< February 8 February 10 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Plotz[edit]

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

Several tiny reasons he might be notable, but I don't think any of them add up to anything. 1) Founded a club with 2000 members. 2) Once interviewed JRR Tolkien. 3) Is a scientist (but has, at my most generous counting, published 7 papers and gotten <20 citations). Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:49, 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. Kubigula (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rope jumping[edit]

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

Not notable Ratagonia (talk) 06:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:40, 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 Already deleted. Deleted by another user. Malinaccier (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Tillman[edit]

Joseph Tillman (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Apparent autobiography, questionable notability, G-hits reveal other attempts at self-promotion. Author and IPs repeatedly removing maintenance tags without improving article for over 24 hours. Accurizer (talk) 23:24, 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 I am amazed that nobody used the term WP:Coatrack. But in the end the majority of the editors here said that the subject of the article has no sources that sufficiently establish his notability, just tangentially mentioning him in the normal way that persons with his local position are mentioned locally, and a DUI charge, which does not consitute notability. Precedent has shown that people who have local structures named after them are not necessarily considered notable in the wikipedia sense, nor are people who are charged with misdemeanor legal infractions. JERRY talk contribs 00:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hector J. Liendo[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Hector J. Liendo (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Not notable, subject does not meet their respective notability criteria. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such a person may be notable for other reasons besides their political careers alone. Please Read Basic Criteria on the Wikipedia:Notability (people) page. Cheezwzl (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • "he changes quotes to personal opinions"

Where and when? NOT TRUE. Is there any case other than Judge Roy Bean where a JP would be "notable"?Billy Hathorn (talk) 23:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes, John Fielding. There's more to the world than small-town America. DGG (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]



(edit conflict; added after closing was factored)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Association for Renaissance Martial Arts. Spebi 08:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Floryshe[edit]

Floryshe (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

This is nothing more than a dicdef plus original research with no evidence that it can ever be anything but a definition. Per Talk:Floryshe it was already transwikied although it only shows here and not as a standalone wiktionary link, so I'm not sure what that means. Regardless of wiktionary's content guidelines on keeping it, it doesn't appear to fit the guidelines here. The merger tag that's been on it since June 2007 is a proposed merger to a card trick, so I don't think that was a researched link at the time. Travellingcari (talk) 23:11, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Harvard (film)[edit]

John Harvard (film) (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Mention of a student film in a campus newspaper doesn't satisfy notability guidelines. ZimZalaBim talk 22:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's allow time for improvements to the article, and not delete in haste. An off-campus review or other credentials would be desirable. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:02, 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 --JForget 00:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fucktard[edit]

Fucktard (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. Unnecessary disambiguation page that makes Wikipedia look stupid, to be totally honest, which we'd be better without. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 22:49, 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 Keep. -- Longhair\talk 17:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jonah House[edit]

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

Non-notable community. Jmlk17 09:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:48, 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. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 02:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Standing Down[edit]

Standing Down (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

This is a 2009 film: IMDB calls it an "In Development project". Delete per WP:NFF "Films which have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced shooting should not have their own articles" and WP:CRYSTAL. JohnCD (talk) 22:47, 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 no consensus -- Y not? 03:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aquatic Volleyball[edit]

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

When I dip into this incredible 12k byte slab of dense text it seems to be just the rules of the game. No assertion of notability. Even if it were notable, the best thing is rub-it-out-and-start-again. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment perhaps I'm missing something but why on earth would you propose keep in the afd and then suggest prodding the article? Seems contradictory. I'm not disagreeing with a cleanup tag, but I don't see the connection to your other idea Travellingcari (talk) 00:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A duration is an amount of time or a particular time interval. For example, an event in the common sense has a duration greater than zero (but not very long), but in certain specialized senses (such as in the theory of relativity), a duration of zero. A stopwatch is a timepiece designed to measure the amount of time elapsed from a particular time when activated to when the piece is deactivated. The stopwatch is typically designed to start at the press of the top button and stop by pressing the button a second time to display the elapsed time. A press of the second button then resets the stopwatch to zero. The second button is also used to record split times or lap times. When the split time button is pressed while the watch is running, the display freezes, but the watch mechanism continues running to record total elapsed time. Pressing the split button a second time allows the watch to resume display of total time.

Somehow I suspect that the author was laughing when he wrote the article and is now laughing at how seriously we are discussing his contribution. :) Sbowers3 (talk) 01:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge; action to be taken by others. JERRY talk contribs 22:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black Necromancy[edit]

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

Written like a fan site. Plus, it does not meet WP:NOTABILITY. Delete Metal Head (talk) 18:44, 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, For consistency, I am also tagging and adding below related page on here.Tikiwont (talk) 10:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
White Necromancy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:38, 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.--Kubigula (talk) 00:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Street puppet[edit]

Street puppet (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Internet video series that does not appear to meet notability guidelines. Carom (talk) 22:26, 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 Speedy deleted as blatant ad and copyvio. Capitalistroadster (talk) 22:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Project Payday[edit]

Project Payday (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Promotional/advertisement, also may not meet notability criteria. Carom (talk) 22:12, 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 redirect to Michael Holigan's Your New House. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 02:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Holigan[edit]

Delete as per WP:BIO and WP:NOTE. The show Your New House is notable but its host is not notable enough to have a standalone article on WP. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 12:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:08, 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 procedural keep, given ArbCom injunction on deleting such material. WjBscribe 04:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Playing With Matches (CSI: NY episode)[edit]

Playing With Matches (CSI: NY episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A non notable TV episode. Just an infobox and plot reprise. Pollytyred (talk) 13:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.


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

The result was Keep per consensus (non-admin closure). Correct venue would have been WP:RFD. EJF (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O'Connor Township, Ontario[edit]

O'Connor Township, Ontario (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Unused and unlikely to be used redirect vıdıoman 22:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Plausibility as a search term matters as well as inbound links. This is a valid alternate name and redirects are cheap. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 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 redirect - go forth and merge, my sons! -- Y not? 03:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voice of change[edit]

Voice of change (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No evidence of notability; nothing of substance here that couldn't be incorporated into British National Party provided adequate references from reliable, secondary sources are added. Waggers (talk) 13:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:58, 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 -- Y not? 03:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Historical exhibitions concerning Oceania[edit]

Historical exhibitions concerning Oceania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. The only main contributor, User:Researchcooperative, possibly has a conflict of interest. Based on their contributions[4], they created their account for the sole purpose of making this page. It used to have an advert tag, but it was removed without explanation [5]. I wish I could say what it was accused of advertising, but the link on User:Researchcooperative is kinda broken. The article also used to have a signature[6]. The article sat around with some statements in the first person plural for 11 months (not true anymore (no thanks to me) but it might make the author look like a spammer, which might make the article seem like spam).

