< September 9 September 11 >
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. --Coredesat 06:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lin Kuei[edit]

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

Adding proper template, which was not included when AfD page was created by nominator RookZERO. I have no opinion on the AfD iself. --Finngall talk 18:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the basis of a total lack of notability. No source outside wikipedia (reliable or not) has been cited and no notability has been asserted for this article. In addition, the claims are unverifiable and almost certainly false. (RookZERO 20:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

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

The result was keep. John254 18:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tia Bella[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Tia Bella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 00:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Joe Beaudoin Jr.'s arguments and someone finding a source for the article information, which removes the BLP problem. Needs work, but that's not a valid reason for AfD. I have to agree that being selected by one of the largest sex toy manufacturers in the world for a signature toy is noteworthy. Move for WP:SNOW Horrorshowj 22:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Overwhelming consensus to keep. Maxim(talk) 01:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of State Highways in Kentucky (1001-2000)[edit]

List of State Highways in Kentucky (1001-2000) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Disputed prod. Simply a list of red-linked images and pages with very little context, fairly unlikely that any of these images or pages are going to be created. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Indent reset) What Nyttend said. I couldn't have said it better. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How are they notable? Has each road individually been significantly covered by reliable sources? i said 00:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, but they are each capable of being covered by reliable sources. (Just like the rest of Wikipedia- roads are not finished yet. ) --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable does not equal notable. i said 04:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are notable because they are important to the region as modes of transportation. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, we don't demand that every single holder of statewide or provincewide political office have multiple reliable sources to be considered notable. Nyttend 14:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rschen— Important also does not equal notable. Nyttend— Just because others do it does not mean these don't have to. i said 00:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, several other people disagree with you. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

←Obviously. I'm just stating my interpretation of the guideline. As always, it comes down to inclusionism ideals vs deletionist. i said 00:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. However, I'm arguing based upon the specific policy of Wikipedia:Notability (people), which speaks of the essentially inherent notability of "Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures." In short, my argument is that your interpretation is different from a major example of consensus-made policy. Nyttend 18:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kitty Jung[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 23:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Younce[edit]

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

Non-notable "actress" who appeared in one religious film in 2004 and has since disappeared. Dudleydooright 00:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Maxim(talk) 01:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

N+[edit]

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

Fails WP:CRYSTAL, WP:OR, WP:V. Unreleased independent game, I suspect it may gain some notability after release but until then I don't believe it needs an article. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 23:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A merge would probably be better, and N+ could probably fall under the N article even after release. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 06:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unless it's notable by itself. i said 06:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was merge and redirect. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom Got an A.K.[edit]

Freedom Got an A.K. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No calims of notability per WP:CSD#A7. If it not applicable, this is the only article from the group, the others were speedy deleted or deleted per prod. This one was not deleted due to the particullary administrator didn't like the idea. Tasco 0 22:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete as having no context.-Wafulz 23:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QuickAudio[edit]

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

Newish piece of software with no claim to notability. I'd have speedied if there was a criterion that matched. — Coren (talk) 22:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ruabon rugby sevens[edit]

Ruabon rugby sevens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The club does not play at a notable level of rugby, and there is nothing in the article that could be seen as an assertion of notability. PeeJay 22:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Alvarado[edit]

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

Not notable. Claims to be a 'leading fashion designer', but a quick Google search returns only his Wikipedia entry, MySpace profile and some other self promoting web-pages. I believe he is not in any way a notable fashion designer. Efektimies 22:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latin American military in the 1990s[edit]

Latin American military in the 1990s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Was tagged speedy as an essay, which is not a speedy criteria - could be copyvio but I can't find a source - anyway, doesn't read llike an article, the topic is probably encyclopedic but will have to be rewritten from scratch. Carlossuarez46 22:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hype Hop[edit]

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

Protologism, no demonstration of notability. The Anome 22:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henry L. Stimson Center[edit]

Henry L. Stimson Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete basically unsourced article about a nn think tank, fails WP:CORP Carlossuarez46 22:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tales of an Empire[edit]

Tales of an Empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Declined PROD. Appears to be an article about a future work of fiction from a non-notable author; may constitute an original work since I don't see any references elsewhere to this work or the author. - Fordan (talk) 21:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First hit. Also it has been mentioned a couple of times at www.SDCClan.nl. It isn't fully noticed, because it is originally Dutch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarcharon (talk • contribs) 16:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment www.SDCClan.nl doesn't seem to exist, either the webpage, or even a domain registration per whois.domain-registry.nl. Putting quotes around "Tales of an Empire" gets you a lot less hits. The one you seem to refer to is a single mention on a forum, generally not considered to be a reliable source for establishing notability. (And where does Star Wars play into this? Nothing in the article seems to suggest it.) - Fordan (talk) 20:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Red[edit]

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

I was thinking of trying to fix and clean up this article on a blues musician, but it appears there simply aren't enough sources to work from that I can find. So... nominated for deletion for non-notability by WP standards. If someone can find the sources I'll happily withdraw this to build the page out. Thanks. • Lawrence Cohen 21:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Cousins[edit]

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

Non-notable, unreferenced. If anything, the product these two techies developed should have an article. Google shows nothing on Cousins. Panoptical 21:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete as citations provided do not establish notability due to only trivial mentions of Barry. While she has written and published a few papers and essays, these are not enough to establish notability per WP:BIO and WP:PROF. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Barry[edit]

Jane Barry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • Comment Most of Barry's writing appears to have been distributed through Non-governmental Organisations' networks - UAF says over 3,000 print copies have been distributed and an unknown number of .pdf downloads. Book appears (from website references) to have been translated into a number of languages Robin.schofield 19:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Written citations are not metrics to measure the worth of individuals who work in developing countries and conflict zones. Their value is measured in the power of disseminating their messages through verbal narratives and community engagement. Jane Barry is also a leading feminist not in the western sense of being concerned about glass ceilings but ensuring women have the capacity to build roofs over their heads and secure their future in uncertain environments. In this way Jane Barry is creating a new paradigm for the feminist movement in the 21st century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.105.61.244 (talk) 07:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— 83.105.61.244 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --WebHamster 09:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately soapboxing like this won't do your cause much good and can actually be counter-productive in these debates. Wikipedia is based on the foundation of verification. Citations may or may not be the best of ways to achieve notability but "rules is rules" and there must be some semblance of neutrality to rule out WP:POV. Citations achieve this with an acceptable ability. Either way an AFD is not the place to discuss rule or criteria changes. The simple fact of the matter is that all claims have to be verified using laid down guidelines. It's the same for Jeffery Dahmer as it is for Mother Theresa. --WebHamster 11:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
— Ddetorres (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --WebHamster 09:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. That's great. Do you know of any sources that would confirm the information in the sections "Early career," "Humanitarian work," and "Policy work and women's rights"?
  • Comment. I know the San Francisco Chronicle published an interview with her in 1991 or 1992 on her witnessing Yeltsin's stand in Moscow. Alas, the Chronicles online archives only go back to 1995. Ddetorres 19:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deor 14:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've added some more what I would consider to be minor references, but I have no idea if they are enough to establish notability, probably not :( --WebHamster 16:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Entries from the San Francisco Examiner interviewing Barry have been added. Commentary on Barry's writing and notability by Women in Black has been added Robin.schofield 10:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Surely someone who has demonstrably done such positive work and dedicated a tremendous amount of effort doing so in some of the most needy areas of the world should be kept here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasheed8 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— Rasheed8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --WebHamster 09:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, original prodder withdrew deletion request (see last entry). NawlinWiki 19:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitris Spanoulis[edit]

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

Greek basketball player. The article was prodded, and for some reason, an anon user (dynamic IPs) keeps removing the prod and posting personal attacks on admins. Since deleted prod notices really should not be reposted, I'm posting the article for discussion here. No opinion from me. NawlinWiki 21:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I live in Greece myself. I don't know if you have ever heard of Vassilis Spanoulis who played for the Rockets last season and currently represents Greece in Eurobasket 2007. He currently plays for a team i haven't heard of. In addition, if you check the external references many of them refer to Vassilis Spanoulis and not Dimitris since there isn't really much information around about Dimitris Spanoulis. You can also tell that he's not that known because of the fact that there aren't any articles on wikipedia for the teams he's played for. Cheers.Of course he was not drafted and i strongly believe the rewards he's been attributed are untrue. Cheers. Sergiogr 21:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sergiogr should be blocked and warned not to do this

First of all he marked this article for deletion without following ANY of the guidelines. For example he PURPOSELY marked that the player had never played in the top Greek pro league. THAT WAS A LIE.

He purposely marked the player was on a made up team. THAT WAS A LIE. He then purposely made to where not being on a current A1 team made you a non pro player. THAT WAS A LIE.

In fact he was on an A1 team JUST LAST YEAR and several times in the past. He made it out to where he was in a league difference based on professionalism, NOT TRUE. This is based on LEAGUE STANDINGS. As a person claiming to be Greek he KNOWS this. More LIES and more wiki deletion VIOLATIONS by him. He made it to where there could be "no evidence found of his team and proof of him being on it."

BLATANT LIE. Right ON the article was proof. MORE deletion violations by this disgrace to wiki.

