assist editors in finding the sources and improving the articles. There is no deadline on Wikipedia and even the most established of encyclopedias have had their errors, which given time to grow have been corrected. For example, first edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica said California was located in "the West Indies. The encyclopedia, published in 1768, also noted that 'it is uncertain whether it be a peninsula or an island.'" (See the entry for Friday, January 18, 2008 on 365 Amazing Trivia Facts from Workman Publishing.) Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Neat. My knowledge on the historical status of California was based solely on old maps and I thought they settled that in the 17th century. --Kiz o r 21:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It just goes to show that given time and effort articles can and do improve over time and we've only been around a few years let alone centuries like Britannica! Anyway, I have followed EEMIV's advice and made some additional improvements to the article under discussion: [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], and [56]. So, at least it's a start and a sign in the right direction. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah, I'll throw in a keep here and elaborate if I have time after the more urgent task of finishing an essay on the ethical impact of killer robots. "Burden of proof?!" This isn't a contest! --Kiz o r 00:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm happy to read that and wish you luck on the essay! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Yes, burden of evidence is a very important concept in mainspace and also discussions. You can't just assert something, you have to back it up. If you were to assert that the earth is flat, it's on you to provide reliable sources to back that up, not on me or anyone else to refute it. Actually sending someone else off to find sources for the claims I made is simply un-fucking-believable. It's incompatible with WP:AGF and incompatible with Wikipedia. Unproved assertions are an ill that has been plagueing AfD for far too long. Stop it already! Cite your sources or begone! User:Dorftrottel 13:52, February 3, 2008

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 06:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even Google Scholar has references to this stuff. The nomination just seems to be subjective cruftcruft. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The first one is an in-universe time-line, the second uses "Mandalorian" in conjunction with discussing Fett's armor. A redirect to [[Boba Fett] may be appropriate -- but the material here is in-universe, non-notable and uncited. --EEMIV (talk) 15:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except mandalorian proper I think we should keep the main article on mandalorians but we don't need all the other stuff. Cryo921 (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Non-notable in the real-world. Doubtful that reliable, secondary sources exist. Doctorfluffy (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mandalorian but Merge/Delete the rest it is as notable as Wookiee, Chiss, Hutt, etc. Mind you non of them meet notability either. --Sin Harvest (talk) 05:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the main article and merge the others. There is a discussion of real world aspects and significant published references; that meets the formal requirements, so objection to it might be based on a desire to minimize coverage of what might have personally be thought to be an unimportant subject. A reasonable nomination would not have included the main article. If fact, no nomination was needed, the others could have simply been merged. I am getting reluctant to AGF when the nomination is this indiscriminate. I myself couldn't care less about the SW expanded universe. If deletions had tuck to the really minor articles I'd have supported them from the beginning. I kept asking the deletors of such articles to compromise about things like that, but they still insist on nominating them all. DGG (talk) 08:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point toward this "discussion of real world aspects"? You mean the blurb in the lead which is never followed up upon or expanded in the Mandalorian intro.? Significant published sources? In that main article, I see two "references" to unreliable fan sites, the reference to the debate book to substantiate the big-whoop that one novel "expands" on the make-believe culture (which is simply just a general comment on plot), and the fourth offers back-up for an entirely in-universe observation. That's hardly the basis for an article. Again, the notion of what a "Mandalorian" is and who they are is trivial background window dressing; there may be some notable Mandalorian characters, or folks associated with them (e.g. the Fetts), but that notability does not get transferred do this group. I've always found that a good starting point and litmus test to ascertain whether an element of Star Wars has any notability is whether the starwars.com folks care enough about it to make a Databank entry -- and there is none for Mandalorian, Mandalore, the armor, etc. --EEMIV (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Star Wars articles - can't never have enough of 'em. We have ceased to even attempt to purport we're an encyclopedic project. And, yes of course, each and every nomination of a oh-so-notable fiction something happens in bad faith and can accordingly be labeled WP:CRUFTCRUFT. Also, personal attacks on the trolling nominator whose only goal is to destroy Wikipedia are thus justified and even encouraged. How dare this unbeliever? User:Dorftrottel 13:20, February 3, 2008

Comment. All sides in the current brou-ha-ha about fiction are committed to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. If you can link us to an unambiguous and agreed definition of an encyclopedia, please do so and you'll earn the gratitude of everyone involved. Otherwise - and Lord knows this took me years to notice - try to remember that walking away from the keyboard is an option if you feel that you can't conduct yourself properly. The "Save page" button is likely our most valuable asset, as it can be used as a filter between our brains and fingers. Thanks, Kizor 14:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "walking away from the keyboard is an option if you feel that you can't conduct yourself properly" — same to you, comrade, same to you. E.g. WP:EVERYTHING provides some useful hints for the un~~washed~~informed. And: no. no. Not all people involved in the "brouhaha" as you eloquently put it are "committed to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia". Exactly not. Incidentally, those who create the whole drama with their appaling slackness of mind are the exact same people who are not interested in any exclusion criteria, because they correctly suspect that it would render themselves obsolete as "contributors". So they spend time and effort to destroy any leftover notion of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia because they are unwilling to be convinced by anything. They see something they do not understand, and their first impulse is to destroy it. That's where it's at. Everything else is clinical psychotic delusions. User:Dorftrottel 22:33, February 3, 2008
Btw, for those who might not get it: Actually, I'm agreeing with deleting/merging the small articles into Mandalorian or other pages. User:Dorftrottel 22:44, February 3, 2008

Note to closer- Please remember to disregard comments that do not have anything to do with policy. Accusations of destroying wikipedia, and other hysterics, are not arguments that deal with the nominating concerns. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all the pages to Mandalorian RogueNinja_talk 01:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Lacks reliable secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. It would also be wonderful if the resulting orphaned non-free images were dealt with quickly. Jay32183 (talk) 03:32, 6 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. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 02:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Premieres of Disney Channel Shows (Asia) 2008[edit]

Wikipedia is not a television schedule. Corvus cornix_talk 06:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BALEETE per nom. Lumberjake (talk) 06:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I think it also possibly qualifies as WP:CRYSTAL Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 16:05, 2 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 (Would have qualified for WP:CSD#A7). JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COMPEQ[edit]

Unreferenced, non-notable, self-promotion. They try hard, but it remains non-notable Lumberjake (talk) 06:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - blatant advertising from a company of borderline notability.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:42, 2 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. Tyrenius (talk) 05:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb Prochnow[edit]

Has multiple claims to notability, but seems to fall thin on references. The refs provided aren't very good, and no good coverage could be found in a search. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 06:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — "award winning" is only assertion of notability, though no award is stated. The fact that an illustrator has published works does not establish notability. Also, potential WP:COI issue — User:Cmpillustrator made "clean up" edits; possibly the subject of the bio. — ERcheck (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just being featured in Spectrum or SI is an award of sorts: they're juried collections in which the top illustrators compete. But it's not enough, I think. I would support keeping an article on an illustrator who wins the Spectrum Grand Master Award (one per year), the SI Hamilton King Award (one per year), or is listed in the SI Hall of Fame (~3 per year) but he's not yet in that class. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:20, 3 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 G3 - figure that fits just fine, as nothing checked out whatsoever... Tony Fox (arf!) 06:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kristopher Nimbley[edit]

Tons of highly unlikely claims, all of the "sources" in this seem to point to nonexistent pages. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 06:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), Nom-withdrawn. Chetblong^{T C} 06:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Jon Surf Park[edit]

Mirror of Ron Jon Wisdom89 (talk) 06:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mirror page was blanked after this AfD nomination - please close —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisdom89 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (nomination withdrawn) - non-admin closure. Whpq (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Imhoff[edit]

This article has a bit of a history of IP reverts, minor edit warring, etc so I anticipate this AfD could get "interesting". Yes, there's coverage of the topic, but none appears to meet the basic criteria of WP:BIO. Lots of press release and blog stuff, but the big issue is whether it's reliable and independent. Travellingcari (talk) 06:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC) Nom withdrawn[reply]

Keep Far too many Google Books references and titles authored by her to fail notability. See http://books.google.com/books?q=Claudia+Imhoff&btnG=Search+Books (Mind meal (talk) 07:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Comment Wow, I missed some of those. Note that the search is also returning books she's mentioned in, not exclusively that she (co)authored. What's the minimum on creative professionals? I'm looking at Wikipedia:BIO#Creative_professionals and she would seem to pass on some of those (in which case, mea culpa and I'll withdraw the nom) but not all. If it is deemed to meet WP:BIO I'll try to work on it so it doesn't read like her professional summary. Travellingcari (talk) 15:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The books are published by major publishers, primarily Wiley. Some of them have had multiple editions. Some are in almost 100 US libraries. There are thus undoubtedly reviews also. Not that anyone could possibly have told all this from the spammy nonspecific unreferenced article. Keep and improve. DGG (talk) 08:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nom Withdrawn I stubbed it and added a few of her books. I don't know enough about the field to understand my way through the press releases out there to work out what it is she actually *does* so that's for someone else to figure out now that notability has been established. Travellingcari (talk) 23:20, 3 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 wasSpeedy deleted as A7 no importance cited. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ImageOcean[edit]

Not bad enough to be spam, but nothing asserts notability per WP:WEB. Also orphaned. Travellingcari (talk) 05:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Totally non-notable website, ghits are pathetically low for a web-based subject.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To demonstrate just how non-notable this website is, my Wikipedia username (which I do not use on any other website and is not used by anyone else for anything as far as I know) gets more Google hits than this website does.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly a non-notable site.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable and written like an ad. Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 16:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A7. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Non-Admin Closure. Tiddly-Tom 17:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Mom and Dads[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. Don't let Leslie's article fool you, it takes you to a unrelated page. (for one ,the band is in washington, the leslie welch article says welch is in england) Lack of sources keep assertations of notability very slim. Searches yield nothing more than the wikipedia article. Delete Undeath (talk) 05:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, nothing found in Google News Archive or Google Books. I feel like I may have heard them on A Prairie Home Companion once, but even if true that's not enough. --Dhartung | Talk 06:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per evidence of WP:MUSIC compliance. --Dhartung | Talk 23:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They released a huge number of records (I've added a partial discography), had hit albums, and easily pass WP:MUSIC.--Michig (talk) 10:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, most of their releases were on major labels such as MCA Records and its subsidiaries.--Michig (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a notice, releasing a lot of records does not mean anything. The label means something, but the records themselves do not. I could sit in my garage and turn out a lot of records, but that does not make me notabe. I'm doing some research on the MCA link.Undeath (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Yes, but multiple albums on a major label is sufficient to pass WP:MUSIC. --Dhartung | Talk 23:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They do have a significant entry on the All Music Guide and a career that spanned several years. Certainly notable in their time and in their genre.Brian Waterman, MS, CDP (talk) 15:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:MUSIC standard per above. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per multiple releases on a notable label, meets WP:MUSIC quite clearly. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:58, 2 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. Enough sections of WP:MUSIC satisfied. Black Kite 22:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glo (Band)[edit]