I have a hunch the article has some deeper problems (my 'spammer' argument is pretty heinous), but can't back up that hunch. I can't imagine it achieving good article status, or even fitting in with the 'manual of style', really. --Haikon 14:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:55, 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 Keep. JERRY talk contribs 03:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Thomas (rugby league)[edit]

Jay Thomas (rugby league) (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

This person is semi-professional and doesn't play for a national side. There was a prod and I thought I'd take it to an AfD as he's at the top level of rugby league in the US. There has been some debate on one of his fellow players (who plays at an international level). JASpencer (talk) 21:55, 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. JERRY talk contribs 03:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Harcus[edit]

Sam Harcus (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Declined speedy A7 nomination. Local politician with no notability outside his own area. Borderline verifiability but nothing indicates lasting or widespread notability. - Revolving Bugbear 21:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Please see Ben MacDui's assessment below.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I, for one, am still not convinced. Of course I have no objection to recreation later if Mr. Harcus is the subject of non-trivial coverage by multiple reliable sources at some point. — Satori Son 20:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? I may edit a lot of Orcadian articles, however, I've never been to the Orkneys myself. Nearest I've been is Caithness. Sam Harcus is notable for the reasons Ben MacDui outlines. --MacRusgail (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete A7, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Connaught Square, Thunder Bay[edit]

Connaught Square, Thunder Bay (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

An unused redirect vıdıoman 21:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know that this qualifies for db-self and did not know the code for speedy delete. I'll keep that in mind in the future. Thanks. vıdıoman 22:14, 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. JERRY talk contribs 03:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Object D0[edit]

Object D0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Tried prod, author deleted without explanation. WP:HOAX, period. "Object D0" returns only results related to mathematics; adding in any other unique terms (e.g. "tito" or "yugoslavia") returns nothing. With foreign language spelling, appears to no longer be a hoax, as a Google search reveals 4 results for "Objekat D-0". Still not notable. Gromlakh (talk) 19:51, 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, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:09, 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 speedy close (non-admin closure), wrong venue. Take this to WP:RfD. EJF (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Centennial Park, Thunder Bay[edit]

Centennial Park, Thunder Bay (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Unnecessary redirect. Nothing links to this other than a bot generated list and a vandalism warning on an IP page. vıdıoman 21:09, 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 -- Y not? 03:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matrix (cyberpunk)[edit]

Matrix (cyberpunk) (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

AFDing this article because it offers a definition, and does not fit WP:NEO. This should go in Wiktionary instead. <3 bunny 20:16, 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. No verified information to merge. --PeaceNT (talk) 10:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Come Together (Victoria Beckham album)[edit]

Come Together (Victoria Beckham album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:MUSIC, unreleased albums are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep --JForget 01:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Delgado (footballer)[edit]

Pedro Delgado (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO and WP:NOTABILITY. Did he ever play? Do sources confirm this? I searched his name and found only one thing out, the name Pedro Delgado is a common name. I never found any notable facts about the footballer. Undeath (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:56, 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.

Sacred Goose[edit]

The result was speedy delete. Transparent hoax. --cjllw ʘ TALK 11:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Goose (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

PROD removed by IP without explanation, so here we are: This is a fairly obvious hoax. —Travistalk 19:47, 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 speedily deleted (per WP:CSD#g12,was a blatant copyright infringement) by LaraLove. Non-admin closure. AngelOfSadness talk 20:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Natalia Kruchkevych & Mykhailo Sydorenko[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Natalia Kruchkevych & Mykhailo Sydorenko (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

unsourced, possibly self advertising, see here Jazzing up text with HTML at the admin's noticeboard Momusufan

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

The result was Merge into Walsh, Ontario. JERRY talk contribs 03:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Donnybrook Fair[edit]

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

A non-notable fair that reads like a promotional ad. There are some sources, but none of them actually prove the fairs notability. Fails WP:N. It could also possibly be merged with Walsh, Ontario. -- Scorpion0422 17:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:32, 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 Keep. JERRY talk contribs 03:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Info.com[edit]

Info.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete someone blanked the page, ignoring process, but this article is sourced only to its own website and seems nn. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:04, 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. -- Longhair\talk 07:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"vaccine video"[edit]

"vaccine video" (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Contested prod, non-notable neologism. The only references that are worth anything do not mention the term once. Roleplayer (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. all the references are to YouTube and blogs. This article was used as a reference, but the term "vaccine video" doesn't appear once Doc Strange (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is my first attempt at a wiki page but I do think the criticisms are a bit unfair. I was primarily focused on explaining what a vaccine video is in the context of viral videos and viral marketing. Hence it's true that some of the articles do not mention "vaccine video" specifically but these articles are not being cited for that purpose and I do think they accurately support the propositions for which they are being cited. I actually went Wikipedia to find the term "vaccine video" because it's been used a lot in discussions about unsuccessful viral videos and I was surprised to find no definition at all. While I understand it is a newer term, I think it's a mistake to ignore it altogether. I've gone back and cited a couple of examples of its use by viral marketing companies and in blogs. Mmcfly55 (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The two NYT examples don't actually mention the term once. It mentions a description of the term, but not the term persay. Doc Strange (talk) 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 Speedy Delete A1 no context. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 18:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reading List[edit]

Reading List (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

I can't think of a suitable speedy tag for this, but it's not an encyclopedia article. Delete per WP:NOT#WEBSPACE. JohnCD (talk) 18:41, 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 REdirect to Webkinz. Black Kite 16:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Webkinz Trading Cards[edit]

Webkinz Trading Cards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article shows no notability for the cards. No reliable sources exist for the cards. Perhaps a merge is needed to Webkinz but I see nothing really worth merging. Metros (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are references in the article. For example, [10]. Yes, the cards haven't won any awards, but many other article's subjects haven't won awards either. Imagine how small Wikipedia would be if only award winning subjects were in it? It is a popular trading card game for the 6-13 year old age group, as seen here [11]. Wikipedia has many other pages for trading cards. Go to this page List of collectible card games and you can see there are at least one hundred collectible card games already with their own pages in Wikipedia. Epass (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:31, 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 Keep. See talk page for details.JERRY talk contribs 03:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pirani Ameena Begum[edit]