There were so many BLATANT lies and violations of wiki deletion policy.

He then continued policy violations by making FALSE reports of vandalism and getting users BLOCKED. He numerous times made FALSE reports of "vandalism" and "harrasing" and "personal attacks" getting ANYONE blocked that tried to add to the article, improve it, or point out the false accusations made in his "legit deletion request."

This ridiculous JOKE of a supposed "dedicated wiki contributor" then had the audacity to start reporting ME ME for "abuse" just because I had a IP within a range of certain addresses and was blocked time and time again and blocked and sent frankly VERY RUDE messages by mods and admin telling me I was warned and etc then blocking me when I said look this ain't me.

I did a 2 minute search on Google and confirmed everything on that page. I also note this complete fool sergiogr claimed that if you were to keep this article all players from "A2 would have to be added." Yeah THIS THIS is a legit reason for deletion?

Is this guy serious? No wait are the mods that caused all this trouble and blocked who knows how many users serious? A lot of mods and admin need to have their butts reported on this. How lazy do you people get? Did you even spend 5 seconds looking at this complete nut sergiogr?

Never mind that in FACT he IS an A1 player. He's a free agent and played A1 previously 3 years. So I guess then using sergiogr's imaginary standard ALL NBA players that are retired or free agents should be deleted then right?

I hope EVERY person blocked because of this colossal idiot sergiogr and honestly downright LAZY mods give people a hell full on this. I know Matea is NOT happy about it either as he got the SAME crap.

Personally I think sergiogr and every mod that fell for this nonsense should be freaking ashamed. I mean did any of you look at sergiogr's creations.................ok THIS guy is putting other player templates on case for deletion? MY GOD look at his two, if you delete Spanoulis then you better damn well deleted these two he made and KEEP THEM OFF. The Spanoulis one is light years better than his.

Damn I am mad, all freaking day could not edit because of this loser. But no you lazy fool mods just believed this fool and did whatever he said.

Whomever was hijacking these IP's sure had reason to, I am royally pissed just brushing with this incompetence.

BTW, I notice A LOT of the European player pages have recently been deleted. Went back and checked that. Milos Vujanic for instance. SAME thing a bunch of LIES about the article that it was fake etc no one checked no one did their job just deleted it...........imagine that imagine

BTW these players have connections to Panathinaikos basketball team and sergiogr is a fan of Aris rival team. You know I just think I might open up a can on some of the admin involved in this and put all over the talk pages of anyone and everyone how pathetically LAME some of you are. Not worthy of your posts at all, ruining wiki with this BS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.31 (talk • contribs)

Please remain civil and refrain from making personal attacks. It doesn't help anything, and only makes everyone more upset. Thanks. --Miskwito 22:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Right, let's talk serious. First off, perhaps i am not the one who has been lying. And i am not a fan of Aris BC which isn't even a serious rival of Panathinaikos. But why would this matter? He DOES NOT play for Panathinaikos BC! He's just the brother of a current player of Panathinaikos. No vandalism huh? What are those on my talk page? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sergiogr&oldid=157010514 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sergiogr&oldid=156996025 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sergiogr&oldid=156994209 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sergiogr&oldid=156987073#You_stupid_ass_piece_of_shit as well as those comments on Dimitris Spanoulis article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dimitris_Spanoulis&action=history (edit summaries by unregistered user). And don't tell me you don't have anything to do about all these. Plus the fact that he proposed articles i have contributed to and created for deletion and changed the dates on the deletion tag to have them deleted as fast as possible. What's more the fact that he isn't registered makes things more clear indicating that you are afraid to show yourself because you will be getting blocked. Enough said. I am not willing to talk more about this series of events that have taken place. As far as the reasons for deletion are concerned i don't have anything to add than that Dimitris Spanoulis is not <<famous>> to be in Wikipedia.His brother is but not him. Last cleanup looked good by the way. Thanks Sergiogr 14:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I forgot to mention about the external references many of which have nothing to do with Dimitris Spanoulis like Official HEBA Site

Official Hellenic Basketball Federation Site A1 League at Sportime magazine (Greek)Sergiogr 14:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I had a lot of trouble yesterday logging in. I registered because I couldn't even log in. Normally I just read pages, with an occasional edit. I have the Hughes Net Satellite system so it is very hard to log on with a user name. I see by some comments made here some people do not understand that. Anyway it seems to be a real common problem here that all of us Hughes users get blocked. This is really a pain in the rear.

Basically, we get blocked just because some people know how to switch the IP addresses. I guess hackers and vandals use the Hughes just for this reason? Strange really it costs me $120 a month and there are 3 higher packages than the one I have.

Anyway, I kept getting messages yesterday and kept being told I vandalized things. YAWN. This really is a big problem here that it seems you just get blocked without any real look.

So anyway I had to finally figure out what was causing this problem yesterday and it came to the Spanoulis article here and an article on a basketball player named Holden. It turns out it stems from the user sergiogr.

Well I guess what happened was sergiogr didn't count on the person that probably wrote this article would be able to cause all that nonsense. Sergiogr clearly was trying to make some point to this person for whatever reason and it backfired on them. The article is not deletion worthy IMHO. I wonder if sergiogr is one of the wiki vandals that does everything they can to get things deleted and gets away with it.

I looked over this seeing what was behind this as seeing I and I see here others were blocked because of this. And yes sergiogr many people are being assigned these same IP numbers. Hughes has about 10 million users FYI.

So I looked over this, to see if sergiogr is being honest or if he is acting like a rogue here, which should be discussed with him to kindly not do in the future because it gets other people blocked.

Well it does seem Dimitris Spanoulis is definitely an important basketball player in Greece and a professional. And it seems this is cited in the article already.

Example: sergiogr claims that this player has made up accomplishments. His explanation is simply that he has serious doubts they are true. This seems a bit weak doesn't it?

Okay let's look, it claims he was "led in scoring average with Xanthi BC during the 2006-07 basketball season, with a scoring average of 27.4 points per game. As a result he was voted to the Greek League All-Domestic Team, the Greek League First Team, and he was named the league's Domestic Player of The Year, Guard of The Year and Player of The Year.[1]"

Now click on link 1 and you get this page,

http://www.eurobasket.com/GRE/d2.asp

On this very page in top right corner it confirms he played on that same team and led the league in scoring with 27.4 points per game. Scroll down a ways and after all the leaders and some player rosters it looks like it has the yearly awards listed and sure enough matches exactly what is in this article. The article has direct links to this.

Sergiogr seems to be making things up here.

Now, this contention of the A2 division. I know nothing about these foreign basketball leagues honestly. I did some checking around. Turns our sergiogr is way off base.

The second division of Greece is a pro league. It is part of the Greek pro league. The second division simply means the team finished in the bottom of the first league or never won the 2nd league to move to the first league. In other words it is inferior as he claims but it's the same league. I think he is claiming this is like an NBDL league or something and that's clearly wrong. It's the second division of the pro league, where the teams that are losing are currently held at. Best way it makes sense from what I have looked at is, if the NBA used this method the Chicago Bulls would have been in the second division after all their titles because they came back with a bad record. The team does NOT suddenly become non-pro and players non-pro. Sergiogr seems to be trying to manipulate this.

Now this is stated ALREADY here at wikipedia look at this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esake

and this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A1_Ethniki

As you can see his FIRST team is an A1 team. Doesn't even jive one iota with sergiogr's claims.

Now look at this,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A1_Ethniki_2006-07

it clearly states here the A1 teams that have a bad year are put back in A2 and the A2 team that wins is put back in the A1. In other words either every edit made to all this Greek pro basketball is wrong or sergiogr is being a you know what. Notice also it says Makedonikos was in the A1 and went back to A2. This article also has Spanoulis playing with Makedonikos when it was A1 as I also found out.

This I found also the article,

http://217.13.116.51/ulebcup/noticia.jsp?temporada=E04&jornada=13&id=670

"They grew playing classic brotherly one-on-one battles in the playgrounds of Larissa, Greece. Together, they faced the early death of their father, a tragedy that cost both of them, but also made them stronger for overcoming their loss. All along, Vassilis and Dimitris Spanoulis lived with the same dream: to play professional basketball at the highest level possible. On Tuesday, both will take their friendly rivalry one competitive step higher as they face each other in the ULEB Cup quarterfinals, Vassilis playing for Maroussi and Dimitris for Makedonikos. Younger brother Vassilis is currently the second leading scorer in the ULEB Cup for Maroussi, with 14.1 points per game, while big brother Dimitris has been a big help off the bench with 6 points on average for Makedonikos. "Both of us are professional and definitely we want to help our teams continue in this competition," Dimitris says. "There is a great opportunity ahead of us and we will give our best to make it happen, even if it's necessary to upset your own brother."

Vassilis and Dimitris never played together in the senior men's team of Larissa, Gymnastikos, a steady member of the second division in Greece. The only time they were on the same squad was eight years ago, playing for a small team in Larissa, Keravnos. Vassilis remembers getting his hands on the keys to city's largest gym to practice with his brother for hours and hours. "Both of us were starters," recalls Vassilis. "Same size, 1.92 meters, same position, point or shooting guard depending on the games, but mostly the same desire. We hated losing a game and both of us were great fighters."