This is an apparently contested prod, as once again someone deleted the prod template without explanation. This page was repeatedly speedied, but the author kept plugging away and recreating it. The band is just not notable at all. I've been trying to find something on them in Google. The searches return thousands of results, but they're not about this band. Gromlakh (talk) 05:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Myspace is not enough.Undeath (talk) 06:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep. Not a lot of coverage found, but they won an award in Canada and have several releases.--Michig (talk) 11:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The "award" they won is a local award for small-time bands in the Toronto area. I don't think that establishes any kind of notability, and they still fail WP:MUSIC because they don't meet any of the criteria listed for notability. That general concern hasn't been addressed yet. Gromlakh (talk) 16:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Maybe not, but one of the criteria on WP:MUSIC is "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city;", so being considered within Toronto as (one of) the top Canadian band(s) from outside Toronto (which is my interpretation of the awards - they won 2), would at least lean towards notability, by the criteria that we are working to. I would still like to see more evidence of coverage, however.--Michig (talk) 17:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've found some refs, which I've added to the article. I'm happy that there's enough for a keep now.--Michig (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Since page was nominated for deletion, more noteworthy info has already been added (ie. awards, nominations, etc).--Karmahead (talk) 11:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Karmahead is the article's author. Gromlakh (talk) 16:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:MUSIC criteria met includes: Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a compilation album (song on Higher Ground TV series), has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city (Toronto exclusive magazine awards), has won or placed in a major music competition (Toronto Indepdenpadent music awards, has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (new album to be distrubuted by Fontana North). Runnerup2007 (talk) 13:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)— Runnerup2007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - as Runnerup2007 has pointed out, the article now indicates notability. matt91486 (talk) 01:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Runnerup2007. Bondegezou (talk) 17:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Runnerup2007. -- Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 07:15, 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, implemented as redirect to Independent Catholic Churches. Sandstein (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Catholic Church USA[edit]

See discussion on the talk page for the results of an informal old Afd, which was apparently a procedural keep. In the intervening 2.5 years, nothing substantive has been done to this article because there appear to be eight sources! Non notable "branch" of Independent Catholic Church, which has issues of its own. Not even sure there's anything in this stub worth merging to the 'home' article due to a lack of notability. Travellingcari (talk) 05:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.unnotable. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's impossible to make it anything more than a two-sentence stub without sources, and no sources seem to exist. Cheyinka (talk) 01:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. No notability is shown. Black Kite 22:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rosetta Pebble[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. No sources other than the home page. Google searches turn up nothing related to music. Delete Undeath (talk) 05:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not at all notable; full of unsourced and unverifiable statements.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Islamway.com[edit]

There is nothing that asserts the notability of this website despite "sources" of Alexa traffic. Also note that per Talk:Islamway.com, this article may have been deleted previously, although I can't find prior discussion. Travellingcari (talk) 05:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm troubled that there doesn't seem to be much more to say about the page than it's Alexa ranking. I gather that it was previously speedied as spam, but I would like to see some input from a native reader before I !vote -- RoninBK _{T C} 15:21, 4 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) 01:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Bird[edit]

Badly sourced, nn Lumberjake (talk) 04:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication that he was notable, and a good chunk of it reads like OR by a very old person! Creator name raises issue of possible COI. Travellingcari (talk) 05:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, one mention in Google Books (I think). Sounds like several stories in Into the Wild, actually, but not really notable. --Dhartung | Talk 06:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mmm... Badly sourced and some badly style, diction. OAS ^{talk to me} —Preceding comment was added at 11:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO - no real claim to notability here in fact. Wikipedia is not a family history website.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A7. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:54, 2 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. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 02:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Island Trends[edit]

Nothing to indicate that this store is in any way notable Travellingcari (talk) 04:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CORP. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP and WP:OUTCOMES, local retailers are generally not noteworthy. Jfire (talk) 22:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is agreed that with the article being unable to satisfy WP:V, it does indeed fail WP:CORP. SorryGuy Talk 03:11, 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 merge (withdrawn by nom). --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invisible tire valves[edit]

~~Hoax? I'm not sure, but google doesn't appear to know the term apart from this page, the category and two mirror texts, also unsourced. Travellingcari (talk) 04:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)~~ *Delete Appears to be a hoax, given the total lack of sources; note that this is the author's only contribution. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Valve Stem per Brewcrewer; apparently they do exist after all. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with Valve stem article. Product exists. Links to manufacturers here,here, here, here and here. --Sansumaria^t@lk 08:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Valve stem. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nom withdrawn obviously with the finding of the product. Support merge to Valve stem.

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International Graduate Legal Research Conference[edit]

While there are a few hits and it is scheduled to occur again in 2008, there is nothing that asserts the notability of this conference. There are bazillions of conferences all over the world, doesn't appear to be anything special about this one. Travellingcari (talk) 04:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, unnotable. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A conference which started in 2007 and only had 40 presented papers in that year is unlikely to have attained notability. A Google & Google News search found little but press releases and calls for papers, with no significant press coverage. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:44, 4 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 05:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Debito Arudou[edit]