Pirani Ameena Begum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Prod was removed without reason. Apparently, the only claim for notability of this person was that she was married to somebody who may have been notable and that she published a collection of poems, most of which are now lost. No sources are provided. Given the apparent lack of notability I propose to delete this article. Crusio (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • About Pirani Amina Begum article deletion: According to a dictionary, "notable" can refer to one of two general concepts:
"Notable" can mean "worthy of note". A "note" is a written record, so notable means "worthy of written records".
"Notable can refer to the concept of being important, significant, famous, unique, etc.
Of these two definitions, only the first is in line with Wikipedia policy and practice.
[[12]] Sergey Moskalev (talk 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • reply: Dear Sergey, thank you for the dictionary definitions of "notability". Unfortunately, notability has its own, special meaning onWikipedia. I suggest you read the policy article on notability. I see that you have added some references to the article, but they still don't seem to establish notability of Pirani Ameena Begum, only (perhaps) of her husband and daughter. By the way, this discussion should better be placed at the AfD page and I will copy your comments and my reply there. --Crusio (talk) 10:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not correct to say that Wikipedia uses a different, special definition of notable; WP:Notability mentions the "worthy of notice" definition in the second sentence. « D. Trebbien (talk) 18:15 2008 February 3 (UTC)
  • Question. Thanks for your opinion, D. Trebbien. However, it might be useful if you could give your reasons on why you think this person is notable? If you would have any additional references, that would be great, because the article currently only cites references that are only tangently related to the subject. --Crusio (talk) 18:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't much, admittedly, but the sentence "Hazrat Inayat Khan often said that without Ameena Begum's loving and precious help he would never have been able to bring the Sufi Message to the Western world." leads me to think that she was important in spreading Sufi.
I don't know very much about Sufi, but its article is rather long, so it probably has a wide following. « D. Trebbien (talk) 18:55 2008 February 3 (UTC)
  • To me that phrase just suggests that she was a loving and supportive wife of a notable person. But that doesn't seem to infer notability by itself.--Crusio (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that; it doesn't say.
Here is another line: "Amina Begum was one of the first female Sufi Sheikh". It is fairly rare in some Islamic cultures for women to be respected figures (I am not saying I like this, of course). « D. Trebbien (talk) 21:28 2008 February 3 (UTC)
What about the part in which it was stated that she was one of the "first female Sufi Sheikh"s? « D. Trebbien (talk) 03:16 2008 February 4 (UTC)
That's one of the claims that is given with no source. Someone who has the books might be able to check it out for us. EdJohnston (talk) 03:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(No published work by her seems to have survived). We add references and sources of her published works 1915 and 1988 Sergey Moskalev (talk 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I put the AfD template back. It must have been a mixup. EdJohnston (talk) 03:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the comment on this being a sexist argument is completely unwarranted, please WP:AGF! If the genders had been opposite, I would still nominate this for deletion. Being the spouse of somebody notable (whether husband or wife) does not confer notability, unless the person himself/herself was notable for other rezasons than being a spouse. In the present case, I don't think any evidence of indpendent notability has been provided. --Crusio (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do assume good faith towards this particular nomination, no doubt about it, and I apologize if I implied otherwise--I think our recurrent attitude to spouses of notable figures is the problem--we tend to not look hard enough for their individual accomplishments. It's the general historic social attitude not limited to WP that "oh, she's just someone's wife" that is sexist. DGG (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see that user Crusio, who nominate this article for deletion, produce not only sexist arguments, but allow to himself offensive remarks like: "only (perhaps) of her husband and daughter". If this "(perhaps)" relate to Noor Inayat Khan who was - GC, MBE, British Special Operations Executive agent in World War II of Indian origin and the first female radio operator to be sent into occupied France to aid the French Résistance, so this remark for my opinion have bitter taste of racism. Sergey Moskalev (talk) 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • This discussion is starting to degrade. DGG, apologies accepted, I see what you mean. Sergey, I really don't see where in any comment I said anything that could be construed as racism. Please let's stick to the topic, which is the notability of the subect of this article, Pirani Ameena Begum, not that of any of her relatives. --Crusio (talk) 22:50, 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. I'd like to note that many subjects, such as albums, do not have titles but have valid articles about them; the "no title" argument alone is worthless. This article does not provide any reliable sources to back up its claims, and so WP:CRYSTAL applies. Spebi 08:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy february6's third studio album[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Tommy february6's third studio album (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

No Sources, Nothing on official site stating a new album release Momusufan (talk) 18:27, 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. Spebi 08:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Omer Inayat[edit]

Omer Inayat (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

This article was tagged for speedy deletion but apparently somebody thinks the person is notable. I will only yield to this with some second opinions. As far as I see, he is not so notable that he must be included in Wikipedia. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 18:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the notability asserted is insufficient to pass WP:MUSIC. GBT/C 18:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article asserts notability, which is the criteria to stay at the speedy deletion level. That doesn't mean that the admin declining speedy thinks that the article is notable. GBT/C 18:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oh... I understand now. Either way, I aim to get it deleted here since it is not notable. Thanks for the information, I really did not understand that until now. (I feel really stupid.) Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 18:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as what they say above and the reason I nominated it for deletion, nobody has heard about Omer Inayat, nobody is coming to Wikipedia to look him up, nor is there enough information or references to write an accurate article on him (which would violate WP:BLP). Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 18:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We just need to remember that if this article gets deleted we need to delete the redirect. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 21:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:05, 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 Fixed. Tikiwont (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Medeleni[edit]

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

This is an odd one. A disambiguation page, where none of the articles it's trying to dismabiguate exist. According to the Manual of style, red links should only be included on a disambiguation page when another article also includes that red link. This is not the case, however removing the offending links would leave an empty page. The dab page itself is also orphaned. Therefore delete.  Tivedshambo (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A dab page shouldn't contain links to articles that might be created later. If the articles do appear, then it can be recreated. Tivedshambo (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disambig pages are sometimes useful repositories of work still to be done. Though this could easily be fixed by seeing if we can quick put together a stub on one of these villages as well. matt91486 (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:13, 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 no consensus. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 09:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Cullen (Twilight)[edit]

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

This seems to fail the proposed standards of Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). The entire article is a massive plot summary. The only non-plot related materials are the first sentence and the movie portrayal section. Nothing here suggests that this character is notable outside the book series. Metros (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
it is not clear how far the episodes and characters injunction applies--whether only to video episodes, or to all similar articles; it is also not clear whether it applies to consensus discussions in an open forum like this one. The prudent course seems to be to keep the discussions in abeyance until the decision, so we do not have to face the prospect of redoing things. Personally, I doubt they will think it their role to offer us the sort of guidance on actual article inclusion policy that would disrupt any reasonable consensus. DGG (talk) 19:43, 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.It has been suggested that relevant content is merged into the main Cold fusion article; a review of this timeline, however, shows that the first two sections contain mostly unsourced materials which are of no verified significance in the historic timeline of cold fusion, effectively making the page border on POV-fork. The third section has some noteworthy information regarding the international conferences in respect of the subject; some consider them notable events that merit keeping a record of, I agree; this info would have worth merging into the main article if it did not already exist somewhere else. Anyway, given that International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, a page that is linked from Cold fusion and already covers said information, can be found taking a life on its own (for some time now), I conclude that this timeline has no other useful [1] materials that can be merged; ergo, it can safely be deleted. --PeaceNT (talk) 09:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ by "useful" I mean "verified" and "significant"

Timeline of cold fusion[edit]

Timeline of cold fusion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unnecessary fork of cold fusion. The key events are already in that article, and much of this is padding (e.g. an entry for every year's "international conference" of CF advocates). Guy (Help!) 15:46, 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, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
:) -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 23:28, 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 Keep. For the benefit of those discussing subpages and referencing a help page on meta, please read WP:SUBPAGE. JERRY talk contribs 05:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UEFA Cup 2006-07 knockout stage[edit]