All the private competition paid off first for Vassilis, 23, who made the jump to Maroussi in Athens when still a teeneager. When the younger Spanoulis left his city to join Maroussi in Athens, back in the summer of 2001, Dimitris started his pro career on Larissa's second division team, staying there until the end of 2003-04 season, when he moved to Makedonikos at age 26.

Dimitris Spanoulis Dimitris in action "Even if I made the great step of moving to the first division three years before my brother, I can definitely say that Dimitris, who is now starting for Makedonikos in his first season, is very happy and proud of me," Vassilis said. "When he still played for Larissa, he used to come and visit me in Athens during the Christmas and Easter vacations. Now, as we play in different cities, we call each other and talk about basketball and analyze what exactly we need to improve. I would say a bit of everything, since improvement never stops."

The culmination of all their practice together came last summer, when Vassilis Spanoulis represented his country at the 2004 Summer Olympics in Athens as a member of the Greek men's basketball team. Earlier in the summer, Vassilis was selected in the second round of the 2004 NBA draft by the Dallas Mavericks, who later moved his rights to the Houston Rockets. Vassilis found out he was drafted when the phone rang during yet another individual morning practice in Larissa.

"For me, like for many many basketball players, the NBA is a dream, but the fact is that many players have been drafted by NBA teams, but never played," he said. "In my mind, the most important thing is to give it a try." Dimitri hopes that his brother gets that opportunity and wishes him the best when it comes. "I find Vassilis's desire to go there as something positive and I am sure he will be all right," older brother Dimitris says. "Having playing time is a big deal, so that's what I want for my brother, to go there and have a role in a team. It would be great for his career."

Meanwhile, both players are concentrated on the mattter at hand, the ULEB Cup quarterfinals battle the can put either team - and either brother - a step closer to continental glory.

"I am sure that Makedonikos will fight us with all its strength," Vassilis says, "but Maroussi has great quality as a team and our goal is to go as far as we can in the ULEB Cup, including the final. We know our mission is very tough and we have to overcome any obstacle."

Kostas Sotiriou, Athens"


So Dimitris and Vassilis competed in the ULEB Cup. That means Makedonikos was an A1 team. I searched this ULEB Cup is the 2nd highest basketball in Europe only Euroleague is higher. ULEB Cup is higher than Greek A1.

Also sergiogr claims that only Vassilis is worthy of an article not the brother. Well here they are on same level in ULEB Cup, there are former and future NBA players in ULEB Cup teams as I found, with listings on wikipedia.

Here with wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EuroCup

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ULEB

Now, sergiogr claims the team he was currently on did not exist and was probably made up and that there is no evidence of its existence anywhere.

Wow, this is almost sad he actually put this up for deletion with this as a citation.

http://www.beobasket.co.yu/eng/vest.jsp?id=9182

"DIMITRIS SPANOULIS SIGNED FOR MENT

August 29, 2007

The brother of famous Greek player Vasilis, DIMITRIS SPANOULIS signed contract with top A2 Greek team, MENT from Thessaloniki. Spanoulis played great last year for Xhanthi in A2 league."

And then this:

http://www.eurobasket.com/team.asp?Cntry=GRE&Team=365

Funny but right here we have copies of the team roster with Dimitris Spanoulis listed on it, and also a picture of Dimitris.

This team doesn't exist? It isn't part of the Greek Hellenic Basketball association? Well apparently all these European websites and other wikipedia pages here are wrong and only sergiogr is right.

Keep in mind all the wiki pages say the exact opposite of sergiogr's claims. You know it really is very odd he had users blocked for having an issue with his own breaking of site policies.


Look, I could go on and on, I found all of this JUST from wikipedia and JUST from the links given on the Spanoulis article. All I can say is this is quite frustrating to be on a netwrok that is getting blocked because you have completely ridiculous people like sergiogr doing whatever they can to ruin things here for others.

One last thing I see he now asserts here his reason is because the player is not well known. Well if he is not well known why are there articles about him on European websites like this one about him and his brother? This article doesn't even come from Greece. Ok sergiogr please no more of this stuff I do not like constantly being blocked from here and yes it is true I looked it happened because someone went crazy and all that BUT it happened because YOU wrongly and I might add going against site policy for deletion came after their article. In other words, YOU really caused it.

Wiki Is Mine 12:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, what you have just mentioned is completely true and proven. I can easily accept a behavior like this of yours but you would be furious like i had been after all these vandalism my personal pages have undergone due to the fact that i was proposing this article for deletion. But even so, those users against the deletion of the article should have replied on the talk page of Dimitris Spanoulis where i created an entry about a potential deletion. Also, I NEVER stated that the team he's currently playing for does not exist, i just said that there was no article about it on wikipedia. I never offended anyone even if i was offended many many times. As far as you calling me a wiki vandal i wouldn't really agree .So to put this to an end, i withdraw my request that this article be deleted. But only because of the fact you have written in such a way. And please next time avoid unregistered edits. Many thanks and apologies for the whole situation. Sergiogr 19:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Bryan[edit]

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

otherwise nn councilman of mid-sized city has scandal, kills self. Newsy, sort-of; encyclopedic, no. Carlossuarez46 21:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I doubt that this John Bryan is the one referred to in all of the articles that link here. For example, I doubt that he was the designer on the 1948 Oliver Twist film. Cheers, CP 23:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Potential vandalism is not a delete reason, or we should delete all school articles and Rik Waller. Fram 12:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas and Friends - Season 12[edit]

Thomas and Friends - Season 12 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There is very little information on what Season 12 is going to be about. At any rate, it is only attracting hoards of vandals, and the creator had no insentive to do good, so it needs deleting. CBFan 20:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Citation for Pierce Brosnan has been added (source HIT Entertainment Press Release). This is also referenced elsewhere, particularly at Pierce Brosnan and Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends. -- EdJogg 22:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, especially in light of the copyright problems, which are not addressed by any of the keep arguments. One entry not being from the website does not make the rest of the material not a copyright violation. --Coredesat 07:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jargon of the Neal Boortz Show[edit]

Jargon of the Neal Boortz Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

As you might expect by the name of the article, the only source to publish jargon of the Neal Boortz Show is the Neal Boortz Show. Wikipedia does not have "experts" to judge whether something is important and leaves that up to independent relialbe sources. Jargon of the Neal Boortz Show has not received enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the Neal Boortz Show to develop an attributable article on the topic. The topic fails WP:N. -- Jreferee (Talk) 20:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete and redirect to Severus Snape per here and on the talk page. --Coredesat 07:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias Snape and Eileen Prince[edit]

Instead of being merged as non-notable, consensus at the talk page is to delete and redirect. Non-notable plot recitation.Judgesurreal777 20:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if you delete an article, you cannot then insert the code on the deleted page for it to redirect to Snape's article; so from a technical standpoint, notwithstanding the consensus at the talk page, delete and redirect is impossible. Perhaps everyone means to blank the page and redirect - in other words just redirect? --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 09:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, Eileen Prince and Tobias Snape redirect to Tobias Snape and Eileen Prince. Those two should redirect to Severus Snape instead, and Tobias Snape and Eileen Prince should be deleted (in my opinion). It is highly unlikely someone would type the full name directly anyway. Magidin 13:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh OK I think I see. So delete Tobias Snape and Eileen Prince and redirect Tobias Snape and Eileen Prince to Severus Snape instead of to Tobias Snape and Eileen Prince. I think I got it. Those individual article re-redirects would be necessary after the candidate article is deleted, because they would then have nowhere to go. Gotcha. Just wanted to clear that up - if the candidate article on the couple is deleted, then it cannot then be set up to redirect back to Severus Snape because by definition it is gone; but the other "child" articles can and should be re-redirected. Thanks for the clarification of the intent. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 13:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 due to additional outside sources being provided. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shaggy Flores[edit]