Big, well-sourced article on a non-notable person. The case he was involved in may have been notable, perhaps, but that does not bestow upon each plaintiff notability. bd2412 T 04:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Reluctant keep a notorious self-promoter, to be sure, but he has been covered non-trivially even before he filed that lawsuit, e.g. in The New York Times [57]. Sometimes known by former names Arudoudebito Sugawara or David Aldwinckle. The article's 20+ citations to his own website and other self-published sources need to be scrutinised much more carefully though; articles should not be written primarily based on self-published sources. cab (talk) 06:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 06:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. He doesn't sound like someone I'd like to be around, but he's definitely got notability in spades. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm curious, did that "New York Times" piece ever actually run in a physical newspaper? Seems like something from an affiliate that the Times just happens to link through to on their website. Please show me something other than self-promotion and low-level mentions provoked by it. bd2412 T 07:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  - Comment: According to Lexis-Nexis, the New York Times published three articles either about or mentioning by name "David Aldwinckle" in 1999, 2000, and 2004. It's interesting how neither Brooke nor French call him by his (now-preferred) Japanese name Debito Arudou, but that's a side issue. Howard French's article entitled "Nanporo Journal; Turning Japanese: It Takes More Than a Passport" was apparently published on page 4, Column 3, Section A, of the Foreign Desk on 29 November 2000. The NYT also published one by James Brooke ("Foreigners try to melt an inhospitable Japanese city," Column 3, Section A, pg. 4) on 12 May 2004. It's probably not appropriate for me to vote either way because I spend a lot of time trying to add citations and balance to this article when it was such a horrible state (so maybe I have a bias to keep the article). However, I do agree with the other editors that 20+ citations to Arudou's personal website is embarrassingly excessive and I've stated that on the talk page before. J Readings (talk) 07:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Of course you can vote. Your earlier involvement in the article may or may not bias you, but you needn't worry about this, particularly as you've divulged the fact. -- Hoary (talk) 03:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he appears to have some minor notability --Sansumaria^t@lk 09:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I personaly think he is an obnoxious AW who does about just as much damage as he does good to the gaijin community with his deeds (possibly more damage, even), that does not mean that he is not notable. Or perhaps notorious would be a better word. TomorrowTime (talk) 09:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What's an "AW"? -- Hoary (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh. Excuse my internet slang. It means a person desperately seeking attention. Akin to a troll, but a troll will asume an identity, whereas an AW simply goes by their own. See also: [58] TomorrowTime (talk) 07:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, right. Handy term, that! I'll have to use it. There are certainly plenty of people that it neatly describes. -- Hoary (talk) 07:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge'...' into an article about the case.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable activist with multiple sources indicating he is discussed and noted not just for the single incident of the case. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. More than sufficiently notable, absolutely no reason to delete this article about a published author and internationally known activist. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and Merge into Ethnic issues in Japan. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Who said he's not notable? His history is well-documented. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 01:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Being "well-documented" does not automatically make someone notable. bd2412 T 05:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep and trim to focus sharply on his public activism. None of the information about his background and arrival in Japan, his marriage and divorce, motivations for name changes and self-interpretation of his chosen name, work experiences, etc. etc. etc. is worth including in an encyclopedia article on him. They are no more noteworthy than anyone else's. Those details belong in newspaper articles and his web site. The only reason he merits an encyclopedia article is his public activism. Fg2 (talk) 01:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect somewhere ~~or maybe feeble keep~~ for an article on this person. I'm amused by such descriptions above as a published author and internationally known activist. Yes, he's a published author; so are hundreds of thousands. He's internationally mentioned; so are hundreds of thousands. He's had some success in publicizing slights (significant, minor or perhaps merely imagined); well, good for him (particularly if he's had any beneficial effect on the poor treatment of darker-skinned people, which I rather doubt). But his WP article (if he needs one) is not his soapbox. If he retains an article, strip all the Debitocruft per Fg2 (immediately above), and strip virtually all of the sourcing to his own website, too. -- Hoary 03:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC) ... edited Hoary (talk) 01:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please keep in mind that (originally) this article was supposed to be a biography, so information about the subject's background was obviously appropriate. Second, while I agree that 20+ citations to his personal website is self-serving and wrong, one of the problems is that Arudou gratuitously circulates virtually all of this information about himself in public, so some editors receive this information and start adding it bit by bit (and it gets out of hand). Either we make it a biography or we don't. It's that simple, really. And if it's a biography, it can't be someone's personal soapbox. I agree with Hoary. As policies state, it has to be balanced by the available secondary sources to give a full picture of the subject while being mindful of undue weight concerns. Personally, I'm not sure which path is more appropriate: biography or merging some information with another article about the hotspring case. But on the issue of his website, yes, biographical details can be sourced from newspapers and magazines. We don't need his website. J Readings (talk) 03:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While perhaps not the strongest case of notability, this strikes me as being notable enough. --Kralizec! (talk) 06:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that the case is somewhat interesting. « D. Trebbien (talk) 22:11 2008 February 3 (UTC)
Keep Passes the Google test and I can't think of a more active person in the area of discussing human rights and assimilation issues in Japan. --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 02:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, let's see now. Ishimure Michiko, Nezu Kimiko, Kawada Ryūhei,.... Hoary (talk) 05:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThis page confuses me. Whenever I refer to an encyclopaedia, I get hard factual objective information. The more references offered the better the read, to validate the text. I assume Wiki is “trying” to be the same as say Britannica. This said, why all the “debate”…right or wrong is irrelevant, if it exists, it must be presented. Stop providing useless subjective data. We can source Nazi’s from any book, as abhorrent as it was, doesn’t mean it should not be written about. Seems many here do not like the Debito website…that is subjective and irrelevant to the content of a factual 'book'. It exists, so list it, period. I’m shocked Wiki allows this pointless debate.Mr_lolly (talk) 04:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- User's first edit. -- Hoary (talk) 06:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "It exists" is not, by itself, a valid reason to include something in an encyclopedia. bd2412 T 05:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to read that you are confused. Nobody disputes that Arudou or his website exists. But the indisputable fact that a person exists and has a website that exists is not automatically grounds for inclusion: the huge majority of websites (such as my own) aren't written up, and rightly so. I'm glad that you tell Wikipedia (WP) to "Stop providing useless subjective data"; it is indeed policy of WP to be objective, and one part of this is to avoid sources that are likely to be subjective. Thus somebody's own website is not regarded as an authoritative source on that person. I hope that I have helped allay the confusion. -- Hoary (talk) 05:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My point is, if I write a book, it is subjective, because I wrote it, regardless of the objectively that I may claim, or otherwise. I read endless technical papers where the authors always refer to their own work, that is how academia works. I’ve written many technical papers myself and had published after significant peer review. Whilst the content of their work may be considered ‘subjective’ despite many references, the paper does exist and cannot be ignored. So, how do you justify “likely to be subjective”? A persons own website is no different to a persons own book. A website is just easier to obtain on the web than a book, that’s it! Being a website doesn’t make it any more or less valid. Whether it is included on Wiki or not.If a persons own website is not regarded as authoritive, I assume all the links and references to films stars and musicians websites and autobiographies etc are to be removed as well, since these are subjective and ostensibly a persons own website/book. Blowing ones own trumpet is not a valid reason for inclusion or removal, but existence of, is. Otherwise Wiki becomes ‘included only if I like it’, that is censorship. Mr_lolly (talk) 05:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - As somebody whose works have undergone "significant peer review", you should understand that a person's own website is considerably different from their own book (in the form it has been accepted for publication by a self-respecting and even respected publisher), and that this in turn is likely to put a different slant a personal subject than that within a book by a disinterested person coming from a university press. Your assumption about links and references is one you'll find somewhat amended within WP:EXTERNAL (which does not supplant WP:NEUTRAL); there's little point in summarizing it here. There seems very little risk that Wiki becomes ‘included only if I like it’: it already includes vast swathes of stuff that even the most assiduous editor will never have heard of, and thus can't be in any position to like (or indeed to dislike). -- Hoary (talk) 05:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well having been ‘part of the academic system’ I was some what surprised to learn that I can write a book, with no references whatsoever, and then have it published. I can then write a paper for a thesis or technical journal and then refer to that book as a source. This is perfectly acceptable. Since the book is published and in the public domain therefore whatever its content, it is valid, subjective or not. Otherwise there would only ever be one uniform thought and no debate! There are always differing opinions each armed with their own references and sources, claiming the opposite of the other. The fact the book has no references may get raised eyebrows, but that is all, since the book is published. Any post on a political or sociological comment etc will have a personal slant. I did have a look at the Debito website, he gives a very strong personal stance, but does refer to actual facts and figures and quotes actual laws. His editorial comments may be aggressive or questionable, but the referencing is sound and source-able by anybody anywhere. Any social science subject will be subjected to a ‘personal slant’, just take a browse down any book store or library on anthropology or sociology etc and you’ll see widely differing opinions. So this comes down to your point. Should Wiki be allowed to be edited by ‘anybody’, or as in real books and encyclopaedias reviewed by peers? Or have the ‘anybodies’ reviewed and vetted first? If the items posted by ‘anybody’ are accepted, then all views and points of view from one extreme to the other must be accepted. I think Wiki are in a quandary since its credibility is lost when ‘anybody’ with a song to sing can edit and add. Since the ‘anybody’ has no published history nor vetting (as in the academic world) to validate their comments, it just becomes subjective banter. Mr_lolly (talk) 06:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll take three points. (1) Should Wiki be allowed to be edited by ‘anybody’, or as in real books and encyclopaedias reviewed by peers? If you're talking about Wikipedia, it's the former, like it or not. (I'm not sure I like it myself.) There are plenty of places to raise the question and this isn't one of them. (2) If the items posted by ‘anybody’ are accepted, then all views and points of view from one extreme to the other must be accepted. You do not appear to have read and digested what's posted at the policy pages to which I linked. (3) it just becomes subjective banter I'm not sure if you're discussing articles or this page, which you earlier called a pointless debate, a description that you haven't retracted. Anyway, if anything hereabouts is a waste of your time, simply surf elsewhere. -- Hoary (talk) 08:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The policy page; #1)Documenting actual practices and seeking consensus that the documentation truly reflects practices; as it points out it, requires a community consensus. It is ostensibly saying he who shouts loudest. This is clearly very different from a ‘normal’ encyclopaedia and is hence not necessarily seeking to be objective, just accepted by the majority. This relates to your comments on my 1), which is fair point, ie like it or lump it. This is why Wiki can only be regarded as ‘basic source material’ and not used as a ‘true reference book’, which is absolute. Your #3, I’m referring to the comments on this page about whether a reference to a website should or should not be included in Wiki, so what is there that is untrue or false to retract?? I have no idea who wrote the article about Debito. However, is the write up verbatim from his website, if not, what is the problem, as it is just a Bio of him with a link to his website. But if people reading the citation don’t like it, then according to Wiki policy (as you have also pointed out) it can be removed. Hence, any entry is transient and ephemeral, unlike a book, which is absolute. If this was a waste of my time why would I bother to reply? But that view is in keeping with the policy view of Wiki, if a consensus thinks it is a waste of time, then it must be a waste of time! Anyway, that’s my tuppence penny worth…off to watch paint dry now; thanks for the bannter on a website that shouldn't allow it in my view. User:Mr_lolly|Mr_lolly]] (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - 1. "as it points out it, requires a community consensus. It is ostensibly saying he who shouts loudest." - Well, this isn't a "majority rules" - Consensus on Wikipedia is more fluid - Although a rough estimate is about 66%-80%- it is not set in stone. There is a page called Wikipedia:NOT#DEMOCRACY and also see Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion
  - 2. Why use Wikipedia as a "‘true reference book’" when you can cite the referenced from the "true reference books"? :) - I am a long-time editor - I feel I can make good articles but at the same time I have no illusions about the "cite-ability" of Wikipedia. WhisperToMe (talk) 10:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I really do not understand how it could be AFDed. WhisperToMe (talk) 10:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- One reason could be that a large (though diminishing) percentage of it is sourced from Arudou himself. If he and his pronouncements are so significant, I wonder why such a small amount is demonstrably of interest outside his blogosphere, etc. -- Hoary (talk) 10:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I added sources for the NY Times articles, etc. so that the article is not entirely sourced from Arudou. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable indeed. I would also suggest to revise the criteria for AFD so that we don't have to waste our time on obvious keeps. Thanks. 205.228.73.11 (talk) 14:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I appreciate the good work by J Readings, WhisperToMe and others, but as I reread the article I see somebody who's a noteworthy part of one noteworthy legal case, but who otherwise doesn't seem noteworthy. Take the onsen case away and you have somebody who changed his name, changed his nationality -- unremarkable, and a cynic might suggest that these too were related to the lawsuit -- has written some newspaper columns, has got into arguments with people, and that's about it. No offense intended to those who've worked on the article, but really, it sounds desperate in places. There's one hint of noteworthiness outside the legal case, as Arudou "commented on" a mukku (one that sounds conspicuously moronic even by Japanese junk-publishing standards) and posted a bilingual letter for people to take to a konbini; well, good, but (i) this is dutifully written up in the publication's article and (ii) no evidence is adduced for this letter being the reason why FamilyMart stopped stocking it. (I hazily recall reading about the mukku's crappiness in Asahi/IHT or J Times or similar.) Thus I belatedly agree with bd2412: redirect to an article about the case, and have amended my earlier vote (but-this-isn't-a-vote) accordingly. -- Hoary 01:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if that were true, and it's not, plenty of articles about people notable for one thing are included in Wikipedia. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm waiting for the day that a user doesn't try to use the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument and the WP:GOOGLEHITS argument in an AfD. J Readings (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Both perfectly valid arguments. And here's another one: Wikipedia isn't paper. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, not really. They're weak arguments, but since you mention What Wikipedia is Not, let's not forget to include that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and while we're at it, let's also stress again that primarily using the subject's self-published material as the source of the article (20+ citations) is really excessive, and strongly discouraged (if not forbidden) under Wikipedia's official policy. I suspect that's why this AfD came about in the first place. J Readings (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't see how the first applies, since if he's here Arudou hasn't revealed himself, and the second is not a valid reason for deletion. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Both points raised in this AfD are valid when cross-referenced with the notability guidelines. Rehashing what those guidelines state is unnecessary. As for Hoary's question, which is related to those notability guidelines, it's still unclear why you wrote that it's not "true" in relation to how this article is written. If Arudou's personal details and activities were notable, it should be easy to re-write the article using independent, reliable secondary sources. If it's difficult, then notability comes into play and the AfD makes sense. Those are the only points that I'm raising. J Readings (talk) 22:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which part of what I wrote isn't true? -- Hoary (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This has absolutely no standing as a reliable source, but even I had heard of Debito Arudou as an activist since well before this AfD, and I haven't lived in Japan since I was four -- which makes me pretty sure that yes he's notable. Yes, the onsen case was the initial episode of his public activism, but he has continued his activism since then, as I think the article makes pretty clear (if you read past the biocruft). —Quasirandom (talk) 01:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He's continued huffing and puffing on his website, and sometimes elsewhere; but how/where has this further activism been of note? -- Hoary (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some notability. Enough so that I read the article and found it interesting. Brian Adler (talk) 00:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: some new editor added a paragraph of "criticism", suggesting that a class of people were criticizing Arudou in a significant-sounding website. I looked into this, found that it was just one man (Matt unknown-surname) and his blog, and rewrote more informatively and clearly (I hope), very unsure that any of this was worthwhile (and admitting as much in my edit summary). WhisperToMe then removed it, as Matt didn't seem notable. ¶ Should I be pissed off by Whisper's undoing of the work that used up fifteen minutes of my life? I can't bring myself to complain to/about Whisper, because he was after all removing stuff about a mere blog entry (though a coherent and punchy blog entry in a more than averagely interesting blog). What was Matt doing in this entry? Responding to an entry in Arudou's blog. It's not at all obvious to me that Arudou's blog is more significant than Matt's. (One way in which Matt scores higher is his mature avoidance of the excited if soporific streams of BOLD ITALIC CAPITALS so beloved by Arudou.) ¶ And this in turn reinforces my earlier impression of the Arudou article: that an awful lot of it is based on Arudou's blog. He gets steamed up, he writes letters to people, he's involved himself in a series of lawsuits, he cobbled together a dreadful-sounding book about all of this, put out by some very obscure publisher, the occasional news hack knows his email address and asks him for a quotable soundbite on (non-) issues dear to him, and he blogs, blogs, blogs. Long may he blog, but I don't see why this should be encyclopedic or what his significance is outside the lawsuits. -- Hoary (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've put a draft of an article focused on the onsen case at Talk:Debito Arudou/draft. The draft does not include the "criticism" paragraph. (I took a lot of other material out, too.) Fg2 (talk) 01:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it comes to removing everything, but the small section on the lawsuit (and I don't necessarily disagree), then the title of this article (Debito Arudou) is incorrect. We would definitely need to merge it with another article at that point because the subject himself doesn't have any notability beyond the lawsuit. J Readings (talk) 01:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming it is a possibility. Then it could become an article on the lawsuit. Something like "Otaru onsen discrimination lawsuit"? Then we switch the sidebar (the information box) to one appropriate for the lawsuit. Fg2 (talk) 01:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, or whatever the specific legal title of the lawsuit was that can be sourced from independent and reliable secondary sources (that would be encyclopedic, I think). We'd have to look everything up. The problem is: this situation is such a headache. I honestly doubt the same problems here won't start anew over there. Such is the nature of Wikipedia. J Readings (talk) 02:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn, so speedy keep. Justin^(c)_(u) 21:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technosexual[edit]