UEFA Cup 2006-07 knockout stage (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Totally not notable. There is no need to go into such detail about every matches of the competition. The competition could not stand for anything. Raymond Giggs 17:15, 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 keep. --PeaceNT (talk) 03:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UEFA Cup 2007-08 knockout stage[edit]

UEFA Cup 2007-08 knockout stage (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Totally not notable. There is no need to go into such detail about every matches of the competition. The competition could not stand for anything. Raymond Giggs 17:08, 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 Keep. JERRY talk contribs 05:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UEFA Cup 2007-08 group stage[edit]

UEFA Cup 2007-08 group stage (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Totally not notable. There is no need to go into such detail about every matches of the competition. The competition could not stand for anything. Raymond Giggs 17:05, 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 --JForget 01:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plymouth Voyager & Chrysler Voyager[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Plymouth Voyager & Chrysler Voyager (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Attempted copy-and-paste merge of Plymouth Voyager and Chrysler Voyager. There is no question that these two articles should be merged, but only through the normal merging process. Delete. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 16:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the title Plymouth Voyager & Chrysler Voyager is inappropriate because it is too long. The title should be Plymouth Voyager with a redirect from Chrysler Voyager --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 17:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it qualifies for speedy deletion, except maybe under criterion G6. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 17:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
true--Antonio Lopez (talk) 18:42, 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 Keep. Editors should continue the discussions to improve and/ or merge the article on the article talkpage and/or be WP:BOLD. JERRY talk contribs 03:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tornadocane[edit]

Tornadocane (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

I'm proposing this article's deletion because a similar article, landphoon, was deleted in August despite having seven unique sources, while this term has exactly one. In short, it's not encyclopedaic since one person appears to have made up the term in 1999, it does not exist in the glossary of meteorology, and (unlike landphoon) no one else I know has ever used the term (I'm a meteorologist). Thegreatdr (talk) 16:37, 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 Delete. JERRY talk contribs 02:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FantasyLiterature.net[edit]

FantasyLiterature.net (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Nonnotable Web site, less than a year old. Only 45 discrete ghits, all message boards, directories, and the like. No apparent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Deor (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it has much to do with the reasons for deletion given above, but I thought I'd point out that the username of the article's author, Kahooper, suggests an identity with Katherine Hooper, the creator of the Web site in question. Deor (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from the discussion page (sorry): I authored the topic FantasyLiterature.net and I'm the owner of the website. Until about a month ago, we were on the top page (and usually the top spot after Wikipedia) for all related searches. We received most of our hits from Google. Unfortunately, I submitted a sitemap to Google that somehow knocked us completely off for about 3 weeks. We are finally back in the index, but have not yet reestablished our top page position. Since your main complaint seems to be that we are "unnotable" due to lack of Google hits, I wanted to explain that. I'm not sure if there is a way to prove what our position on Google was a month ago. I now have Google analytics tracking the page, but I set that up after the sitemap problem. I have a Sitemeter account, but it is the free version and does not track beyond the last 100 visitors, I believe. If you know of a way to determine our Google hits before we had this problem, I encourage you to research that, or tell me how to so that I can direct you to the source. Thank you for your consideration. Kahooper (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)kahooper 2/9/08

New comments: Yes, I am the author of the article AND the website.

  • Comment I think that hits & ranking, of themselves, do not establish notability. It's important to determine the nature and quality of hits & ranking. A website could easily have a good whitehat (or blackhat) SEO/SEM strategy that includes multiple crosslinks with other websites (maybe even their own) which would increase their hitcounts and ranking. However, having several first page Google listings or hundreds of hits still says nothing about the notability of the website itself, only that they did sufficient footwork in their advertising and marketing campaign to increase their search engine visibility. --Daddy.twins (talk) 12:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - 1) Accurate website description. 2) Technical difficulties submitting a sitemap to Google. 3) Google hits and/or ranking. 4) Author's honesty and identity. Summary - None of these establish the notability of the website or address the issues with reliable sources. --Daddy.twins (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 01:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trample[edit]

Trample (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. D. Monack | talk 16:25, 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. User:DGG has kindly offered his services for this outcome. JERRY talk contribs 02:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martiniano Ferreira Botelho[edit]

Martiniano Ferreira Botelho (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

No reliable source concerning this article. I couldn't find the book mentionned in the Bibliography. On the OCLC database as well as in Google Books, Martiniano Ferreira Botelho is unknown. SalomonCeb (talk) 15:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:Keep - Had you bothered to click on the interwiki link to the Portuguese article, you would see three references right there. This might be worth withdrawing. matt91486 (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, sorry if my phrasing sounded a little harsh. It wasn't intentional. I can see the purpose of the nomination once I look at the history (I was looking just at the articles themselves before, not looking into the history, that's me being sloppy, sorry), but there are references that seem to show that Martiniano is somewhat notable. matt91486 (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See please that book exists and see again the external link i post in the article. Check this link please [13]

Regards Carlos Botelho (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But actually there's a simpler solution--merge both into the article on the town, which could use some content. I can do that, since I see I can manage to decipher the Portuguese a swell as the roughly translated English. DGG (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge Although the book is a thesis, he was the first to study the "Pedras Salgadas mineral water" and their medical properties. I agree entirely with the merge of both articles and it would benefit the Vila Pouca de Aguiar article. The result might be bether for sure. Best regards and thank you for your help DGG Carlos Botelho (talk) 22:22, 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.--Kubigula (talk) 05:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Macleod[edit]

Ben Macleod (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Despite assertions, it would appear that this actor is merley the voice actor for the video game of Harry Potter. However this is still not a speedy WP:CSD#A7 due to assertion of notability (speedy declined twice by myself). However Notability seems pretty weak, so recommend delete Pedro :  Chat  14:36, 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 No consensus (default keep). Merging can be decided by interested editors elsewhere. JERRY talk contribs 02:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ang Kabanalbanalan[edit]

Ang Kabanalbanalan (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Non notable radio program by a non notable Church. It's an adveristement Dft56 (talk) 14:17, 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 Keep. -- Longhair\talk 17:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most Holy Church of God in Christ Jesus[edit]

Most Holy Church of God in Christ Jesus (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Non notable church. It's an advertisement Dft56 (talk) 14:12, 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 Keep. JERRY talk contribs 02:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CINTAX[edit]

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

Non-notable, unreferenced, self-promotion Lumberjake (talk) 06:20, 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, Salix alba (talk) 14:02, 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 Keep, obviously. Inhabited places are notable, as described by all participants in this discussion. The topic of moving or renaming the article to follow convention or whatever is a subject for discussions elsewhere. JERRY talk contribs 19:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oru na Nneude[edit]