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

Extensive and apparently autobiographical article about a slam poet. Article provides no outside references, and I haven't yet found any independent sources to show notability. Previously speedied once. --Finngall talk 20:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside independent references are provided at the bottom of the page. This article is in compliance with existing Wiki articles on Slam or Nuyorican poets. Material provide aside from the short bio is material that was created outside of the source by independent contributors. Please remove from deletion status as the information provided is correct and not web advertising. In addition, how is this page any different from existing Caridad de la Luz and Tego Calderon pages which are posted on Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.160.135.249 (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete as there are no reliable sources which discuss this term specifically, so there article subsequently fails both WP:N and WP:V. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Democrat In Name Only[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Democrat In Name Only (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There is not enough reliable source material to write an attributable article on the topic "Democrat In Name Only". The article mostly is a BLP problem magnet and the problems noted by the AfD #2 nominator have not been addressed in the past two years and those raised in AfD#1 have not been addressed in the past three years. The topic better suited for coverage in Party switching in the United States and Factions in the Democratic Party (United States). While those with knowledge of current or potential government policies might be aware of the term, no reliable source has deemed it fit to be addressed in their publication to any material degree. There is no reason Wikipedia should either. -- Jreferee (Talk) 20:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looking into your sources, there seems to be a significant lack of anyone addressing the term in question:
[1] - Uses the term to describe someone, that's notable for Wikitionary, not Wikipedia
[2] and [3] - Reference the term as part of a quote, that's notable for Wikinews or Wikiquote, not Wikipedia
[4] - Directly references the concept of DINOs and RINOs, but seems that it uses as a shortened form of "a democrat who often crosses party listens". Once again good to back up a Wikitionary entry, but it doesn't establish the notability of the term
[5] - Uses the term as an insult to Henry Cuellar, once again Wikitionary, not Wikipedia
[6] and [7] - Confirm that the term is used (although the claim is clearly hearsay), but does not establish notability
[8] - like [5] quotes the term being used as an insult
Overall, it looks like a derogatory term used to refer to a Democrat that votes like a Republican. I don't know if it make sense when applied to a concept, but Notability is not inherited. Burzmali 23:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Democrat in Name Only" is not a neologism; it's a phrase. Guidelines relating to neologisms don't apply. This article is about a concept and a phrase used to describe the concept. As it exists now, the article clearly goes well beyond defining the phrase and describing its usage, which is the job of a dictionary. My eight links show that the phrase is in common usage, including major publications. When there is an article on a candidate for president using the phrase, that is an article about the phrase. I'm sure the one I linked is not the only one. Besides, if Friedman (unit), which is a neologism, survived two AfDs despite much less robust sourcing, I can't see how that precedent could be reconciled with deleting this article. I'll also say now that I don't intend to turn this discussion into a back-and-forth between the two of us. I feel like I've said what I have to say. Aside from the replies I'm going to put in this post, I've said what I have to say about the topic and will leave it to others to decide the validity. Croctotheface 00:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, "Democrat in Name Only" isn't a neologism, it is simply a phrase someone came up with based on RINO, and nothing more. Like "bleeding heart liberal", "Massachusetts liberal" or "compassionate conservative" it is only used to disparage the subject. Unlike "Massachusetts liberal" no one has ever written about the term "Democrat in Name Only", they only write to call someone it, or report someone being called it. Can you find any articles that discuss the term itself? Burzmali 02:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced I have to. Your previous argument seemed to be based on the idea that this is a neologism (though you did not describe it exactly as one) and therefore requires very specific kinds of sources. I would argue that an article about someone calling someone else a DINO is an article about both the phrase and the concept. It establishes notability. For the record, I'm sympathetic to the "the article sucks" arguments below, but I don't think that sucky articles should be deleted simply because they suck. Even if they haven't been improved significantly, it doesn't mean that they can't be. Your "disparage the subject" argument seems to assume that there should be a different standard for pejorative terms than others. I don't see why that should be. Croctotheface 19:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The term "hack journalist" is also very popular in the press, as are "miserable failure", "well-dressed gentleman", and "five time winner". The term must be notable independently of usage to warrant an article. Just because Paris Hilton (and the press around her) likes to say "That's Hot", doesn't mean that we should have an article about it. Burzmali 19:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is going to be my last reply, since I don't think some sort of extended back and forth is likely to change the nature of the discussion in a significant way. It might be fun for us, but it doesn't serve much of a purpose. One of your arguments had been that there did not exist appropriate sources for the article. I argued in response that there did indeed exist sources on the topic that featured the phrase prominently. These sources, I argued, establish the notability of both the topic and the phrase. You now seem to have abandoned the "lack of sources" argument and are instead running a different argument: something like, "There exist phrases X and Y that do not have articles. Therefore, Democrat in Name Only should be deleted." My response to this new argument is that the cases you give are not similar. Some of these other phrases you refer to are so common and so generic (hack journalist, well-dressed gentleman) that readers are not likely to be served by an article on them. In other words, if a reader knows what the words "hack", "journalist", and so forth mean, they know basically all there is to know about the phrase. Indeed, if you argue that "Democrat in Name Only" is a phrase like these, then you seem to be reversing your old position completely--no longer is this a non-notable phrase that is just the providence of a handful of bloggers. Now, you seem to be saying that it is such a common phrase that there is no point in trying to have an article about it. Considering that we DO have an article about it, even if that article could use improvement, that seems to belie the notion that there is nothing to say about the topic or the phrase. I think a much better, more direct parallel is Republican in Name Only, which most certainly does have an article. How is that not the best parallel case? Croctotheface 23:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
note user is unregistered. Also, this argument is unrellated to the notability of the phrase. --YbborTalk 00:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as the article fails WP:N. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charter School of the Dunes[edit]

Charter School of the Dunes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable school. Only fact listed is that it has 35 teachers. Also, does not have third-party or independent sources that deal with this specific school. Panoptical 20:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 07:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moonlight motel[edit]

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

Non-notable comic strip. The Evil Spartan 20:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. DS 14:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarikakeov[edit]

Appears to be a hoax: if not, it certainly doesn't pass the muster of WP:RS. All lists on google: [20] are coincidentally next to someone's email address. At very best, WP:OR qualifies. The Evil Spartan 20:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Fram 13:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moutaz Mohamed Haddara[edit]

Moutaz Mohamed Haddara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable biography The Evil Spartan 19:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirected to parasitic twin. ELIMINATORJR 22:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islaam Maged[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO - notable only for their medical condition. (Might be worth a mention on the disease page). Contested prod. Fabrictramp 13:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Parasitic twin which already contains a few sentences about this. Maralia 15:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Contains no pictures.Pictures help the reader understand what they are reading." User:Coolgirly88 7:40, August 30 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolgirly88 (talk • contribs) 10:42, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TKD::Talk 08:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TKD::Talk 19:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Nothing that passes WP:MUSIC here. ELIMINATORJR 21:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grumpy Man DJs[edit]

Grumpy Man DJs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability of this group is not clear. Sancho 08:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Crazytales talk/desk 19:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 07:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Filter freq[edit]

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

Vanity article Jvhertum 08:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


3tmx 09:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Crazytales talk/desk 19:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Maxim(talk) 01:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tower 1 Dolmen City Karachi[edit]

Tower 1 Dolmen City Karachi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Future building without asserted notability. Sasha Callahan 19:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 07:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Patinkin[edit]

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

Non-notable self-bio. Wrote a couple of non-notable papers, was involved in a couple of non-notable startup companies, was mentioned in a school newsletter, sued a local politician. The bulk of the article is unsourced. Deprodded by anon. Weregerbil 19:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.10.243 (talk)

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 07:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advancing hairline[edit]

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

This page appears to have been created as a way to disparage Sean Hannity and Andrew Napolitano.[26] I deleted the BLP material, and the page now largely duplicates receding hairline information in Baldness. Delete and redirect to Baldness seems the way to go on this one. -- Jreferee (Talk) 18:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 19:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Cerrell[edit]

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

Notability not asserted/unreferenced Spryde 18:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 07:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for Prosecuting Islamic Republic officials for their crimes against People[edit]

Centre for Prosecuting Islamic Republic officials for their crimes against People (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Very nonnotable attempt. No verifiable sources can be found. Mukadderat 18:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 19:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shepley Bulfinch[edit]

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

Delete nn firm, fails WP:CORP. Carlossuarez46 18:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being (Harry Potter)[edit]

This article has no real world information, and as such is only a repetition of story and trivia from books by J.K. Rowling. As the books and their plots/characters are covered in their respective articles, this article is totally duplicative and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 18:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

but judges you forgot one thing THIS IS PART OF THE HARRY POTTER UNIVERSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! it is not a repetion of trivia or facts

so i think this article should staylegaiamaster will warp your reality 19:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But legaia, that's not a criteria to keep it. You see, Wikipedia is made of of topics that can be intelligently discussed, and this topic, while interesting, does not have enough of that to sustain a conversation, and thus, should be part of a larger universe article. Judgesurreal777 20:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete — Caknuck 20:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crescent Group[edit]

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

Although, the content of the article suggests that this group is a very large conglomerate, it does not explicitly state the notability or worth of the subject to be an article on Wikipedia. The article has been tagged to be expanded since its early stages, and also has been tagged as an advert/spam for just linking to multiple articles without much explanation - other than the purported fact that this group has many industries covered. No references are cited, except for the corporate link and some propaganda-type links for the names of executives. In short, it is not an article at all. Emana 18:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 07:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Tookes[edit]

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

New article, asserts some minor notability, but how much? How notable are Assistant Professors? ELIMINATORJR 18:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is a budding researcher at a top University whose research is continuing to win awards.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think she passes on WP:PROF criteria #6. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 07:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General Sherman Junior High School[edit]

General Sherman Junior High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article reads like an advert for a non-notable school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B1atv (talk • contribs)

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allie DiMeco[edit]

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

Prod was removed, so I'm sending it to AfD instead. This article is about a minor character in a TV show. It has no references despite being tagged for some time. Also, BLP concerns were raised in regards to her being a minor with her school listed. ^demon[omg plz] 18:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC) 18:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete all, with the exception of Da Drought 3. Da Drought 3 has had some controversy and seems to have garnered some media coverage that might merit an article. If you disagree, you can take this to deletion review or re-nominate. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Da Drought 3[edit]

Da Drought 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete a mixtape, a bunch of this artist's mixtapes were deleted before after this and this discussions. I am also nominating:

There is no asserted notability for any of these albums. Carlossuarez46 18:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also "Da Drought 3" was reviewed by the Boston Globe (July 10 2007, page SID8) and "Dedication 2" is mentioned in All Music Guide's profile of Lil Wayne. Keep for both of these.P4k 21:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 19:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke West[edit]

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

This person is not notable per WP:PORNBIO. • Gene93k 18:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 obvious db-nonsense. ELIMINATORJR 18:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PKC Snails[edit]

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

Zero google hits. It's possible that this is just hopelessly non-notable, but looking at some the text I'm inclined to think it's a hoax. PC78 18:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A7. Gogo Dodo 18:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twas My Cure and Joseph Stanley[edit]

Twas My Cure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Joseph Stanley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Essentially a garage band -- self-published EP and one "forthcoming" self-published album -- no references, no citations Accounting4Taste 18:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 07:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lance Buck Paul Smith[edit]

Lance Buck Paul Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Understanding Train of Thought (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Combined nomination for a NN biography & book. Article makes the claim that he is author of a "best selling book" titled Understanding: Train of Thought. However, this book is published by AuthorHouse which is a self-published, print-on-demand publisher. The person has only 10 Google hits[32] and the book only 9[33]. Authors fails WP:BIO and the book fails WP:BK. Prod was contested without comment. -- JLaTondre 17:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Self-publication doesn't confer notability. Accounting4Taste 18:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and above. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 20:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait and see if the book is still remembered in a year or so. It's too recent in my opinion to know if its notable or not. of course, I'm just another IP address here.--190.74.124.4 02:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball... -- Kl4m Talk Contrib 01:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The book is within the scope of WikiProject Books WP:BK and the biography is within the scope of WikiProject Biography WP:BIO. Dragon390 17:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
^^Above account is a SPA/sockpuppet in case it wasn't obvious. See contribs. -- Kl4m Talk Contrib 01:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per well researched nomination. The first, an unreferenced article, fails WP:BIO. The second fails WP:BK, despite Dragon390's claim. Both are products of single purpose accounts. Victoriagirl 18:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 07:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TiVo Community Forum[edit]

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

Non-notable web forum, deletion is agreed to based on discussion occuring at the talk page. Lumbergh 17:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Well intentioned, but does not appear to meet article inclusion guidelines at this time.--Kubigula (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barratt Waugh[edit]

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

Contested speedy. British singer, questionable notability but there is some claim there so not really a speedy candidate. I have no opinion. Pascal.Tesson 17:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I respectfully disagree with the previous user's comment about the article subject's "questionable notability." While perhaps not as well known as some other artists in the pop/rock genre, it is my opinion that Mr. Waugh's prior affiliation with a major record label, as well as his continued work in songwriting and vocal performance, qualifies him as sufficiently notable to warrant at least a "stub" entry. Such an entry would allow other users familiar with his work to expand the article to include listings of the artist's past and present compact disc recordings, concerts, and other pertinent data. PrometheusA1 18:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question here is: is there sufficient coverage of Mr. Waugh's career in reliable third-party sources to warrant an article? Pascal.Tesson 19:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response I still think the article should be kept, but clearly I've been outvoted. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, but I have to say that I'm really disappointed. With articles/associated references ranging from Slinger to Gareth (Sojourn) to Scott_Savol, I think this one is on par. To those who want "objective evidence," take a look at the articles linked above (the first and second are examples of random, apparently non-notable things that have articles), and the third also cites a personal Web sites as the primary reference. There's clearly a large grey area between non-notable and notable, and I'm frankly disappointed that I took the time to contribute in the first place since others apparently think it's pointless. PrometheusA1 23:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 delete per WP:SNOW.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 02:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wickedtickle.com[edit]

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

Nonnotable website, no sources cited to show notability, "300 members". NawlinWiki 17:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


OK, so how do you go about satisfying your need to see "notability"? We're consistently a top search hit in Google fore anything entertainment based in this region. We're approaching 300 members in less than a year, which is saying something for the entertainment niche in this area. We've got several million hits in 1.5 years. We've been reviewed by this area's most notable entertainment writer, Robert trudeau. We've been asked by this region's civic leaders and music community to represent Ark-La-Tex music and it's long and storied history to the world. We've worked with the James Burton (guitarist for Elvis Presley) International Guitar Festival. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WickedTickle (talk • contribs) 17:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC) — WickedTickle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]


Also, we work with some of the the biggest names in this area, including the Red River Revel, Tipitina's and James Burton, all of which are also listed in Wikipedia. We're also consistently the #1 listing in Gooigle for "ArkLaTex Entertainment". —Preceding unsigned comment added by WickedTickle (talk • contribs) 17:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC) — WickedTickle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Creep (Comics)[edit]

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

Prodded this article about a comic book on 8/14 with the reason: "No reliable sources establishing notability. Article also has biased, advertising tone." Prod removed on 8/16; defense on Talk page consisted of "There are lots of articles about comic series; this article is within the scope of WikiProject:Comics; the tone will eventually be fixed." The problems with the tone are obvious and nobody's made any attempt at improvement since the article was tagged in January (or since it was prodded). I couldn't find any reliable information on Google to show this is a notable comic, but "The Creep" is not the easiest search term to target. Propaniac 17:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 07:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow Sandals[edit]

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

Following a request for assistance with NPOV vios at the help desk, I looked into the history of this article and discovered that aside from spam links the only source it ever had is the official company website. It did claim to be one of the three best-selling brands of sandals in the US, but I can't find support for that at the website, which is predominantly for selling shoes. Googling Rainbow Sandals, Inc didn't help me. As it stands, the article is not encyclopedic, and I do not find any sources to substantiate the rather weak claim of notability it did have. There's no question the shoes have fame, but fame is not necessarily encyclopedic. Moonriddengirl 17:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete, as no evidence of notability has emerged. Merger with Barloworld is an uncertain option as Melles Griot was sold and the current relationship with Barloworld is unclear.--Kubigula (talk) 22:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Melles Griot[edit]

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

Notability not established due to lack of independent coverage (WP:CORP). PROD contested with comment: "Removed deletion proposal. Company is (was) noteworthy." That's not much of an argument. I would also be fine with a merger to their former parent company, Barloworld Scientific, just that I do not see anything worth merging. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 16:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 16:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Kalentzis[edit]

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

This article should probably be nominated for CSD though I don't know if it meets that criteria for sure. It's some non notable individual bio written likely by conflict of interest parties which seems obvious due to it's tone. I see no reason this atricle should exist. This individual seems to be some non notable soccer player from a quasi notable organization. Total lack of sources and google yields 1 result matching this person specifically. Wikidudeman (talk) 16:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nokia 9000 Communicator. Whether and what to merge is, as always, an editorial decision. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia 9110 Communicator[edit]

Nokia 9110 Communicator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod which claims that this phone made Nokia the largest manufactuer of PDAs in the world. The article carries no references to substantiate this claim, doesn't carry this claim itself, and doesn't even identify the phone as a PDA. With a brief introduction, a list of "specifications" and a linkfarm, it's just an advertisement. Mikeblas 15:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 07:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia E62[edit]

Nokia E62 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Just another cellphone with no specific claim to notability. This product did nothing to change the industry or influence the market in a lasting way, and is just another incremental product. Only reference is a review, and references other than reviews are likely not available. Since reviews are not substantial, this subject does not meet the requirements for notability. Mikeblas 15:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 07:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liar (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. Google search for Liar +metalcore +band shows no hits except the article itself. "Record label" is apparently run by the band themselves... Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 15:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Content already merged to List of Latin phrases (A–E).--Kubigula (talk) 02:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E.g. vs. i.e.[edit]

E.g. vs. i.e. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. There are no sources, and this article seems to constitute unpublished synthesis of material - it doesn't seem like an actual encyclopedic topic. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Well said Lundse. Actualy, I think JIP's suggestion is possibly the best now at this point if anyone wishes to do that.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 08:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. And I agree that this would be a good compromise. Lundse 08:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 07:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Global Panel Foundation[edit]

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

Non-notable organization, citations rely heavily on corporate press releases and marketing material, minor/unreliable news outlets, and a foreign language book we can't verify. Conflict of Interest and self-promotion are probably involved. See this case. - Jehochman Talk 14:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because of the same reasons:

Prague Society for International Cooperation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • I would have nominated Marc S. Ellenbogen for deletion too. I think all three things are tied together. Unless some good references turn up, there's no way to create a proper article. - Jehochman Talk 16:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for Prague and merge in the GPF I think the sources for the PSIC's notability in the early part of its history are reasonably strong. After about 2000 the evidence starts to decrease, and I have never figured out the exact relationship with the GPF. for the GPF the activities as given here would be notable, but the lack of any real sources despite search (I too gave it a try some time ago) indicates either great secrecy or that they are not quite as important as they think they are. Some of the deleted material on Ellenbogen should probably be merged in here also. I think there is enough for one article. DGG (talk) 02:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, shouldn't the article be MSE, to whom the two organizations trace back? --maf (talk-cont) 13:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g1, patent nonsense. NawlinWiki 20:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Schmidlap[edit]

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

Methinks I smell a hoax. "Joe Schmidlap" is one of several "John Doe" names used to denote a random person, often in jest, the article creator's other contributions are not-as-funny-as-he-thinks vandalisms, and Google knows nothing about a composer named Schmidlap. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 reasons given for keeping have been effectively refuted, as funny as this sketch is. --Coredesat 07:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Albatross (Monty Python)[edit]