It appears to be a dicdef for a neologism. I wasn't sure about whether to nominate it, as it seems to have reliable sources. But better safe than using bad cliches. Justin^(c)_(u) 04:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The person who nominated this article for deletion concedes that it has reliable sources. --Loremaster (talk) 04:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article does have references. It could stand a bit of development. Sf46 (talk) 04:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep well-attested on Google but really just a slang dicdef. JJL (talk) 04:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete It's just a slang dicdef. Not only that, it's a newer neologism. Delete per neologism.Undeath (talk) 05:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Transwiki to Wikitionary could be another idea having said that I remain fairly neutral on this matter can see positives of transwiki and deletion and positives of just leaving as is. --Sin Harvest (talk) 05:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's just a stupid slang term. I don't think Wiktionary needs it either. Let it stay on Urban Dictionary or something. 24.129.232.72 (talk) 05:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As noted, uses reliable sources, and they are not just invocations but define the term and talk about its adoption. It's rather mannered to my ear, but meets WP:NEO. --Dhartung | Talk 06:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well referenced article that is more than just a dictionary definition. Davewild (talk) 10:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Not sure" and "just to be safe" are inadequate grounds for deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Dunn (engineer)[edit]

A search is problematic due to multiple people with the same name, but entering clues such as 'engineer' or 'Giza' alongside the name don't yield many results. The book appears to be self published/ a vanity press. Seems non-notable but I didn't know if it would meet speedy. Travellingcari (talk) 03:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:FRINGE theorist. The "reviews" of his book listed on its website are personal letters. Jfire (talk) 01:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, seemingly not that important, although the article suggests that his work has been used as a reference. Failing a keep, perhaps some of its content could appear in a related article. Bob talk 13:28, 5 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. See AfD talk for detailed rationale. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Tunnel Rats[edit]

Non-notable group whose queries only reveal self web-site and a few small forum postings. Completely unsourced. The group also appears to be defunct. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~– Could find no information. Shoessss | Chat 14:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~I want to reserve my opinion until further developments are established. On my search, I could find no information. However, Jachin (talk) explanation would explain why~~. Shoessss | Chat 16:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep - Group has made front page news in Australia on numerous occasions and is currently in the media at present [59], [60], and are currently making representations to act in an advisory role with the Australian coroner in relation to recent deaths at Lurline Bay, New South Wales which will be further front page stuff. The group is Australia's largest urban exploration group, with over 2,000 members across the country. It is not defunct, but has had a media ban on for in excess of three years. Jachin (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will strike if the following are met: (1) Notability is established with reliable sources. Saying that it has "2,000 members" may be impressive, but if there is next to nothing to exclaim that, then its pretty much useless; and (2) Some references are added. The notice has been up since March 2007, by which substantial amounts of unreferenced texts can be removed if no sources are found within a reasonable amount of time. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep group seems to be somewhat notable. Article could stand to be developed further, but should be kept. Sf46 (talk) 04:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nominator. No sources, no media, if it even exists at all it's a non-notable private club. Jpp42 (talk) 11:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Sting au Buzz Me... 04:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources and nothing comes up on Google so does not pass WP:N. The source listed above does not look like comprehensive coverage to me. --Nick Dowling (talk) 04:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable. Perhaps the "sport" itself might warrant an article, assuming reliable sources can be found, but I see no reason to glorify this particular group or their activities, particularly given the flimsy media coverage (a link to some shock jock's website). Gatoclass (talk) 04:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And while we're at it, I also recommend deleting Cave Clan, a similar group whose article also lacks credible sources. Gatoclass (talk) 04:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did find a Sydney Morning Herald article [61] that mentions "urban explorers" but no mention of "The Tunnel Rats". You have to ask yourself (if being of an inclusionist mindset) if this topic can indeed become an article. Perhaps a name change and a search for appropriate content relative to the pursuit? Sting au Buzz Me... 04:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cave Clan is somewhat better known than this outfit (eg, I've heard of it) but an AfD might be justified. There's lots of urban exploration-cruft popping up on Wikipedia at the moment. --Nick Dowling (talk) 05:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jpp42.-Grey Wanderer | Talk 04:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean delete, since that's what he voted for with reason? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – and redirect to Cave Clan. A case for notability can be made, for Cave Clan, using the references found here [62] at Google News. Shoessss | Chat 12:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that would only be appropriate if The Tunnel Rats are a sub-organisation of Cave Clan. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:56, 8 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 05:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flash (Amalgam Comics)[edit]

A non notable, unsourced article about a throw away character. The article as even tagged wrong under Superhero's when the throw away character is not a super hero. Delete Metal Head (talk) 04:04, 24 January 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 03:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article about a non-notable comic, no refs to prove notability, Delete per WP:N. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 06:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#OR. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete - no evidence of outside notability. John Carter (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 23:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all reasons said above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:06, 5 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 battle droid. JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Techno Union[edit]

This article establishes no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of the plot of various Star Wars media, is duplicative of that content, and can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Once more, a notable plot element in an extremely notable series. Needs better sourcing from the appropriate sources, which are the various parts of the series. Articles such as these serve to make coherent the articles on the series. Not all that many fictional works are appropriate for this sort of detailed treatment but Star Wars is one of them. We should distinguish between the many which are not and the few that are. DGG (talk) 19:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please point toward sources to substantiate claim of real-world notability. --EEMIV (talk) 05:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (i) Star Wars receives well more than its fair share of attention. (ii) What happens with articles like this is that we are going into the direction of mirroring the contextual representation of within the ficional universe, when we strictly shouldn't: We should stick to covering the real-world franchise (in as great detail as verifiable), and only very occasionally split off articles about characters or concepts, when their parent article is becoming too long. Then, and only then, can the threshold of establishing notability for a given article topic in its own right be regarded to be more or less automatically fulfilled because the parent topic is notable. User:Dorftrottel 10:50, February 6, 2008
Delete Once more, a minor plot element in an extremely notable series. No real-world information cited to reliable sources. Note that SW.com databank citation is to in-universe "The Movies" section rather than behind-the-scenes real-world info. that Wikipedia is interested in -- and no wonder, because even the sw.com site has virtually nothing to say about this topic. I believe the phrase "Techno Union" is used in exactly one line of dialog in the films, and the rest of the TU's role in films and EU is as "set dressing" -- a provider of material for the separatist actions. It's background component of the plot, and even less significant from an out-of-universe perspective. --EEMIV (talk) 05:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —--EEMIV (talk) 05:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to battle droid - trivial media coverage Addhoc (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable in the real world, better off going in Wookieepedia --Sansumaria^t@lk 09:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - They already have an article Addhoc (talk) 13:53, 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, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to battle droid per Addhoc, or delete. Plot elements from no-matter-how notable works of fiction are not exempt from meeting the basic requirements of notability, and they should have a parent article and should only ever be split off from that if it becomes overlong. User:Dorftrottel 14:59, February 2, 2008
Commentwhether an article would also be suitable in some other wiki is not our concern. The overall subject is notable in the real world, so the question of where to separate out articles is a matter of judgement--editorial judgement about merging or splitting. Considering the extent of our articles on this topic, this one is reasonable. DGG (talk) 08:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it isn't. User:Dorftrottel 10:51, February 6, 2008
Keep. Memorable characters from a notable franchise with appearances in video games, a cartoon, two films, etc. Notable to humans in the real world and verfiable. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Any substantiation to that claim of notability? Being background/window dressing in whatever media doesn't make them notable. --EEMIV (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Appearances, Sources, and External links section of the article effectively proves notability as do the numerous hits that turn up when one does a search on a real world search engine. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, I am once again not entirely confident about your understanding of what constitutes a third-party source and what does not. Only third-party sources can establish notability and there is none in the article. User:Dorftrottel 10:44, February 6, 2008
      - A wealth of primary sources can also establish notability. Anyway, as the Techno Union is in effect characters, then keep per the injunction. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Unless Obi-Wan turns to the camera and says, "The Techno Union is also important in the GFFA and in our galaxy right now," then the notion that there's some assertion of notability in the primary source is ridiculous -- by looking at the primary source and thinking, "Well, there it is, in these various movies and publications; must matter to the real world now," you're conducting original research. The Techno Union is, and the article is about, an organization; the injunction doesn't apply. --EEMIV (talk) 17:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Then Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, because eliminating this article will prevent us from improving and maintaing Wikipedia as it is a topic of importance to a decent number of editors and readers. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Someone should turn Wikipedia policies and guidelines into a collectible card game. "I choose you, WP:MOS!" --EEMIV (talk) 19:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with what I think EEMIV is saying, that we should not use IAR in this situation, if only because it is not the least obvious what will in fact improve the encyclopedia. that;s why we have rules to guide us. Nor do we need IAR--we have a clear statement of guidelines that notable aspects of a notable subject are appropriate for subarticles, per summary style; this is one of them. The guideline however do not agree with EEMIVs appeal to the need for what would be truly primary sources, nor his insistence that the sources for notability be in-universe. And what Obi-wan thinks of the matter would appear to be COI :) DGG (talk) 05:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- nor his insistence that the sources for notability be in-universe - I don't know if this is a typo or a misunderstanding -- but I've been trying to say that assertions of notability need to have an out-of-universe connection/footing, which this article lacks. --EEMIV (talk) 05:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the summary style guideline allows us to ignore WP:V, and WP:N. There is a lack of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Accordingly, this isn't notable and should be redirected or deleted. Addhoc (talk) 12:34, 7 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 Megan Rochell. JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The One You Need (song)[edit]

Not enough notability with the information given. Although the artist is notable herself, the album of this song doesn't even have its own page. So I don't see why this single should have it M4gnum0n (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Megan Rochell Few claims at notability; really the only vaild one is the Billboard ranking, which to me doesn't merit its own article. SingCal 22:03, 26 January 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 03:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Sing. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It was a popular single. ≈Alessandro ♫^{T • C} 18:28, 5 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 05:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foxie[edit]

Was speedy-delete-tagged "Ad for malware program.", but this article looks to me more like a hazard warning than an advertizement. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although it does appear to be malware I can find no reliable sources discussing this other than SiteAdvisor, which is merely collating user reports. Fails WP:SOFTWARE, and we are not a malware directory, which other sites do much better than we could. --Dhartung | Talk 08:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dhartung.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not encyclopedic, although it's a shame that there aren't more credible sites highlighting this. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:34, 6 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 and repair overwrite of older afd. JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NEUA[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Note this is actually the third nomination. The previous AfD used the same discussion page and can be found here. --Salix alba (talk) 12:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating again, as the concerns brought up in previous AFD have not been addressed. As the article currently stands, it is not verifiable using reliable sources. If this can be corrected, this nomination may be withdrawn. Triona (talk) 12:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and inform relevant wikiprojects. It was a relatively well known warez group. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:V and WP:RS, and apparently never will be able to, judging from the past history. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Week delete apparently referenced in [63] but nothing in this article demonstrates any notibility. --Salix alba (talk) 12:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn, sources established on article talk page. Non-admin close. Redfarmer (talk) 14:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