Oru na Nneude (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Wholly non-notable village. Asserts no major importance. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 13:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: Also nominating the following:
  • Yes, that was my mistake; as a user with 11,000+ edits, I am quite keen on policies; SCL was linked to not only Places and Transportation but to Schools, which I corrected the error. A village of "several thousands" -- can this be verified or at least acknowledged outside of WP? A general search engine query proves fruitless. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The FallingRain entry has this listed under population "Approximate population for 7 km radius from this point: 63873". Note: this does not mean the village itself is that big, it may just be near a large metropolitan area but it is certainly close to something large, if not large itself. Also the article Ahiara mentions it as being one of the "ten scepters of Ahiara" so if it could be improved it would be nice to have an article on each one. I don't know if this meets the notability requirements and I'm not sure whether to keep it or not, just pointing out what I have noticed. -AndrewBuck (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very surprised an editor with 11,000 edits thinks that villages are deletion material. They aren't, per long standing precedent. Perhaps it was the creator's vandalism? Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With no assertion of notability, outside of population, and no other verifiable sources, then the article is nothing more than a very poorly constructed stub. If someone wants to recreate it in the future, they have the tools available to do so. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's sad that it takes an AFD for people to care about an article. What investment has been made to the articles is only minimal though. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed; deletion nominations aren't exactly supposed to be article improvement drives (deletion is for when improvement seems unlikely to work). But without more sources, what more can be done to it? It's formatted/organized about right. I find that articles related to the southeast are often in this condition; Yoruba and Hausa-Fulani subjects are generally better off than Igbo ones, but only because there are less articles to take care of, and less inexperienced users to deal with. Picaroon (t) 01:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, and one of the primary contributors is just a ranting lunatic, and there seems to be a lack of editors in that particular region. I can't find anything regarding it, outside of what's posted, through a wide-scope database search at our university. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:48, 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 No consensus (default keep); merge discussions can occur elsewhere. JERRY talk contribs 02:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Salvador C. Payawal[edit]

Salvador C. Payawal (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Non notable in the Philippines Dft56 (talk) 13:48, 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 speedy delete under criterion A7 for failing to assert notability. —C.Fred (talk) 14:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teofilo D. Ora[edit]

Teofilo D. Ora (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Not notable enough for Wikipedia Dft56 (talk) 13:31, 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 speedy delete per A7 criteria. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 05:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Golem Relictus[edit]

Golem Relictus (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Article on an unreleased video game that fails to assert notability per WP:N and sources only to website. The article's creator evidently has a substantial conflict of interest, given that the username corresponds to that one of the two game designers. Lacking substantiation of real world notability through reliable secondary sourcing, this article does not meet the guidelines at WP:N. I had originally tagged this for WP:PROD, but prior CSD was contested by creator. Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because it explores a fictional concept related to the above and to another unreleased game:

Vendensetsu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
add also Another Story‎, same author, same "series" of NN blatant advertising - superβεεcat  04:59, 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 Redirect to N.W.A. and the Posse. And a sidenote, that this is one of the least civil debates I have witnessed to date. If it was within the remit of AfD, there would also be some user blocks in my closing. JERRY talk contribs 02:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Krazy Dee[edit]

Krazy Dee (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Non-notable musician/rapper. The only verifiable information I can find is that he co-wrote 1 early non-hit NWA song ("Panic Zone") and provided back-up vocals on The D.O.C.'s first album. Aside from some non-notable solo releases, that's it. He claims to have been a member of NWA but none of their biographies mention him; it seems more like he was a fringe associate rather than a member or true collaborator. Fails WP:MUSIC. Precious Roy (talk) 12:46, 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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 01:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Z.O[edit]

Z.O (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Not notable, fails WP:MUSIC. ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 12:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 23:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was redirect to National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control. WjBscribe 04:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Agency for Food Drug Administration and Control[edit]

National Agency for Food Drug Administration and Control (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Article already exists here The Missing Piece (talk) 12:12, 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 keep.--Kubigula (talk) 01:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Kosbob[edit]

Jeremy Kosbob (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Is playing for the united states rugbly league team a claim to notability? it's national but also amateur so I'm not quite sure. JASpencer (talk) 11:56, 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. Spebi 08:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Southwest Broadcasting Network[edit]

Southwest Broadcasting Network (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

A school television network, the notability is not made clear here. JASpencer (talk) 10:06, 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. --PeaceNT (talk) 04:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal health information[edit]

Personal health information (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Completely context-less, but not short enough to meet speedy (I think?)  superβεεcat  09:47, 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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 03:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yonas Michael[edit]

Yonas Michael (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)


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

The result was closed due to Arbitration Committee injunction. Non-admin closure. Serpent's Choice (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

24 Hour Propane People[edit]

AfDs for this article:
(View AfD)

Non-notable King Of The Hill episode articles consisting of plot summaries, infoboxes, and quote sections. No secondary sources demonstrate notability outside the show itself. This is relisted; previous nomination included 40 episodes (after 40 contested prods), and was closed as "no consensus" solely because closing editor considered the nomination too unwieldy in size to form a consensus, despite Keep votes consisting of bad faith accusations against the nominator and unsubstantiated claims of notability, and despite a similar nomination closing as Delete all.

There is no content to merge, as the existing episode list already contains brief plot summaries appropriate to a list. Redirecting is unnecessary since none of these article titles are likely search terms. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirect to List_of_Nokia_products#Nokia_1xxx_series_.E2.80.93_Ultrabasic_series. As User:Mikeblas says, Wikipedia is not a Nokia catalogue. No Keep votes give any rationale for doing so.Black Kite 16:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia 1200[edit]

Nokia 1200 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable commercial product. Completely unreferenced and reads like an advertisement. Too few substantial independent third-party references exist to support a wikipedia article that is itself not a review or a advert. Wikipedia is not a Nokia catalog. Wikipedia is not a cell-phone directory. Mikeblas (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update I have added more references, so your comments are no longer relevant. Snowman (talk) 13:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't say no longer relevant, especially since two sources are hardly independent as they come from a "Nokia Museum". My original redirect vote still stands. Travellingcari (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • By common sense a mobile phone manufactured by Nokia is notable. Snowman (talk) 18:34, 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. --PeaceNT (talk) 10:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Ercole[edit]

Joseph Ercole (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

I don't think "Treasurer of the United States Merchant Marine Academy Employees Association" passes WP:N/WP:BIO and there doesn't appear to be any RS coverage of the man as the hits are, with two possible exceptions, for others with the same name. Filtering ghits for relevancy returns one non-wiki/mirror, a mention of his attendance at an event Travellingcari (talk) 07:20, 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. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy Emch[edit]

Cindy Emch (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Non-notable individual. Appears to have been created and largely edited by subject. Most of the links provided are to work. The only references available appear to be trivial coverage in papers for hosting or being affiliated with events. Only other references appear to be as a source for a masters paper. Nothing that adequately covers subject for a biographical article. Searches (Google, Books, Scholar, News) -Optigan13 (talk) 07:17, 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 Kept. I have read though the comments below and looked through the article. Although Rick Boychuk has never rose above the office of a city councillor (sidenote: Realkyhick...we use genderless titles in Canada so its councillor and not councilman or councilwoman), he has received extensive coverage in a notable newspaper: the Winnipeg Free Press — the oldest newspaper in Western Canada. As that is the case, my decision is to keep the article. (closed by User:Nat)