Albatross (Monty Python) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • Pointing at other articles in an attempt to justify this one, in other words WP:WAX, is not a compelling argument. However, in this instance I will agree with you that this sketch is no more notable than many other articles that were formerly housed in that category, for instance "Court Scene with Cardinal Richelieu," "Court Charades" and "Dennis Moore" (all deleted), "Erotic film" (deleted), "Conquistador Coffee Campaign" (deleted), "Johann Gambolputty" (deleted), "Mr. Hilter and the Minehead by-election" (deleted), "Medical Love Song" (deleted), "Silly Job Interview (deleted) and "Restaurant Abuse/Cannibalism" (deleted), not to mention the dozen or more that were deleted in response to being prodded. If the only thing that's notable about a sketch is that Monty Python performed it, it's not in and of itself notable. NOT:PAPER is not a free pass for an article that otherwise does not pass policies and guidelines. Otto4711 14:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:FICTION is a guideline. There is absolutely no requirement that any of these things you mention be done prior to an AFD and I have to question whether your comment here is made in good faith. Otto4711 21:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOTINHERITED which you have used in your nom is not even a guideline - its an essay! Also, on precisely what grounds are you accusing me of not commenting in good faith? Fosnez 23:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a difference between knowledge and information. The White Pages is information but we would not list the contents of the White Pages on Wikipedia. You also really need to understand the difference between WP:ILIKEIT concerns and concerns that are related to actual Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I happen to be a big Monty Python fan. Love the TV show, love the movies. But my personal likes and dislikes, and your personal likes and dislikes, are not the basis for whether an article on an individual sketch from an individual film or episode passes the relevant policies and guidelines. Popularity is not notability. Interest in is not notability. "Not a hoax" is not in and of itself a reason to keep an article. Existence is not notability. If you're going to continue to participate in AFD, I would strongly encourage you to read through the various policies and guidelines a few times so that when you see an argument grounded in policy and guidelines you'll understand where the argument is coming from and when you believe an article should be kept you're able to present an argument that is grounded in policy and guidelines. Otto4711 15:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply. I read through various policies and guidelines numerous times, and I'm not convinced that those I participate in violate any of them. The fact that there's usually at least a few other keeps in the ones I participate in, suggests that others agree. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But we are in a position to do more than what any other encyclopedia can! :) Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely. But that does not mean we should :-) But maybe the wikimedia foundation in general should? All I am saying is, lets not put it under an "encyclopedia" title when it is not encyclopedic, lets move stuff like this to humorpedia or whatever pops up and is appropriate. That said, I do believe we should have more "weird" stuff then a paper encyclopedia, as per policy - this is just going to far in my opinion. Lundse 18:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is established by the existence of reliable sources that are substantially about the subject. Otto4711 19:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the sources that back up your claim of notability for the individual sketch are...? Otto4711 23:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wouldn't the use in popular culture allow the use of Ignore all rules in this case? I also have been privy to "Albatross?" (or is it "Albatross!") being shouted in public, and until reading the article I didn't know what it was all about (I had to go to youtube to watch the sketch) BTW, I am not invoking WP:ILIKEIT - Fosnez 14:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me, ignoring verifiability in favor of "use in popular culture" seems highly questionable in an encyclopedia. --B. Wolterding 15:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentI think we can all verify that this exists, but can't use you youtube as a source. Popular culture references are already common on wikipedia and also many paper encyclopedias Fosnez 20:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its existence is not the only thing that needs to be verified, WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING. Also, a good deal of the pop culture articles are being deleted, which weakens the already bad argument of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Jay32183 21:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There isn't significant coverage. Simply mentioning something isn't sufficient to establish notability. Jay32183 18:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good examples for trivial coverage. The second one mentions the sketch in one word, the first one in one paragraph - which is a plot summary. --B. Wolterding 18:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 07:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Design for All[edit]

Design for All (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article has been previously speedied twice before, prod now contested. Very little in the article about the initiative but an awful lot of WP:SOAP about what they are trying to achieve. No independent references/citations/sources at all. Search term is too generic for an accurate ghit assessment WebHamster 13:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and clean-up --Haemo 18:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appetizing[edit]

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

No evidence, and only a dictionary defintion anyway Jon513 13:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 07:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vipromwiki[edit]

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

I prodded on Friday. Over the weekend, my prod has been removed by the creator (and replaced) 3 times, so I'm assuming contested. Original reason: "A not presently notable specialist wiki that appears to have just started up. The only hits are for it's own page, which is currently down, but the Google cache suggests there isn't much there at the moment." The site is back up, but requires registering by email with the admins to access any content. Doesn't appear to have too many articles though. Kateshortforbob 12:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 07:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Kratz[edit]

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

Not notable person, WP is not a directory of working people, unless notable. I can find a few PR and business profile references but nothing other than that. Spryde 12:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response:

Kratz is chairman of Helix Energy, a major company in the offshore oil and gas industry. Helix has a current market value of $3.8 billion, and an enterprise value (market value + debt) of $4.9 billion. Helix common stock is included in the Dow Jones U.S. Oil & Gas Index, the NYSE COMPOSITE INDEX, the NYSE ENERGY SECTOR INDEX, and the S&P 1000 INDEX, among others.

Kratz has been interviewed on national business television a number of times, an example being a Sept. 5, 2005 interview on CNBC.

A Factiva search reveals that Kratz was referenced or interviewed in Helix or oil and gas industry related articles in the LA Times in Jan 2006, the Houston Chronicle in Jan 2006, Offshore Magazine in May 2006, and the Dallas Morning News in October 2006.

On a final note, in 1999 Kratz and his boat, the Joss, placed first in the "The Big Boat Series," a prominent San Francisco Regatta. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxmyx (talk • contribs) 13:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete as non-notable. --Haemo 18:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spectacular Times[edit]

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

A non-notable series of pamphlets, perhaps an issue with WP:SOAPBOX. Jmlk17 11:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A conventional publisher provides a degree of editorial scrutiny that gives us more confidence in the value of the work. That is one reason why we allow citation of edited publications like newspapers and magazines but always try to avoid personal web sites. See WP:SELFPUB. If you know of any published articles that comment on Larry Law's work it would help. WP:N asks for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Inclusion in a bibliography seems like only a weak claim of importance. EdJohnston 14:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mesopotamian mythology.--Kubigula (talk) 02:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sherida[edit]

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

A predecessor goddess, unknown outside of Wikipedia, with few sources to be found. Jmlk17 11:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • They all start with the same seven letters, and hence show up in Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sherida; the fact that they show up there is an automatic function of the Mediawiki software, and has nothing to do with the nominator. And even if it did, so what? That hardly constitutes basis to accuse the nominator of bad faith. cab 05:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Call it a speedy deletion under A7 or a snowball delete, doesn't matter either way. Guy (Help!) 19:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blindsight (band)[edit]

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

Not a notifiable group - has not yet released anything Quantpole 10:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nonadmin closure. The Evil Spartan 05:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overdose (band)[edit]

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

Completely fails this criteria even if the band had one member from Sepultura. Notability isn't inherited. This article also has no sources and doesn't establish it's own notability. Seraphim Whipp 10:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep if referenced - The aricle does not claim that they had a member from Sepultura, but rather shared an album with them. This fact, if referenced, makes them notable in my opinion. 1redrun Talk 11:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bored in the USA[edit]

Bored in the USA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This subject lacks information to improve it. It is not in a fit state at present nor will it be in the future. It fails WP:MUSIC. Seraphim Whipp 10:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 07:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wenyi Wang[edit]

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

Person charged for disorderly conduct and with no notable achievements since charges were dropped against her. Fails WP:BIO as having only had one coverage. Falun Gong journalist who acted in a premeditated fashion and in breach of journalist ethics, who was arrested for heckling the President of the People's Republic of China. Few will know/remember her name. Ohconfucius 10:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Kindly refrain from casting aspertions on my motivations, It amounts to an ad hominem attack. FYI, I have been successfully cooperating with FG practitioners and others for the last month to improve a number of articles, and felt this would have met "normal" criteria for deleting. Thank you very much. Ohconfucius 03:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 07:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rigor Mortis (band)[edit]

Rigor Mortis (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No independent reliable sources, notability is asserted only very weakly (people having once played in a notable band does not make every band they play in inherently notable). A discography that requires padding with demos is a dead giveaway. Guy (Help!) 09:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop the Draft[edit]

Stop the Draft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I think we have to delete this article about a 1980 student organization as unverifiable. No sources have been given, although the article has been around for almost 2 years; and an expert review request to WikiProject Seattle turned up none either. Apart from a user's comment on the talk page, a local from Seattle, who remembers having heard about this organization on the radio back then, there's no evidence that the information is factually correct, and that the organization is notable. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 09:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Balm. Guy (Help!) 09:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Séan Balmy[edit]

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

Likely hoax. No sources cited. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 09:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, G4 and A7 Guy (Help!) 10:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dead on Arrival (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Dead on Arrival (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article just went through an AfD, and the result was delete. It was deleted and created again barely 24 hours later. This band is not notable. faithless (speak) 09:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirected to Saab_9-3. CitiCat ♫ 04:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ReAxs[edit]