White Denim (band)[edit]

Also included in this nomination:

Let's Talk About It EP

Just barely doesn't make the cut for WP:BAND. They did get a mention on the Rolling Stone web site but it was on an editor's blog and was just a mention of the band and some trivia about them. They have only released one EP, which was self released and there's no suggestion it charted. No significant secondary source coverage other than trivial mentions. Redfarmer (talk) 03:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is certainly a borderline case for whether the coverage is "significant", but I'm going to fall on the keep side for the band, and the merge side for the album. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - User Redfarmer is erroneous in his claim that the Rolling Stone article merely mentions band trivia. In the online version, this is true, but the actual printed article on page 26 of Issue 1045, there is a more detailed history of the band, and also news/information of their EP in question. (Fulmerg (talk) 03:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

If this band has actually been covered in the print version of the magazine - which I'll try to check Monday at work, since we should have that issue there - my keep vote becomes substantially stronger. Still vote to merge the album, though. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted, the coverage was on a Rolling Stone blog, which are not usually covered in the print version. It's kind of their version of a podcast. If you are able to find an article, however, I will consider withdrawing the nomination. Redfarmer (talk) 03:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Received plenty of coverage - I don't have time to add them to the article now, but I've found these: [64],[65], [66], [67], [68], [69]--Michig (talk) 11:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:MUSIC criterion 1.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Party Hong Kong[edit]

A political party that is less than four weeks old. Originally prodded for lack of notability and verifiability per searches on talk page but the prod was removed hence it is now here. No change, it still fails WP:NOTE and WP:VERIFY. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Utterly non-notable. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --- absolutely nothing besides that article itself. Similarly, a search on the Chinese name "香港前進黨" mentioned by the SPA who created this article [70] returns nothing but our own List of political parties in Hong Kong [71][72].
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 11:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No sources, reliable or otherwise, to show notability or existence of party. I even tried a search on the name of the founder and the slogan, which might have got into a news item on the party, but with no success. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 03:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Ms Au aims at working at grassroots levels, while building up her party and publishing research reports." --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At this point in time I would not consider the party notable. Maybe in the future it will be notable, but not today... 1ForTheMoney (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe later it can recreated if it establishes itself enough later on. Snake66 (talk) 18:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find anything on this other than this entry. If references can be found then it can be resubmitted, but for now there's nothing here.Georgiamonet (talk) 05:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P & H Power Shovell[edit]

Looks like this article was originally some text to support a photo of this product. The photo was subsequently deleted. The remaining text is now incorporated into the generic article Power shovel Sansumaria (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My first inclination would be to say "redirect," as the content has already been merged; but since the article name involves a misspelling that makes this an unlikely search term, I'll go with delete. Deor (talk) 03:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'll have to agree that the article should be deleted and the information combined in some other machinery article. Sf46 (talk) 04:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Deor. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:05, 2 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 Burton Albion F.C. Tags applied. Black Kite 22:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burton Albion F.C. records[edit]

A poorly organized list that offers no context to those unfamiliar with football clubs. Speedy denied by Ryan Postlethwaite (talk · contribs). JuJube (talk) 02:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Burton Albion F.C. - there's no reasons to delete the page outright, as I said when declining to speedy delete it. The article contains notable, and verifiable information that could be use in the Burton albion F.C. page. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per Ryan. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Burton Albion F.C., or even cleanup and keep, but definitely do not delete. Qwghlm (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything useful not already in the main Burton Albion F.C. article. - fchd (talk) 10:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all the above. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 10:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clean up or merge to Burton Albion. This is relevant just very non user-friendly. Peanut4 (talk) 19:02, 4 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, recreation of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Me and Orson Welles (film), by Jauerback, non-admin close. Redfarmer (talk) 03:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me and Orson Welles[edit]

Possible film for possible release in 2009. Sending to AfD per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF. Only one "source" and not a good one at that, and film hasn't even started shooting yet. Collectonian (talk) 02:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Collectonian (talk) 02:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crystalballing; no reliable sources exist yet for a film that hasn't even begun shooting. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, G4 as recreation of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Me and Orson Welles (film). Redfarmer (talk) 03:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per Redfarmer. Ward3001 (talk) 03:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Charlie Brown Kwanzaa[edit]

I regretfully withdrew my speedy nomination of this because it does assert importance. However, I still do not believe it meets WP:N or WP:WEB as there are no secondary sources and the cult status assert is subjective. Redfarmer (talk) 02:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only quasi-notable as an Internet meme. JuJube (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment The film is actually rather well-known among fans of viral videos and is a ubiquitous presence across Net video sites. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not the question though. The question is whether it meets the criteria of WP:WEB. Redfarmer (talk) 03:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Okay, as per WP:WEB:

“The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.”

I cited the article on Film Threat – I can try to locate others.

“The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster”

It debuted on iFilm (the most prestigious of the online video sites) and is on MySpace Video, AOL Video, and it is all over YouTube (do a search – amazing how many people reposted that).

Remember, this is an underground parody with the unauthorized use of copyright protected material -- the filmmakers did not come forward to take credit and publicize their work.

I am also hopeful that the requests for deletion are not based on the film's humor and contents, which some people do not find amusing for very obvious reasons. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough per WP:WEB or WP:FILM, or heck, just plain WP:N. The Film Threat article is just someone's review and doesn't look like a significant third-party sources, and the other links are to YouTube. It may be "popular" underground, but I see no notability outside of a few small circles. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Charlie Brown major, the best one ever. It's extraordinary, so good that wikipedia is not worthy of this article so we should delete it. --Alisyn^talk 03:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Huh? Ecoleetage (talk) 12:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that irony, sarcasm, or parody? Dlohcierekim Deleted? 13:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notablity. Falls far short in terms of independent non trivial coverage --T-rex 15:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to A Charlie Brown Christmas. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be against a merge/redirect unless it's just a brief mention. This is not an official Charlie Brown production but a parody with extreme racial undertones. Redfarmer (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, of course, only a brief mention. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Now that is a brilliant compromise! I second (third?) that emotion. In fact, I will add that brief mention right now! Ecoleetage (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge but don't kill If it's worthy of parady then it's worthy of mention. I am against the removal of any knowledge that could benefit the community, no matter how banal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgiamonet (talk • contribs) 04:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great fact and sourceApplemac20 (talk) 05:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm afraid that notability has not been established with verifiable sources. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 07:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to ask for an extension on this? The film has been submitted to the IMDB for inclusion in its database and that could take 7-10 days. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: you've asked, but (a) I find it likely that given this many commentators, an admin will decide to close it anyway, and (b) not everything in the IMDB is suitable for Wikipedia, and in this case there's no reason to substitute the IMDB's wisdom for our own.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:04, 8 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 (Speedy, really -- WP:CSD#A3/A7: no content; directory-only listing with no encyclopedic content, no assertion of notabiity.) JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arcaño y sus Maravillas[edit]

Although I have no doubt that Google doesn't have complete access to Cuban news sources, there is precious little that asserts any notability for this band according to WP:Music. Many of the links are to music downloads and there doesn't appear to have been much of any 3p coverage. Travellingcari (talk) 02:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is linked by Music of Cuba and elsewhere; it seems like the lack of online source may just be a reflection of the group's age. Judging by Music of Cuba#Habanera, it may have been pretty influential in its heyday (1930s). Jfire (talk) 02:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I thought the same as well, that's why I tried to search earlier. Without access to information on the group in its heyday, I'm not sure whether it's encyclopedic. It's been tagged for 9 months, I'd love if it could be improved but I don't know if it's possible. Travellingcari (talk) 03:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment since someone removed the tag, this article had been tagged for a lack of notability for nine months if that's a factor at all. Part of what led to my nom was that there had been ample time to work on it, and no one had chosen to and/or been able to find anything. Travellingcari (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per comment directly above « D. Trebbien (talk) 03:58 2008 February 4 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hot 100 (U.S.) chart achievements and trivia[edit]

This article is a indiscriminate, sprawling, and arbitrary mass of Hot 100 statistics, in violation of WP:NOT#STATS. It has virtually no explanatory text to establish context or significance for any one of the biggest/longest/most/highest/whatnot sections, and its length and lack of logical flow makes it impenetrable to any but the most dedicated readers. In addition, while WP:TRIVIA discourages the use of trivia sections in articles, this article in its title embraces the fact that the entire article is trivia. WP:TRIVIA does encourage preserving the content of trivia sections where it can be properly incorporated into a "logical ... and ... integrated presentation, providing context and smooth transitions", which I completely support. In this case, that should take the form of incorporating a well-selected and relative few of these statistics logically into Billboard Hot 100. Does that article have a history of becoming overcluttered with these indiscriminate statistics? Perhaps. But that is better solved by policing the quality of that article, rather than keeping List of Hot 100 (U.S.) chart achievements and trivia as a dumping ground for poor quality content. Ipoellet (talk) 02:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an almost entirely unsourced pile of trivia and listcruft. I think that some of the bigger achievements, such as longest chart run, longest time spent at #1, and songs that debuted at #1, could easily be merged into the main Billboard Hot 100 article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The long history of "chart-watching" is a central part of Billboard Magazine's purpose and appeal. This history is reflected in a succession of encyclopedic books devoted to the topic, which have been published and updated for more than three decades (see: http://www.recordresearch.com/), as well as popular countdown shows from "Your Hit Parade" to Casey Kasem. The recent news coverage of Kanye West vs. 50 Cent "showdown" over whose album would debut at #1 indicates that this general interest in "chart achievements and trivia" continues. Artists such as Mariah Carey and The Beatles have released best-selling compilation albums whose contents are entirely based on the types of statistical accomplishments archived on this page. Numerous topics such as the Academy Awards, baseball, and television ratings have separate and subsidiary "list"-style pages on Wikipedia (i.e. [[73]]; [[74]]; [[75]]). This article is well in keeping with those, and others.One Sweet Edit (talk) 05:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As poster above says, much of this material appears in numerous books and shows the diversity of popular music and it's changes. While this entire article is made of trivia, even a small amount would likely continued to be expanded at the main article (Billboard Hot 100), and eventually be split off again. Trivia is part of the charts, and it is constantly being used by DJs and others. Trivia about the Hot 100 deserves an article. Squad51 (talk) 05:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yikes....so we discourage trivia SECTIONS, but we're going to concede the existence of an entire trivia ARTICLE?? That's a slippery slope waiting to happen...and I say that as one of the most droolingly chart-centric human beings ever. There's got to be a better way to do this than to make a special exception--because once Billboard has ITS special exception, like the fly in the soup, everybody's gonna want one.Gladys J Cortez 16:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as someone who has worked extensively on this article, I'll say it was originally created because the "major" milestones used to be in the main Hot 100 article, and since the section kept growing and growing I (believe it or not), cut it down and moved it to where it is today. I do believe that the title of the article is cumbersome and since "trivia" is a dirty word around here, it should be renamed (actually a discussion began a while ago on its talk page). That said, I believe much of this is notable, so much so that books, etc. have been published as OSE states above. Perhaps it is time again to prune the article. - eo (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : as per One Sweet Edit. Europe22 (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : If this page is deleted, then Wikipedia will lose a very informative page about the past, present, and future of popular music in the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcbridelr (talk • contribs) 02:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep :I think that "One Sweet Edit" is right Alecsdaniel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alecsdaniel (talk • contribs) 18:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think there's any dispute that this information is interesting or if books have been written about it, but rather wither the content is encyclopedic. The current longest/quickest/top/whatever is worth mentioning in Billboard Hot 100, but the rest of it is more appropriately covered in a book specifically geared to this subject. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 23:13, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Smoothie[edit]