Rick Boychuk[edit]

Rick Boychuk (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Non-notable politician. Never rose above office of city councilman. Fails WP:N. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment AFDs normally last five days. That should be sufficient time to show sources of notability. --Dhartung | Talk 07:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm pretty sure they're different. The editor has been so since 1995 and lives in Ottawa from what I can tell. --Dhartung | Talk 07:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment thanks I wasn't sure and kept getting bumped down by pay gates so I couldn't verify or not in either direction. Travellingcari (talk) 08:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The neat thing about the RB at CG is that he answers emails. So I just sent him one to find out for sure. :) Franamax (talk) 09:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely different people, confirmed by email. Franamax (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for tracking down the confirmation, or confirmation of not -- would that be unconfirmation? as it may be ;) Travellingcari (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what the wiki-speak is, maybe !confirmed? Anyway, hurray for the Rick Boychuk at the incomparable Canadian Geographic, let's all head over there and improve the article! Franamax (talk) 03:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment, but isn't that decision the closer's to make? Franamax (talk) 10:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Point of clarification (wow, slipping back into high school debate days) ... my view is that mayors and city councilmen of major cities are notable on paper. Let's see some more sources, and I'll gladly change to keep. Blueboy96 19:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely agree on mayors, but not necessarily on council members, unless they've made a name for themselves running for higher office (or, more often, getting trouble somehow). - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:42, 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 Delete with no prejudice against recreation if/ when reliable sources can be located to susbtantiate assertions of notability. JERRY talk contribs 04:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yaar Mohammad[edit]

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

Non notable and totally Unreferenced both references are from a forum talk page written by the author.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Don't even know if it's real. Should have been a speedy. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SorryGuy  Talk  07:02, 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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 01:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English Roman Catholic parish histories[edit]

English Roman Catholic parish histories (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

The summary of this article is unsourced Department of Redundancy Department because there is already a wonderful article about the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, which covers the history quite well. This article has a summary and then oodles upon oodles of external links to the parishes themselves with little-no content. The text that is there, London, for example is wholly unsourced. WP is not a collection of links, which was also noted on the talk page almost two years ago Travellingcari (talk) 07:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, but it's a list of external links, not categorized content, which directly violates WP:NOT section that I linked above. Travellingcari (talk) 17:48, 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 procedural keep, given ArbCom injunction on deleting such material. WjBscribe 03:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kayla Huntington (Desperate Housewives)[edit]

Kayla Huntington (Desperate Housewives) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) No real world context, fails WP:FICT.--The Dominator (talk) 07:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--The Dominator (talk) 07:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps I'm reading this incorrectly, but isn't this only a proposed decision? And there's only four supporters where there should be seven for a decision to be accepted? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC) Didn't read the small print, was looking at the overall description. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per arbcom injunction. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Mayfair[edit]

Adam Mayfair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable fictional character that hasn't been covered by reliable secondary sources and has no real world context. Fails WP:FICT.--The Dominator (talk) 06:55, 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 Speedy delete by C.Fred. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PeaceNYC[edit]

PeaceNYC (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

This article appears to be a report copied from elsewhere. It does not appear fit to be an encyclopedia entry. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 06:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alert to administrators: Please cancel this AfD; the article was speedy deleted (for blatant advertising) by another user as I made this entry. Thank you. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 06:58, 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 --JForget 02:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stan J[edit]

Stan J (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Disputed PROD. Non-notable musical artist. WP:COI and WP:AUTO issues. Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:46, 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 procedural keep, given ArbCom injunction on deleting such material. WjBscribe 04:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shadows of P'Jem[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Shadows of P'Jem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A non-notable TV episode, has been tagged for references for over 5 months. Article is just a an indepth plot reprise with no real world notability. Pollytyred (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 03:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fusion (Enterprise)[edit]

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

A non-notable TV episode, has been tagged for excessive plot length for over 7 months. Article is just an indepth plot reprise with no real world notability. Pollytyred (talk) 23:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Dude, its consensus, not a vote. Plus your comments makes inclusionists seem like idiots. Zidel333 (talk) 17:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's ostensibly a discussion, but in fact it's a vote. And people who like to keep each and every shit just because it's Star Wars or Star Trek are idiots. User:Dorftrottel 23:38, February 2, 2008
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - not to mention the 200 or so Doctor Who articles, etc. Yup, depending how Arbcom rules I expect an orgy of AFDs. At which point I pretty much plan to resign as a contributor. 23skidoo (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Ragging; merge already completed by others. JERRY talk contribs 03:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who have died because of ragging[edit]

List of people who have died because of ragging (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Seven or so deaths is unfortunate, but with 9 million people comitting suicide annually, very many due to bullying, singling just these few for an article seems non-notable. Attributing a single cause to these suicides is simplistic and appears to be non-neutral, original research. Ros0709 (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it just lists two alleged and aparrently unproven allegations, and has no place in an encyclopedia. These articles appear to fall foul of WP:SOAP.

Ragging at the Indian Institutes of Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Comment. Agreed there is plenty of coverage for ragging, but that exists as an article in itself and is not affected by this AfD. Ros0709 (talk) 20:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I meant there's been coverage of those specific deaths, which were pivotal in the debate. `Relata refero (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I think by listing specific individuals there is probably more info than required to make the point; is there not also an issue that in moving the info away from the actual ragging article that the point is less well made? Ros0709 (talk) 07:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Content issue. Can be sorted out in internal wording. Relata refero (talk) 17:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree - the issue here is the title. I don't think "List of people for whom ragging has been suggested as a possible contributory factor in their deaths" really works, but that's what this article is. Ros0709 (talk) 17:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 06:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this AfD closes as keep we should add this to that list. You are, IMO, correct that it fits well with this list. Ros0709 (talk) 20:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although, this is not to say I retract support for deletion. There is, in that list, a list of deaths caused by suicide, for example, into which this list could be merged. Ros0709 (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. -- Longhair\talk 17:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solo Apple J[edit]

Solo Apple J (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete unsourced drink article, fails WP:N Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:44, 23 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, jonny-mt 08:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SorryGuy  Talk  06:05, 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 Keep. JERRY talk contribs 03:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doar Family[edit]

This article most certainly does cite refernces. And this family contributed a great deal to history in early America.