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

Subject is unremarkable. Merely a tradename for a suspension that apparently behaves just like any other modern IRS. Greglocock 09:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 07:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Misbar[edit]

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

This is a rambling promo article for a non-notable business directory marketed in Kuwait and company that distributes the directory and the man who founded the company. WP:SPAM No references given. Search of the article's name turns up references to unrelated Arabic-to-English dictionary and translation software. OfficeGirl 08:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 JzG (Non-administrator closing). --Tikiwont 14:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To-gur[edit]

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

I am concerned that this article is a hoax, as it cites no references and I have been unable to find any that corroborate its claims. Another possibility is, of course, that there exist alternate spellings to the ones used here, in which case it would be appreciated if anyone could track them down. JavaTenor 08:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:CSD#G1: utter twaddle. Guy (Help!) 09:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pig Goggles[edit]

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

Neologism, unreferenced, and quite possibly original research. Any pig goggles out there? Marasmusine 08:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This belongs at RfD. Listed there, Copied over comments. --UsaSatsui 15:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gnooteekay[edit]

Zero real-world pickup for this supposed alternative name. Probably WP:MADEUP. Chris Cunningham 07:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. Nomination withdrawn. the_undertow talk 23:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eien no Uta[edit]

Eien no Uta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

"Nakashima Mika will be return again in the fall with a new single, titled 永遠の詩 (Eien no Uta), to be released on 2007.10.3.!!". Unencyclopedic pronouncement, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, no references. Delete unless cleaned up. - Mike Rosoft 07:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, a few things. I am not arguing against the singer's notability, but we cannot confirm whether the album itself will become notable. WP:BAND#Albums states that we should not have an article that is little more than a track listing. And I suspect the references cited are more about the singer and less about the album than the Japanese speakers have let on. G-hits do not confer notability-- they can be just the result of a very good paid marketing program. I wouldn't oppose a MERGE to the singer at this time, with no prejudice against re-creation. And as for the Japanese-only sources-- wouldn't it be a great idea for the English speaking readers of Wikipedia to be able to verify what is being said here on English Wikipedia? Anyhow, I don't see proof that this can become more than a stub with the currently published information, and it may be a flop (that's where WP:CRYSTAL comes in). That means delete or merge and redirect to the singer. OfficeGirl 17:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salty Nelson[edit]

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

Contested prod. The article presents no evidence that this is a term in widespread use. JavaTenor 07:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Trebor 20:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crimson Fields[edit]

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

My concern is this game's notability. The article claims the game is popular, but there are no independent references provided to back this up. I can find plenty of directory entries [46] [47] and download sites but not much else. Marasmusine 07:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my comment below, I list two sources. Please reconsider the second part of your argument for deletion, including the new information in your considerations. User:Krator (t c) 13:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about the two links above? User:Krator (t c) 12:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Please defer merge/redirect related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GURPS Bio-Tech[edit]

GURPS Bio-Tech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article about a set of gaming instructions does not contain context or sourced analysis, detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance to establish notability under WP:Fiction, nor has not received coverage from reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. --Gavin Collins 07:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(OT: Marasmusine, perhaps one could try to discuss, in the RPG WikiProject or somewhere, some specific guidelines for the notability of role-playing and boardgames, in view of the fact that they have a very different distribution and press coverage than, say, movies or novels?) --Goochelaar 12:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article says it was not a winner, but I suppose it was nominated. Incidently, are you or have you every worked for the publisher, Steve Jackson Games? --Gavin Collins 20:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop insinuating that anyone who opposes your deletion attempts must be an agent of the publishers. -- JHunterJ 21:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, that was somewhat uncalled for, especially considering how mild his comment was in support of keeping the article. Please assume good faith. —Dark•Shikari[T] 00:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason I ask is that there is an article for J. Hunter Johnson who has worked for GURPS in the past. Could JHunterJ answer my question? (In good faith). --Gavin Collins 08:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I already did, back when it was arguably relevant on the GURPS Monsters AfD. If you're going to initiate these discussions, please at least try to follow them. You were now insinuating that User:RJHall, not I, must work for the industry. Again, in good faith, please stop insinuating that anyone who disagrees with you must have an ulterior reason to do so. -- JHunterJ 11:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So I can take that to be a "Yes" then? --Gavin Collins 11:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's on his userpage, so I would have to say yes. Turlo Lomon 12:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there's nothing on my userpage about RJHall. One more time: Gavin.collins asked here if User:RJHall ever worked for Steve Jackson Games, but then said the reason he asked about RJHall is because the J. Hunter Johnson article exists. There's a disconnect there. But even the first question is equivalent to "Incidently, Gavin.collins, are you or have you ever worked for an anti-RPG organization?" -- JHunterJ 13:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bah, my fault. I got lost in all the discussion. I meant to say JHunterJ == J. Hunter Johnson. Turlo Lomon 14:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as blatant spam and copyright violation. - Mike Rosoft 08:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The Henderson International School"[edit]

"The Henderson International School" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Blatant advertising for non-notable school. WP:SPAM. Appears to be taken from school's website [51]. Note "Equal Opportunity Employer" blurb at end of article. I can't pinpoint exactly where they copied this, so I haven't officially listed it as copyvio. OfficeGirl 07:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Trebor 20:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acadomia[edit]

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

Non-notable company, per google search revealing no articles giving substantial coverage. Yes it is a traded company, but that's not enough to establish notability Advertisement listed by user who has no other edits. Violates WP:SPAM Completely unreferenced. OfficeGirl 07:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

Yuan Sheng[edit]

The result was delete -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

non-notable airline pilot who claimed political asylum for being a member of Falun Gong and for trying to persuade airport staff to leave the CCP. Stripped of hits to Falun Gong related websites, Yuan Sheng scores 236 Ghits. There are hits to the original syndicated news story about the defection soon after he landed, but many of the hits are unrelated, or for namessakes. Ohconfucius 06:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment whilst not exactly identical, the 3 sources above were about the same event, with slightly different angles, and would fall to be treated as "one coverage", thus failing WP:BIO. Ohconfucius 09:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing vote to delete per WP:BLP1E, etc. Ohconfucius was right, I jumped the gun when I saw even the BBC picked up his story and I figured it was important enough to generate ongoing coverage. But after searching a bit more, what's already in the article is all that WP:RS have to say about the man, and no journalist seems to have bothered to follow up on him. cab 10:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete as having no credible assertion of notability. Guy (Help!) 10:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Bonasso[edit]

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

Bio does not assert any notability, cites no sources, and is the target of several vandals. Crockspot 06:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Vintage Leaf Flag[edit]

This flag is a hoax. It is true the maple leaf symbol has been used in the uniforms of Canadian hockey players. However, in the books and materials that I own or have found, no proof was found for this specific flag to exist. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've simply added the article as an explanation of a flag that was created based on the leaf of the uniforms of Hockey Canada. It is not an official flag, but does exist giving an alternate (vintage) leaf design on a flag that is also found on pins, clothing etc. Canadian Ministry of Heritage is aware of the flag as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Likemike1 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert J White (headmaster)[edit]

Robert J White (headmaster) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

School headmasters are not inherently notable. I don't see anything particularly remarkable about this one. —Moondyne 05:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is notable as he was the school's first laid headmaster in its hundred and something year history. Talk to symode09's or How's my driving? 06:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you mean lay. Most catholic colleges in modern times have made that transition from priestly brothers to lay and so there has to be one that is the first of the new order. I just don't see how that makes that individual notable. Does the last priest become notable also because he's the last? —Moondyne 06:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He has moved on to be a major role at christan brithers education australia (see http://www.loopaustralia.com/Director%20Announcement.pdf ) and, influences all the christian brother schools in australia 203.59.214.40 06:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC) (I am User:Symode09)[reply]
Luckily I have a copy of the press release (I could not find the original on their shitty site) http://www.loopaustralia.com/Director%20Announcement.pdf 203.59.214.40 07:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC) (USER:SYMODE09)[reply]
I received a request from the above user to reconsider my !vote. I have reconsidered. My !vote stands. A press release is not a reputable third-party source. The speil on White was almost certainly written by White himself as part of his candidacy statement. Even if it wasn't, it was written by someone with a vested interest in making White look good. Even if it wasn't, it was not published by a reputable publisher. And even if it had been, the amount of encyclopedic information it imparts is insufficient to justify an article on him. Hesperian 11:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cramming. Nothing here can be usefully merged. First line is acceptable for Wiktionary if someone wants to put it there, but a transwiki shouldn't be necessary for one line. CitiCat ♫ 04:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mugging (mugging for exam)[edit]

Mugging (mugging for exam) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is about the term "mugging" as used in Singapore to refer to last-minute studying, which is better known in the United States as cramming. I submitted the article for WP:PROD, but the PROD tag was removed. The article looks more like a dictionary definition than an encyclopedia article, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Cram is a disambiguation page, and Wikipedia doesn't seem to have an article about this studying process in general, so there is no clear target for a redirect (study skills seems to be closest, and it's not that close). I recommend a delete. --Metropolitan90 05:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry McAfee[edit]