Strong Delete - Sick and tired of seeing this type of advertising article on this encyclopedia. Maybe we have forgotten what we actually are? Markanthony101 (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I don't see how this is advertising; it simply states that it's a franchise with locations in several states. I'd say that just about any multi-state franchise would have a certain degree of notability, although I'm having a hard time finding any reliable sources for this one. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry, even though they span eight states (soon to be nine; not bad for only 21 locations total), I just can't find a single reliable third-party source for this chain. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep AfD is for irredeemable articles. This meets notability, it just needs expansion. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 22:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Nominated by now-indefinitely blocked user. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per SchuminWeb. (Reluctantly - this doesn't look particularly notable to me, but he's right, banned users are not supposed to initiate AFDs.) Terraxos (talk) 04:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of independent reliable sourcing attesting to notability. Otto4711 (talk) 06:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that despite the nominator being a banned person, I will allow this AfD to continue since this is a valid AfD itself, and the fact there is a notability concern in this article means that this AfD is not made in bad faith. Please comment on this AfD as if it was an AfD initiated by any user in good-standing. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My deletion has been contested. See this: [76]

In fact, proposing this and other articles for deletion brought me to the powerful wrath of Mr. Schumin's friends. I say the admin hierarchy has no right to do what it has done. Have a look for yourself to see just how corrupt and downright wrong that decision was. Markanthony102 (talk) 14:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of sources to establish notability. --Veritas (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep sufficiently notable large multi state franchise.DGG (talk) 08:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep- notable, but a stub article. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 00:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC) (Disclaimer: I am currently involved in a dispute with the nominator)[reply]
keep, bad article, needs background, but company is notable.Beach drifter (talk) 20:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was close without precedent. The "delete" opinions are mostly moot in view of today's changes to the article. Sandstein (talk) 21:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 84[edit]

AfDs for this article:

I figured this was going to happen when the redirect to UFC 83 got deleted after the page move. This page is pure crystalballing. Nobody has announced anything official at this point: there are no official matches, no official venue, no official date, and no official city. Everything is coming from rumors pages. This is WAAAAY premature. Voluminous precedent for deletion here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Gromlakh (talk) 01:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Gromlakh, WP:CRYSTAL e.t.c. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 02:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sure it'll happen but until a card is announced it's all WP:CRYSTAL. JJL (talk) 04:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:CRYSTAL. Redfarmer (talk) 11:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, article admits to being unverifiable.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of UFC events until valid article can be created. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Does a week not go by without some sort of UFC related AFD? Doc Strange (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - No, which is why I made this proposal. I'm hoping to cut down on the ridiculous number of AfD's we have to do. Gromlakh (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Or alternately, how about renaming all the UFC articles to include their taglines? For example, move UFC 81 to UFC 81: Breaking Point This way you can't create a future UFC page without knowing the tagline -- RoninBK _{T C} 15:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Response here. Gromlakh (talk) 15:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of UFC events, per Brewcrewer. Also see my rationale in here. hateless 22:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ and protect per Hateless and Brewcrewer until we get a consensus on the proposal Gromlakh mentioned --Nate1481(^t/_c) 23:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible situation change (see below) abstaining probably change to keep soon. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Though I nom'd for deletion, I'd support hateless's redirect proposal as a temporary measure over straight deletion. Also supporting community ban against Nate1481 for misspelling my name. Gromlakh (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- where? :D --Nate1481(^t/_c) 23:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can I revert his vexatious un-misspelling of my name as vandalism? Gromlakh (talk) 23:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect & protect per above ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add confirmed info which exists for example here [77]: "Tito Ortiz Confirms UFC 84 Fight with Lyoto Machida", "MMAjunkie.com (www.mmajunkie.com) today confirmed the fight with Salaverry’s camp, which received the fight offer just this afternoon...Ther Palhares-Salaverry fight will take place at UFC 84, which takes place May 24 at the MGM Grand Garden Arena in Las Vegas.", etc. - Indecision (talk) 08:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sherdog is saying he's signed a contract to appear the problem is the situation keeps changing before the AfD finishes...--Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:35, 8 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 Neon Nights. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Come and Get It (J.C.A. song)[edit]

An article about a cancelled single which also needs a WP:Cleanup and this information could be included on the Neon Nights page. Surfer-boy94 (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge into Dannii Minogue. iTunes only, delayed, not charted or notable enough for its own article. Pharmboy (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 16:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - cancelled single and the page makes no pretence at notability. Fails WP:MUSIC. TerriersFan (talk) 00:28, 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 01:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Neon Nights as it is a track listing there. If it ever gets recreated with decent WP:RS say if other performers pick it up etc. Then content preserved in redirect. Sting au Buzz Me... 02:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per User:Sting au. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:05, 2 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, considering only opinions after the rewrite. Sandstein (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wu Xiang (Ming General)[edit]

Delete being a general's father doesn't make you notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No real assertion of notability. Blueboy 96 01:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nn. also per WP:NOTINHERITED. Sting au Buzz Me... 02:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I added all of the material I could find about this general. He actually played a role of sorts in history, because his death at the hands of the Shun Dynasty led to his son favoring the Qing Dynasty and overthrowing the Shun. History could be entirely different without him, but I can't decide if we should declare him notable for dying. Before voicing your opinion or deleting this article, please view it in its present form.--Danaman5 (talk) 05:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~I'm going to merge the information into Wu Sangui. It is almost completely a copy and paste job.~~ Cancel that I can't figure what time these events occurred in Wu Sangui's life and without the original sources I would be making some assumptions aka WP:OR --Sin Harvest (talk) 05:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to his son, Wu Sangui. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thee is already enough sourcing for this historical figure, and there is undoubted more in Chinese sources.DGG (talk) 08:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources are cited, and from the little that's in the article we can see that he had a significant influence on Chinese history. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 17:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. JERRY ^talk _contribs 15:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-operative living arrangements[edit]

No references, definitely some original research and not really encyclopedic Pollytyred (talk) 01:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is certainly a notable subject, but I assume it must already be covered elsewhere on Wikipedia. If it is, we could handle this with a merge and redirect, as well as encouraging this (apparently very industrious) new editor to contribute to that article. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essay that weaves together a bunch of original research (well, opinion, really) around concepts already covered elsewhere, e.g. cohousing or roommate. While there are aspects these hold in common we would really need something well-sourced to make an article here. --Dhartung | Talk 06:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep an article can be written on this, and this is not a bad attempt to do one, though it was apparently done as an essay . Add sourcing, and it might well be OK. Has anyone tried? DGG (talk) 08:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References plus both internal and external links have now been added. This is not "original research" but a brief summary of existing knowledge on this topic. This summary information does not exist anywhere else in Wikipedia. This topic is notable due to the recently increased interest in co-operative living alternatives. This article focusses on the actual arrangements that people make in these situations and provides a valuable reference for those who are considering these possibilities. AfD status should be removed.Speers (talk) 22:38, 4 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 as disambiguation page. Sandstein (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Modern music[edit]

Page contains no useful content (WP:NOT#DICT) Also possibly redundant because we already have musical modernism, 20th century music, and contemporary music. --S.dedalus (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nomination. --S.dedalus (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Keep and dabify: Might make a good disambiguation page. Bovlb (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Might as well make it a "vote". Bovlb (talk) 22:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but convert to a disambiguation page. Innumerable academic references can be supplied for the term "modern music", but they generally refer to the articles listed above, also Contemporary classical music. dissolve ^talk 08:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dabify per User:Dissolve, looks like a plausible search term--Lenticel ^(talk) 08:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect somewhere (don't know where), or make into a disambiguation.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Dabify per above. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 14:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Modernism (music). I think that topic is a better target than Contemporary music. If we're concerned, I suggest a separate Modern music (disambiguation) page, rather than making Modern music the Dab. Torc2 (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Modernism (music) is usually understood to have a specific stylistic meaning. Modern music as I understand it does not. That’s why believe contemporary music may be a better target. --S.dedalus (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- reply I guess it depends on your frame of reference. I rarely hear the term "Modern" applied to music without it referring specifically to the Modernist era. Granted, that's totally anecdotal, but that's the reason for my vote. It also seems like it would make more sense to point to Modernism (music) and put a hatnote saying "For the article on recent developments in music, see Contemporary music" than it would be to point to Contemporary music and put a hatnote there for Modernism (music). I could also support the dab page, but it would be a pretty unconventional by WP:DAB standards since since very few articles we'd link to would actually include the phrase "modern music". Torc2 (talk) 21:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you search Google books, you'll see the term applied contextually to musical modernism and contemporary music about equally. You'll also see it applied to contemporary classical music and 20th century music. All of these topics, except 20th century music, are mentioned on contemporary music, so a redirect to contemporary music, but adding a section about 20th century music, could let that article act as a summary page rather than creating a (rather poor) dab page. dissolve ^talk 21:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. JERRY ^talk _contribs 15:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mud Face[edit]

An album that might not even be released, non-notable surely? Pollytyred (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mud Face WILL be released within 2008, the only problem is there is no word whether or not it will be on Psychopathic Records. I believe that this is a relevent article, many fans were awaiting for it to be on wikipedia, I did them a favor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crackaveli (talk • contribs) 00:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:CRYSTAL --PseudoChron (talk) 00:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL; no sources seem to exist yet regarding the sources. If it's not known what label the album will be on, then it's most certainly too soon to make an article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to Anybody Killa#Discography until valid artcle can be created. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 13:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mud Face is already posted in the discography section of Anybody Killa's page, but, I will be copying the "Mud Face" article and if it is in fact deleted and, as soon as I find out the label it will be on, I will with out question, recreate the article. I suggest you do some research on Anybody Killa's upcoming projects before you slap a deletion notice on it. I also created an article called "The Opaque Brotherhood" which is the upcoming Dark Lotus album, if I see a deletion on it, then I know there is no research being done prior to the deletion notices.