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

Delete as per WP:NOTE; also unreferenced. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 14:28, 31 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 05:52, 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 this is a duplicate argh. shoy 05:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Efi holden[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Efi holden (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Contested prod, so here we go. Prod reason was WP:NOT A Car Maintenance Guide, and I agree completely. shoy 05:53, 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, per reasons explained below. Rudget. 16:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Efi holden[edit]

Efi holden (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT a Howto Guide Q T C 05:52, 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. JERRY talk contribs 04:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arcane series[edit]

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

Apparently contested prod (author deleted template without any explanation). This is non-notable web content/game. The only mention of notability from reliable, third-party sources is a passing mention in a NYT article that's about something completely different. About all that's in the article is an unreferenced discussion of the characters in the game. Gromlakh (talk) 13:57, 31 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 05:47, 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 Keep. Article name and content/ quality issues should be handled by editors as they deem appropriate. JERRY talk contribs 03:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3D's[edit]

AfDs for this article:
3D's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Term not notable, but cant figure out a CSD criteria for it. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 02:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A google advanced search for kitanai, kiken, and kitsui, for results with all three terms (often in different sequences) results in 2700 matches.

This term is well documented in common usage, contains meaning beyond its strict definition and adds substantive information to other Wikipedia pages.

Repeatedly describing work as being of low social standing is simplified with a method for this defined work.

The generated call for deletion appears to be from an automated application running an algorithm for dictionary or encyclopedic terms, based on this it is likely this term easily qualifies for inclusion and the tag for review no longer necessary.

Please retain this Wikipedia page and thank you for the opportunity to explain the page's importance. Granite07 (talk)

Thank you to everyone for their inputGranite07 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) Book Reference (dictionary) - http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/3D_job

2) Expanded scope of article beyond laborers

3) Journal Article defining exact term "3D's" (accessible without proxy service) - [15]

4) Could not find use of term in television documentary (other than already cited), did find use in review of a movie [16]

hopefully this addresses everones concerns and allows this article to be removed from AfDs.

Thank You Granite07 (talk) 18:49, 31 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 05:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've tidied the article and added some more refs. It was a mess, and completely ignored international labour migration. It's now in a much better state to build on. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Your changes are very good and highlight an important aspect of migrant labor that was absent. The page 3D is about voluntarily foregoing personal safety, working conditions and social status for a living wage not about exploited workforces and religious or cultural enslaving of a population segment. Low wages are a function of surplus labor not working conditions. Some work that is not dangerous or necessarly dirty is likely to have low wages due to its open availability to the widest possible labor segment.128.12.169.7 (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Asked for a mediator to help determine if we can gain consensus before continued rounds of editing followed by deleting whole sections of the page, there is room for both views on the same page, or maybe there should be an article written to address low wage immigrant labor issues. Granite07 (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article is about the concept "dirty, dangerous and demeaning/demanding" not "dirty", "dangerous", and "demanding" jobs. The great majority of uses of the term (both academic and non-academic) refer to migrant workers, and of these the large majority refer to Asia. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, that is exactly correct "dirty, dangerous and demeaning/demanding", thank you for pointing this out. You are also correct about the "great majority of uses of the term". This term has a specific connotation as an American neologism specific to an occupation that embodies all three of these conditions. 3D work results in higher pay without requirements for education or special skills, this is the true defining nature. As you have pointed out, internationally this definition is also true for migrant workers looking for higher pay. Granite07 (talk) 23:59, 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. Bearian (talk) 02:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intercision[edit]

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

This article is an in-universe repetition of the plot of the His Dark Materials trilogy articles, which cover this in greater detail. There is no assertion of notability independent of the books themselves, so this should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:16, 31 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, —Random832 05:23, 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 Speedy Delete per G11. TalkIslander 01:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exilant[edit]

Exilant (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Company appears to fail WP:CORP due to no reliable coverage apart from press releases. Therefore, nothing from which to expand the current listing, which is nothing more than a company directory. Travellingcari (talk) 04:48, 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 - Appears to be a hoax - unacceptable on Wikipedia. Rudget. 16:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dizzle, Jim[edit]

Dizzle, Jim (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Non-notable self-published author Corvus cornixtalk 04:33, 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 Keep. JERRY talk contribs 05:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Electrical wiring (United States)[edit]

Electrical wiring (United States) (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

This is a completely unreferenced how-to article. It mentions the 2002 edition of the NEC, while the current edition of the NEC is 2008. Some information in the article was correct in 2002, and is incorrect after the release of the 2008 NEC. While this could be fixed, I think this article is mostly how-to. Worse, since Wikipedia is unreliable, and this article in particular is so long, broad, and completely unsourced, it should be removed. Electrical wiring is something left to a licensed expert. If done incorrectly, it can result in property damage or loss, and in injury or the loss of life. Mikeblas (talk) 04:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not a "how to" guide - it is more a "how it is done" article. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 21:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, firstly, it's a how-to, which makes it deletable to start with. Secondly, are you not concerned about the possibility of someone seriously injuring or killing themselves? Doing electrical wiring work is not as simple as assembling furniture from IKEA or building a spice rack, especially if you're not a licenced professional (as you are likely to be if you're looking for information on doing your own wiring at Wikipedia). Even if this information were correct, which I'm not sure it is, based on the nominator's statement, we'd need a big disclaimer at the top advising that we take no responsibility, etc etc. It's not censorship to suggest that we turf this article out, it's basic responsibility to our readers. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 12:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment. The differences between the appendectomy page and the wiring page are profound. The important is that this page offers prescriptive advice, but the appendectomy page doesn't. The wiring page says that certain equipment isn't required, when it is; the appendectomy page (wisely!) doesn't advise what equipment is required when performing an appendectomy. I'm not sure the appendectomy article is correct, but information in the wiring article is simply wrong: there are many cases where a 12 AWG wire is too thin to carry 20 amps, even if this article says otherwise. -- Mikeblas (talk) 07:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't see a caveat in this article. In fact, I see the opposite; for example, the article claims to provide information about wiring practices in the US. Fact is, in the US, local authorities (states, counties, and cities) can override or ammened the so-called National Electric Code at will. That is, what someone reads here as being applicable to their wiring project because they're in the US might not actually apply because the authorities having jurisdiction has overridden the code. -- Mikeblas (talk) 07:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Your inappropriate and unwelcomed advice aside, this artilce is a how-to. While it's not a step-by-step how-to, it offers perscriptive advice. For example, it recommends using certain devices in certain circumstances, or sizes of wire for certain loads. In both of these cases, the advice it offers is somewhere between wrong and incomplete. Indeed, there is a difference between the content of this article and a how-to book on wiring -- the h offer similar altruisms, but provide enough context that the advice can be safely understood and applied. -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It may be just me, but that article doesn't seem like a how-to article at all. It's a great start to an informative article. Jd027chat 14:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It would be a great start to an informative article -- if some larger percentage of the information it contained was correct and current. -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Notability verified by refs. --PeaceNT (talk) 10:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea Bernasconi[edit]

Chelsea Bernasconi (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Why speedy was declined on this I'll never know... enough said. Dougie WII (talk) 03:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My guess, declined for this line "At age 13 she won a Gold medal in the World Junior Wushu Championships in Kuala Lumpur last August 2007 in the spear division." May not be enough for WP:BIO though. Officially neutral.--Cube lurker (talk) 03:22, 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. I am willing to userfy this for anyone who wishes to improve it in order to have it moved to a neutral article name. JERRY talk contribs 03:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton Recession[edit]

Clinton Recession (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

...is not a term recognized by economists.