Crackaveli--4.153.239.71 (talk) 22:55, 7 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. Hopefully an editor who speaks Lithuanian will come along and improve the referencing.--Kubigula (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Artas Pitkauskas[edit]

Non-notable singer. Google search for the name reveals only four results, all in languages other than English so I have no idea what they're saying. Gromlakh (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I can understand your frustration in not being able to find sources, I don't think we can immiediately count Artas out. The article appears to assert his notability, however it lacks sources. I feel that perhaps if we had a lithuanian(?) speaker who could perhaps do a little bit of work on the article, old Artas could pass notability. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was a finalist in the Lithuanian selection for Eurovision (here), so that seems to indicate notability to me; however, proper citations might be a bit hard to come by. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 23:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep sources probably do exist to establish notability, but will probably not be in English. Still, that's no reason to delete. RMHED (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep give someone a chance to reference it. The references being written in Lithuanian doesn't make them invalid, it just means that I can't read them. The hit recordings talked about in the article would seem to establish some amount of notability. Sf46 (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kill it with fire, unreferenced. Lumberjake (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He seems to be a famous Lithuanian singer. « D. Trebbien (talk) 22:17 2008 February 3 (UTC)
Keep. Meets WP:MUSIC on several grounds. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Bondegezou (talk) 17:51, 7 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 G12-Copyvio (non-admin closure). brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Word by word dictionary[edit]

Speedy tag was removed, this to me is vandalism, somebody making a point maybe. Pollytyred (talk) 00:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wiktionary is over there. Also, I strongly suspect the definitions here are copied from somewhere. Zetawoof_(ζ) 00:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this please because it helps me alot! this rklemme person sounds good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.5.27 (talk) 03:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious gibberish. Somebody has clearly copied the definitions of the letter A out of an existing dictionary. The content of the article does not, therefore, match the title. MrMelonhead (talk) 03:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, possible vandalism, possible copyvio, nonsense, and, on top of that, WP:NOT#DICT. Redfarmer (talk) 03:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete. If I was an admin I would delete and close this now. No value whatsoever, more or less patent nonsense, no point in going through process to discuss this further.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Jeez! --brew crewer (yada, yada) 13:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - I'm not sure wikitionary would even want this... --T-rex 15:19, 2 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. Merge considered but no appropriate sourced content to merge exists. JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Constable Neyla[edit]

This page cites no sources or real world notability. Should be merged or should not exist at all. -- ZeroGiga (Contact) 00:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty much agree. I intended to merge it into a Sly 2 Characters page (or maybe just a general Sly Characters page), but haven't gotten around to it. I'll get around to it soon. BlueCanary9999 (talk) 02:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 16:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. This way people have time to look for sources. Also tagged as unreferenced, which isn't in itself a criteria for deletion. Wizardman 14:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Give the author or someone else a chance to add some references. If we deleted every article on Wikipedia that had a references needed tag, Wikipedia would be much the poorer for it. Sf46 (talk) 03:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for merge and redirect Doubtful that this character warrants an article, but since Blue Canary's expressed an interest in looking at the article at some point there seems little reason to burninate it. Someone another 03:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per above. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 13:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero out-of-universe perspective means there isn't really any material to merge. Marasmusine (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Marasmusine, and no cleanup work done since original listing two weeks ago. Argyriou (talk) 19:58, 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tess Rose[edit]

I can find very little out about this author, she doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines. Article is also probably a vanity piece. Pollytyred (talk) 00:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Polly, have you been ever ever in the operahouse or are you reading the magazine Opera, or have you you idea what it is opera buffo ? If you should , you couldnt talk about vanity piece. But of course in the science fictions worlds doesnt exist something like Steinway or Bernsdorf ? Tell me , if you know what is that. You can choose - Bernsdorf is a Vienna cake, a famous dentist of 18th century or the best concert music instruments of the value as flat ... ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dornochclub (talk • contribs) 00:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find a listing for the author or Whisky Mystery at http://catalogue.bl.uk or http://catalog.loc.gov Moreover, http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Whisky+Mystery%22+%22Tess+Rose%22 yields nothing. --Eastmain (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as before when I tagged it, still non-notable. JuJube (talk) 00:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jujube, what is wrong with your health ? it is on your userpage... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dornochclub (talk • contribs) 00:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi polly and easty, the answer is fully rebuilt grand pianos cost between $26,000. and $65,000., depending upon size and finish, but we also often have a few excellent pianos that are not fully rebuilt and which therefore cost even less. Generally, we have a few such pianos for sale for around $20,000. Traditionally, Steinway prices increase at year's end. Lately, the increases have been about 5% per year. So can you answer and tell us the 3 most famous opera buffos , if try to pretend you are the master of knowledges.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dornochclub (talk • contribs) 00:48, 2 February 2008

Hi Eastman, thanks for input. It is necessary to create some online catalogue on opera writers and libretto, it really doesnt exist yet on the global level. As we checked your library catalague has any information about any operas, opera writers or the famous libretto. What a shame. We must start to make one. Are you ready to help with this idea ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dornochclub (talk • contribs) 00:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dears on the duty now, it is really pity and feel sorry for you. You have no idea about classic librettos and opera and we have checked your profiles it seems your keen on many many interesting thing but realy you cant have a idea and respect and to opera. But it is still most significant artistic work and you should let off your wiki mobbing against the author. If you want and discussions you will get them -we will go to complaint and we will win and we have press media coverage . So you try make her big mobbing against truly stories but you thing only your scientific stories should be full in wikipedia. at first wikipedia is and should stay a serious encyclopedia to inform user from all areas and special also from classic opera world and only full of your virtual creatures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dornochclub (talk • contribs) 02:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn. fails WP:BIO no WP:RS so fails WP:V. Sting au Buzz Me... 03:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sting au above—possible A7 speedy, as the somewhat incoherent claim of significance in the article is uncredible. I'm still trying to figure out what Steinways have to do with this. Deor (talk) 03:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello dior deor, you make us laugh if dont know what has to do a connection opera buffa - steinway - opera writer together. But honest to say i would recommend not the author tess rose to delete but your deor article, it is not historical proved it was in the manuscript. So what put for speedy your article ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.207.224.196 (talk) 10:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For your help deor, to give right direction ... you cant find everything at internet, you must go to the press archive, read last few years opera related articles (but not only about pavarotti) but try important event like salzburg festival, vienna opera ball, because the opera world it is not at your horizont and you really have no idea about, you never heard about steinway etc. but to confirm that sure 1oo times have somebody heard about opera buffo by tess rose, as above your not historical proved Deor story, which you spent a page about at wikipedia. Truly shame how much you are mobbing such quality such admiration that still somebody has the background, was a concert pianist as junior pianist travelling round the world, giving concerts , is a member of storybooks writer, has won a Poetry Prize in Florida (10 years ago) etc... You are living at your funny virtual world without any choice to come the beautiful reality world full of operahouses, opera buffos, Salzburg festivals, MOzart, Rossini and shame that you never hear the story and libretto about "Master of Whisky" in the myths called "the James of the Hill". But I am also sure you have never seen or touched a truly reality steinway - because you either have no clue what is... sorry for your horizont... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.207.224.196 (talk) 10:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete I'm not sure why this was not speedily deleted. Non notable in the extreme. The person is entirely unknown as per Google search. The 'opera' mentioned is likewise completely unknown as per search of UK newspaper archives. I am a member of the Opera Project and am also familiar with all the current press coverage of the subject which is available in hard copy only. The article's style is completely incoherent and devoid of references or even suggestions of references to verify this person's existence, let alone notability. This strongly suggests either a hoax or a vanity piece.Voceditenore (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- addendum: This article had already been speedily deleted on February 1, 2008). See: [78] and recreated by the same editor the following day. Voceditenore (talk) 17:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HI Voceditenore, for your information. yes it was again recreated by the same editor. by us - by the all rothesians and their great community spirit, and if you delete it ,we will put it again and again. Because we have the right to promote the scottish opera of 21th century. We have seen your opera project - membership - but is only based on the classic italian opera roots. We are either crazy about italian opera or boring Wagner style, this opera and libretto we talking about it is the most significant artistic work of the Beginning 21stcentury - it is a style of Mozart Charming, of Rossini Intriques and of pure scotch of Robert Burns and magic of highlands faires. It is and it will be the most significant new development in history of the scottish opera of 21st century, The classic italian opera is boring and honest to stay since a few decades in the cave . Because the time is over that new generations will be get in exciting to listen stories by Verdi and see a typical italian style. The Scottish wisdom of all magic creatures mixed with mozart charming virtuosity is that what will rule the 21st century. Not the boring Wagner "Bayreuth festival" but tne "Dornoch Opera festival" - timespan of 700 years of know- how combining with a sexy scottish bagpipies and magic sounds of scottish harps is going to lead in a scottish opera buffa. Some mix of Mozart, Rossini ,Robert Burns and magic gaelic harps songs. You are all welcome to follow all the stories and development, and all who are trying to stop this development are cordially invited to join us... If you send us your email we will send a honour ticket to the performance as a thanks for discussion involment. see you all.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dornochclub (talk • contribs) 18:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since repeated recreation has been threatened, add a big pinch of salt to my delete recommendation above. Deor (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know what deor, I thing you should deserve all salt of sea, because this what you said and wrote now, is realy a prove a of pure poor spirit full of mobbing and hate. Such mood doesnt have a place in such great place full of a good spirits and hopes as the wikipedia is and always it is be. It sounds more like inquisitions of medieval time. But dont forget that the victory was on the side of the elisabath the I - for ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dornochclub (talk • contribs) 19:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Dornochclub, to be exactly honest... No matter how useful this article would be in Wikipedia, it doesn't meet the criterias of WP:N. Almost every article is designed to follow the notability guideline, and I'm afraid this article has no significant marks of notability because of it's lack of sources. If a certain person is notable in some other way which is not mentioned in WP:N, then great! However, such claims are usually first proposed to the community, before the ways are accepted into a guideline.

Based on the community decisions listed above, it is well shown that this article may not be suitable to Wikipedia at this time. It is lovely that someone has wrote librettos, but even still, only a very little amount of works are usually notable enough to be mentioned in Wikipedia. If it would be applicable for people to create an article about their creations even without any signs of notability, I would have sent in over 100 of those already.

Nobody is meant to be rude for you - instead, they are trying to make you understand that not every type of an article is not fit to Wikipedia. When I started editing, even I thought that many people were angry to me. Then I realised that it is only the spirit of Wikipedia - questionable conversations may sometimes happen, but most of the times, none of the editors mean anything harmful to other ones. ~Iceshark7 (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further research I noticed that there were significant 'style shifts' in the article between quite unidiomatic English and fairly polished prose, suggesting verbatim copy and paste. I did a search on some of the segments themselves rather than "Tess Rose" who remains unknown in this context. (Similar searches on "Tessa Rose", "Teresa Rose" and "Theresa Rose" in this context produce the same zero results.) Several segments in the article come from this unfinished web site: http://www.whiskymystery.org.uk, for a magazine which seems to be devoted to promoting Scottish whisky and culture. See: http://www.whiskymystery.org.uk/magazineen.html. The source for the description of the 'opera' appears in this incomplete section of the site: http://www.whiskymystery.org.uk/synopsis1.html. However, there is no mention whatsoever of its author, and it seems to be in the planning phase. User talk:Dornochclub's comment above "Because we have the right to promote the scottish opera of 21th century." says it all really, including a strong suggestion of conflict of interest. Dornochclub, Wikipedia is not an advertising space or a place to promote future projects. This is Wikipedia policy, not simply the personal opinion of the editors here. There are plenty of free web sources available for this including blogs and sites like MySpace. When and if this opera is ever performed and when and if it receives sufficient notability and press coverage, then is the time to propose an article about it - not now. Voceditenore (talk) 07:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to closing administrator This article is not the only place on Wikipedia where this Whisky Mystery 'project' is being spammed. See: this article deletion notice for Whisky Mystery. And this edit history for the Rothes article. Note these other edits by single-purpose editor 88.207.223.9 to the Rothes article and to the Comic opera article. (There are several more in those articles from anonymous IP addresses all of which trace back to the same IP in Luxembourg. See also these edits and uncivil threats of legal action by single purpose account Whiskeyrose on another editor's talk page and in this edit summary Voceditenore (talk) 08:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Update I found one reference to a "Tessie Rose". She is listed here as the editor of the German language magazine Whisky Mystery, which is hardly surprising, given the above. Nor is it surprising that the magazine appears to be based in Luxembourg. (See: http://www.whiskymystery.org.uk/whiskyclub.html), given that IPs of the anonymous editors who have been repeatedly spamming the Rothes and Comic opera articles (and commenting on this AfD page) are also based there. Voceditenore (talk) 13:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: this message for wiki administrators like vocetitenore etc. We have received offical review on wikipidia administrators from official experts in IT, Corporate law and media. So listen that we have the explanation for your harrasemment and mobbing. It is official said that" In international evalution Wikipedia lost reputation for credibility and is no longer as an academic source for most university."..Wikipedia has no professional edtor on payroll.." It is claim anyone can edit, but the true is that most of new edit will be delete by anonymous unprofessional editors like the administrators. You can also find a proofs by previous administrators and also academic resource who confirms that harrasement on new edit what you call to make a edit on a new sources. All texts or informations which are not coming from unproffesionals editor not on payrol of wikipedia will be deleted.Only a new edit by administrators themselves will in the most cases used and only for their own agenda. We very dissapointed to get such review on your work administrators and because you are not official a resources on universities - We dont care what you delete and why. In this point we must say it would more shame for us and happines that you accept any new edit from us. Pity is that also you had to delete the text about Rothes burn from village Rothes and story about village opera buffo. Because the village rothes is famous for this rothes burn like Vienna with Vienna operahouse. But you cannt know it you are either resources for university or credible information place more.. AH I forget to tell - either we know if you as administrators have passed primary school - everybody nearly without any proffesional background can play the editor. But to be editor need much more in the truly life as only internet access. So we dont care about you - it is shame and sadness that we got such profile on wiki-administrators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dornochclub (talk • contribs) 19:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: I am not an administrator. I merely left a note here for the administrator who will close this discussion. Nor have I edited any of the articles or user pages which Dornochclub/Whiskyrose/88.207.223.9 have been disrupting and vandalizing, apart from this AfD.Voceditenore (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

we dont care more about you your or the wikipedia editors and administrators. We care about the credibility and image of resources. As we got offical review on wikipedia that wikipedia is not more accepted as academic resource on many universities and has image of no credibility and is know for harrassement or as we say mobbing on new edit - the great proof is that on the page rothes are a few words, wikipedia ask for expanding, but wiki administrators delete every word and informations which is written in many publications about the village and special about the famous rothes burn. So sorry for such behavours. We really dont care about your opinion and researches. What is important for us if wikipedia has credibility by academic resources and university and official said "no". So we said it for a good image and credibility for our opera buffo - not to be in wiki. We will exactly delete in a hour the text . Because we would shame if wiki administrators would accept some new edit. So you dont mean anything to us and honest to say we will also not more use wikipedia as resource due to know the official academic opinion on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dornochclub (talk • contribs) 22:13, 3 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. Addhoc (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spin card game[edit]

As far as I can tell this "game" is a complete hoax. The "rankings" are facetious, and there is absolutely no evidence that this game even exists (that I can seem to find), much less passes WP:N. I would welcome any references to prove me wrong in this case but don't believe there are any. --Craw-daddy | T | 00:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The rules aren't even properly exlained. The game makes no sense. This is probably just a group of friends' attempt to get their names onto Wikipedia. MrMelonhead (talk) 02:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Evidently a hoax given the somewhat implausible nature of... well, everything in the article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as totally obvious juvenile and see-through lies, could and probably should be a speedy G3.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy G1 and accordingly tagged. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 13:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, as long as we just get rid of it ASAP. Makes no sense whatsoever.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, as a matter of fact. G3 is for obvious hoaxes, which this is. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 14:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - modified accordingly--brew crewer (yada, yada) 14:53, 2 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 — SpikeToronto (talk) 02:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley West[edit]

Comment: Completing an incomplete nomination here. ~~User did not leave a reason for deletion. Have proded them on their talk page to come back and give a reason.~~ Although I initially thought this should be deleted, I am remaining neutral at this time. Redfarmer (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User has now provided a reason. Redfarmer (talk) 23:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The list of exhibitions seems to satisfy WP:BIO#Creative professionals. Ros0709 (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Not convinced that he meets WP:BIO - he's not known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. He hasn't created a significant or well-known work, and his work hasn't either become a significant monument, been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, and is not represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries, museums or internationally significant libraries - at least as far as the article and his own website are concerned. He's had several solo exhibitions, sure, but that's not a huge thing (I've had four myself), and of the group shows only the RCofA one is that notable - and even then we don't know how big his role in it was. BTW, if kept, it will need serious copyediting - quite a bit of it seems to be a copyvio from here. Bonus points from me for being another artist with a Barnet connection, but that's not going to sway anyone else from their keep/delete opinions :) Grutness...wha? 00:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Already nominated previous day, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_February_1. No opinion on notability per WP:BIO. Barno (talk) 00:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see it's the same discussion, just transcluded onto both the 1-Feb and 2-Feb AFD pages. Barno (talk) 00:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Firstly, if the wikiauthor could cite articles/journals/books that have referred to the artist’s work, would that be sufficient to satisfy the requirements under WP:BIO#Creative professionals? Also, if the essential predicate for the inclusion of biographies on Wikipedia is that the subject be notable, then should we not take account of the following:

“It is not famous and it is arguably not important, but I think that no one would serious[ly] question that it is valid material for an encyclopedia. What is it that makes this encyclopedic? It is that it is information which is verifiable and which can be easily presented in an NPOV fashion.” — Jimbo Wales quoted here. [Emphasis added.]

This is an encyclopedia with unlimited space. Inclusion on Wikipedia of a small article that is factually correct and written from a neutral point of view about an artist who has had a significant number of one-man and group shows, has won awards, and has a book of his collected works available from booksellers — all of which is verifiable via a Google UK search — surely does not run contrary to the intention of Wikipedia nor is not encyclopedic. Moreover, the guideline for biographic notability states that the concept of notability “is distinct from ‘fame’, ‘importance’, or ‘popularity’, although these may positively correlate with notability.” [Emphasis added.] Finally, I cannot find anything from a cursory examination of the Wikipedia official policy on biographies of living persons that automatically and clearly cries out for the exclusion of this article. — SpikeToronto (talk) 04:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP for the reasons mentioned above. DavidJJJ (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover it definitely agrees with this policy WP:BIO#Creative professionals. Wikipedia is also an encyclopedia with unlimited space therfore he is notable enough. DavidJJJ (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep this article. Chinwe Izamoje (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Neutral per above. Modernist (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. –Modernist (talk) 16:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons above, plus the article has been much improved, and so is now a lot more verifiable. (GowsiPowsi (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Delete Solid professional artist, but mostly local gallery shows do not confer notability. Johnbod (talk) 18:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP for the reasons above. Bob Garfield Hoskins (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely notable. Punk Rocker (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's painfully hard to get him to show up in Google through the thicket of other AWs, but that's sort of the point, isn't it? The best I could find were some gallery listings and (I think) one mention of him as a lecturer. Mangoe (talk) 23:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep for sure--79.66.102.246 (talk) 19:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article and references describe an artist, but fail to describe a notable person. Nothing in the article meets WP:BIO for Creative professionals. This document [79], which seems to be generated by the artist, lists no references that could establish encyclopedic notablity (a doc like this would be the best case for finding notablilty, the artist is "blowing his own horn"). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because he is notable and because now many of the sources have been cited.82.34.218.65 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I notice alot of editors (who seem to be partisan towards this artist) are making comments along the lines "if we can show reliable references that this artists exists, then he should be included in Wikipedia". This is directly in contridiction to Wikipedia is not a directory. Existance is not a criteria for being in Wikipedia, notability is. i.e. Wikipedia is not the white pages or an artist directory such as "AskArt", and therefor does not included artists just because you can prove they are an artist. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that includes people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. There are not sufficient links of second party evidence, but there is evidence of notable work. Blueswan1967 (talk) 20:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Regarding the guidelines stated in WP:BIO#Creative Professionals, I find it interesting that the application of the guidelines listed at WP:BIO#Pornographic Actors makes it easier in the Wikipedia world to forever enshrine a pornographic performer in Wikipedia, than to provide a small encyclopedic article that is factually correct and written from a neutral point of view about an artist who has had a significant number of one-man and group shows, has won awards, has a book of his collected works available from booksellers, and creates works of art of an enduring and lasting nature. For a porn performer, possessed as they are of the most fleeting of careers, all that would seem to be required is (1) a nomination for a porn award, which some would argue are handed out like candy, and (2) an independent review of his/her work, something which occurs every time a porn studio provides review copies to sellers of their product. (N.B. The other two criteria listed at WP:BIO#Pornographic Actors seem to rarely be applied, to which even a cursory review of porn performers with wikiarticles can attest.) How can the application of guidelines in WP:BIO be so lax and inclusive for one type of artist and their application be so restrictive and exclusive for another type of artist? I do not think that such a divergence in application is the intention of these guidelines. The existence of such a divergence of application would suggest that either (a) the application of the guidelines for inclusion of porn performers has to be tightened up, or (b) the application of the guidelines for the inclusion of artists has to be interpreted in a more inclusive manner. I still vote to keep the Ashley West article. — SpikeToronto (talk) 06:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please calm down! The book is self-authored and self-published, the one-man shows are pretty local, none of the group shows has an article (as an example of notability). There are no independent sources cited. Other Stuff Exists is not an argument. He falls fairly clearly into the type of artist that gets deleted here, despite being a solid professional. Let me know if you go on a porn-star deletion rampage - I may well support. Johnbod (talk) 11:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that the rules need to be applied equally, either in an inclusive manner (e.g., porn performers) or an exclusive manner (e.g., painters/artists). I like the more inclusive approach … which, of course, means I will not be going on a “porn-star deletion rampage”: It would offend my anti-censorship mentality. (Plus, I rather like being able to find info about my favorite porn performers from yesteryear!) As for the “Please clam down!” comment, I find that insulting. I wrote the comment from an intellectual perspective. You apparently read it with much more of a head of steam. Don’t hit the EDIT button with so much gusto next time and perhaps you won’t be tempted to impute an emotion to a writer of which he was not possessed. — SpikeToronto (talk) 02:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldnt we end this as it has already been five days. DavidJJJ (talk) 11:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP for reasons above. (GowsiPowsi (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
this should definately end (GowsiPowsi (talk) 17:00, 8 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 Documenting action taken by others. JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

23:16, 1 February 2008 User:Faithlessthewonderboy deleted "John "Jack" Webb" ‎ (CSD A7 (Bio): Biographical article that does not assert significance).

John "Jack" Webb[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/John "Jack" Webb

Not notable. Thebluesharpdude (talk) 23:15, 1 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.