The recession was dated from March 2001 to November 2001 by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER),Business Cycle Dating Committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research, which is the acknowledged organization that identifies and dates the recessions.

This recession officially started after Clinton had left office.

It is a term that has been used by some commentators with specific political orientation. While it is a good example of politically motivated interpretation of facts, it is not worthy of an encyclopedia article. --Chakreshsinghai (talk) 02:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Renaming it a "controversy", perhaps Early 2000s United States recession dating controversy would address my main concern. That is what the article is currently about, it is not really about recession as a topic in economics.
The terms like "Victorian furniture" and "Ming vases" describe things that happened during the named administration. Thus using the name of an administration is generally about naming the period.
For those interested in politics, I found 25,600 hits for "Bush recession" and only 8,830 for "Clinton recession"!
--Chakreshsinghai (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Early 2000s United States recession dating controversy sounds an awful lot like Early 2000s recession#Dating controversy in the United States. Might be a good reason to merge it into Early 2000s recession... -- mordel (talk) 16:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Closed as duplicate nomination. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soul and salsa instead. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soul and salsa[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Soul and salsa (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Notability seems to be the problem here. Also, there was a speedy tag placed on this, but it was removed without any reason, by the creator of the article User talk:Soulandsalsa - what a coincidence! - Milk's Favorite Cookie 02:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looks like a spam article with little/no real context. If the magazine became notable it would be worthy of an article. At the moment, it appears to be a mere e-zine or similar. SMC (talk) 03:08, 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 Speedy Keep (non-admin closure), per WP:SNOW. ChetblongT C 19:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Historical rankings of United States Presidents[edit]

Historical rankings of United States Presidents (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

The page is just a summation of subjective viewpoints. Subjective rankings have no place in an encyclopedia. The tables are original research because they create their own index by combining multiple different sources. This is clearly an invalid way of extrapolating new data. It is evident that after reading the article that the subject itself is DEPENDENT on POV due to the highly different ratings by different people. This article should really be titled 'Opinion Polling of How Different Groups of People Like US Presidents'. This is plainly not scientific.

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

The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gimbal Top[edit]

Gimbal Top (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

No context. Recreation of speedied article. Possibly spam. Rifleman 82 (talk) 01:32, 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 keep. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Morgan[edit]

Vanessa Morgan (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Disputed prod. Non-notable actress. Claim to fame is a principle cast role in a series which isn't due to premiere until next month. She only has one credit previously in a TV movie. No secondary source coverage. Fails WP:BIO. Redfarmer (talk) 01:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well that means the articles on Wikipedia about the show are wrong then. It still doesn't establish notability for the actress, though. Redfarmer (talk) 01:56, 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. Being a district attorney per se doesn't establish notability. The mentions in the external links are trivial, and do not tell why the subject is notable, neither does the article. --PeaceNT (talk) 11:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles R. Borchers[edit]

Charles R. Borchers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I cleaned this article up so it sounded less like an obituary, but I'm still not sure this meets notability requirements for WP:BIO. Bellhalla (talk) 20:20, 31 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, Sancho 01:16, 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 with Scholastic Corporation. JERRY talk contribs 00:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scholastic Parents Media[edit]

Scholastic Parents Media (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Promotional tone; no third-party sources. Tagged for WP:CSD#G11; speedy tag removed. KurtRaschke (talk) 01:17, 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 keep. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eveleigh Moore-Dutton[edit]

Eveleigh Moore-Dutton (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Notability has not been established. Additionally, a tag has been placed on the article since September 2007 asking for the article to be expanded, and it has yielded no effective response in terms of establishing notability nor of tidying up the article or adding any substantive content at all. In the light of this inaction, it seems reasonable to offer it up for deletion.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I don't see the results of these google searches anywhere in this article, which is how I consider it should be evaluated in this case. If you believe the chance of deciding to delete it can be reduced by including material taken from this google search, then shouldn't you or someone else have included the material and resferences (either before or now)? The article can always be re-created with properly argued notability features and references in the future if someone cares to do so if it is deleted as a result of this nomination.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps the current article should just be improved, rather than having to delete it then recreate it in a few weeks or months as the election draws closer. Seivad (talk) 18:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can only then repeat what I wrote earlier: if these facts are true, where is the verified information in the article now which states this, given that there has been a template that highlights the need to include more information, etc since September 2007?  DDStretch  (talk) 10:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy deleted - an obvious hoax, no need to wait five days. Article was a crude copy of the Vanessa Hudgens article. Gwernol 01:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia Hudgens[edit]

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

I suspect this is a hoax. "Sofia Hudgens" is not mentioned at all in the reliable sources as far as I can see, but "Vanessa Hudgens" is. Google search for Sofia Hudgens doesn't bring up much, which I do not expect would be the case for somebody with such a varied and successful career as is claimed in this article. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 01:03, 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. JERRY talk contribs 19:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CARE's Response to Avian and Pandemic Flu[edit]

AfDs for this article:
CARE's Response to Avian and Pandemic Flu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Prod removed without explanation. This article is basically an essay assessing the response of an organization to Avian and Pandemic Flu. All references are to primary sources, suggesting original research. In any case, fails WP:SOAP and probably WP:NOT#OR. Redfarmer (talk) 00:54, 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. No notability, no assertion of verifiability through reliable, or any, sources. Rudget. 15:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soul and salsa[edit]

Soul and salsa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 00:52, 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 (the article was speedy deleted as per A7).

MashON[edit]

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

Thinly disguised advert for website at www.mashon.com. No Google hits. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 00:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since the page is simply not notable, I tagged the page for speedy deletion since the article does not need to suffer a process that could last days when it falls under the criteria to be deleted immediately. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 01:39, 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 delete. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Stab in the Dark (Play)[edit]

A Stab in the Dark (Play) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable play, article even indicates that it's a 'fringe' production. Prod tag was removed through inproper use of the undo function, and no reason was given to keep. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 00:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has been unfairly targeted for deletion. The cited links clearly establish notability. It may have been premature, but it certainly deserves to stay. Capitals should go, and poster image or cast images could be added.(129.96.130.236 (talk) 01:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

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

The result was Delete. JERRY talk contribs 05:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PB-244854[edit]

PB-244854 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article makes no assertion of notability. The article is full of apparently original research, which appears to be the sole purpose for its creation. Only small and select bits and snippets from the source document are used to support only the original research-based conclusions presented by the originator. The originator is a single-purpose account with a fairly clearly conflict of interest. --JJLatWiki (talk) 00:17, 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.
  1. ^ Killer student gets death sentence Deccan Herald
More