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

I don't think this article should be here on Wikipedia. Harry McAfee isn't notable enough and seems to be a regular teacher or band director. Besides, he isn't even mentioned anywhere else. Astroview120mm 01:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adaptive Mutations in Bacteria: High Rate and Small Effects[edit]

Adaptive Mutations in Bacteria: High Rate and Small Effects (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is just a run-of-the-mill journal article that was published in a journal LAST MONTH. No assertion of notability. A journal article itself would have to cause a major stir for quite a while and be used as a major reference source for a long time after it was published in order to become notable. This brand-spanking-new journal article is not an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article. Are we to have a new Wikipedia article for every article that a science journal publishes in every issue. I say DELETE. OfficeGirl 05:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion, create a bio article about the lead author, Lília Perfeito (aka L. Perfeito). She seems notable under the guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). The article received international attention [55], [56], [57], [58], [59] - probably hundreds of labs are busy trying to reproduce its results. Here is one scientific citation index that mentions the paper's importance (this goes to academic notability): [60]. It's true that WP doesn't generally have articles about journal articles per se, no matter their importance (altho there are a few under the category of genetics experiments). The findings are quite notable - it's more a question of WP article organization. Best wishes, Novickas 15:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like an article about the lead author would be well received, indeed, and a valuable addition to Wikipedia. I assume you are prepared to be bold and start it up right away!OfficeGirl 15:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you agree! Problem with immediacy tho, I don't read Portugese and am short on time...Novickas 16:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You could put a note with the refernces you have found on the talk page of this article's originator, who speaks Portugese. I am sure he or she would be grateful for the guidance in properly covering the information he or she was trying to share with Wikipedia.OfficeGirl 17:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, done, at User talk:Galf. Novickas 21:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to take a look as how Novickas put the information into the Escherichia coli article. Having a Wikipedia article about this journal article just isn't the way to go. But the lead scientist has a shot at passing WP:PROFTEST and that's all the notability you need, and that provides a more sure path for you to share this very interesting information. Thanks for your hard work on this.OfficeGirl 12:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You might also want to try posting at the talk pages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Microbiology and Wikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biology for their suggestions. Novickas 13:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. All of the nominator's points have been quickly and strongly refuted, and the debate has been unanimously sided towards keeping the article. The debate already has a snowball's chance in hell of producing a delete result, so I'm being bold and I'm closing it early. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

El Hormiguero[edit]

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

Subject is a non notable tv show from Spain. It fails Wikipedia:Television_episodes content guidelines. There are no google news results once you do a google search and strip out blogs, youtube/google video, wiki clones, and the tv network cuatro who hosts it, you find more references to Nicaragua than you do the TV show. It has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

Lets apply WP:NF (I realize this is TV not film but some of the criteria should be similar).

1: The film (TV Show) is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.
Widely distributed, nope, only airs in Spain. Youtube rebroadcasts dont count. Reviews by critics, cant find any see my google searching above.
2: The film (TV Show) is historically notable
Only began airing in 2006, nope not historically notable.
3: The film (TV Show) has received a major award for excellence
Nope cant find any awards.
4: The film (TV Show) was selected for preservation in a national archive.
Too early to tell if it will be. WP:NOT a Crystal Ball after all.
5: The film (TV Show) is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.
Highly unlikely.

 ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - To expand, a TV show shown throughout the whole of Spain would count, to me, as wide distrubition. Is it a requirement for it to be aired internationally to be notable? As for claiming it should be deleted for lacking historical notability, being taught in a college, for being preserved in a national archive...I think 90% of television fails those. The359 05:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum There are 90 Google news archives results for "El Hormiguero" + "Motos". This was just a lazy AFD. Zagalejo 07:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - auburnpilot talk 05:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prolifik Da Sick[edit]

Prolifik Da Sick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsigned rap artist, article provides no evidence that he satisfies Wikipedia's inclusion criteria for musicians. Google search primarily turns up Myspace results. JavaTenor 03:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete all. --Coredesat 07:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gravity-well projector[edit]

Gravity-well projector (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article about fictional technology with no assertion of real-world notability. Lack of coverage by reliable sources makes it impossible for these articles to meet WP:WAF. --EEMeltonIV 03:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also nominating the following articles for the same reasons:

--EEMeltonIV 03:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response - I meant to convey that the lack of third-party sources makes an out-of-universe perspective per WAF impossible. Of course, lack of sources also makes it hard to establish notability per WP:FICT. --EEMeltonIV 11:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Brown (American football)[edit]

Arthur Brown (American football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

completely non-notable high school kid. emerson7 | Talk 03:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even high school football phenoms deserve their article, see T. A. McLendon, Ronald Curry, Ken Hall, Ron Powlus … ––Bender235 11:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
T. A. McLendon's high school career was over for five years before his article was written. The rest had already reached the NFL. Like I said, it's just too soon to assign notability to this kid. --Bongwarrior 11:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However, Brown has national attention by USA Today and New York Times just to mention a few, which makes him more notable then most college football players. ––Bender235 11:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about how much a player has achieved in a sport, it's about how much the media is paying him attention. Someone like Maurice Clarett has achieved only a bit more than nothing in football, but he got media attention (because he sued the NFL). Brown hasn't achieved much yet, but Pete Carroll and Bob Stoops praise him like he's the 2nd coming. ––Bender235 10:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point, but the thing is that currently Brown is only beeing talked about in terms of potential, rather than actual, success. In Clarett's case, he never really went beyond the potential-success stage, but he became notable because of his notoriety. If he'd had an article written at the time that he was being talked up as a College prospect (let alone a pro one), then I'd still be advocating its deletion. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. John254 17:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guido (slang)[edit]

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

Article cites no sources. Tagged with verify tag since July. Not in compliance with WP:V or WP:NOR. Dean Wormer 03:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hong kong film industry independence[edit]

Hong kong film industry independence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Reads as an essay, with all the POV and OR issues that go along with it. Also no citations. Girolamo Savonarola 03:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, POV disputes alone are not a reason for deletion. Nominator may fix the article instead, but deletion's not the answer here. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 03:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biologic Institute[edit]

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

This article obviously violates WP:NPOV. -profg 01:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. CitiCat ♫ 04:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Straight Reads the Line[edit]

Straight Reads the Line (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There are no sources that prove notability. As for the WP:BAND guidelines, the band doesn't really seem to meet any of them. The only ones it kinda comes close to meeting #4, but it isn't reported in reliable sources; and maybe #6, but the notable musician only appeared as a guest on one track. -- Scorpion0422 02:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Gallae[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Modern Gallae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

not verifiable Neitherday 02:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFD entry added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Neopaganism notifications --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. --UsaSatsui 20:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abandonia[edit]

Contested prod, I felt it could use some discussion. Looks like a very old AFD here that resulted in a delete. I'm going with Delete on this one, there's only one source that could be even close to reliable, and I'm not sure the website passes WP:WEBI'm also gonna bundle Abandonia Reloaded into here (another prior AfD, Keep result), they look like the same site. Also nominated -

Abandonia Reloaded (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--UsaSatsui 02:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I also want to adress some misconceptions you have presented:

Online: [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73].
Scanned newspaper articles: [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79]

--The Fifth Horseman 06:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. First off, let me clear up another misconception. Somebody prodded this, I saw it, decided it shouldn't be deleted without discussion, and took it to AfD. I added a Delete opinion because as the articles stood, I felt they should be deleted. I've got nothing "against" the article whatsoever. I call them as I see them.
Okay, the print sources are easily enough to establish notability, but none of them are listed in the article, and are still not even though you "added" sources (don't just link to the press release section on the site, use WP:CITE). Some of those web references may be too, but I can't read them, so I don't know. The references listed in the article are unacceptable...Sure, forums are primary sources, but Wikipedia references secondary sources. So get the sources in, and I'm satisfied.
Now, for Reloaded...still no sources on it. notability is not inherited), just being related to Abandonia doesn't save it. I still feel it's similar enough to be bundled, "Make another AfD" is a stalling tactic. If you can find some good sources for that site, or merge it into Abandonia, then that'd be great.--UsaSatsui 15:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merged articles Abandonia and Abandonia Reloaded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ye Olde Anarchist (talk • contribs) 21:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since there seems to be no real references for the notability of Abandonia Reloaded, I have completed the merge by replacing the article and its' Talk page with appropriate redirects. Fixed up the references a little bit too, since two of those you added were at best borderline. --The Fifth Horseman 14:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great work The Fifth Horseman. ----Ye Olde Anarchist 17:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Works for me. The prodders haven't bothered to show up and comment either, so I'll withdraw the nomination. --UsaSatsui 20:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, WP:NFT. NawlinWiki 02:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grantholomew[edit]

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

Appears to be a WP:HOAX. Google search found no "Adventures of" series, and only MySpace hits for the character. Much of the article seems like WP:BOLLOCKS. Evb-wiki 02:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 07:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Castagana[edit]

Chad Castagana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (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 "Use my penknife, my good man!" (Keep) — Caknuck 19:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FCCJ (Jacksonville Skyway)[edit]

FCCJ (Jacksonville Skyway) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article does not satisfy the necessary requirements for a rail transport station. As the article stands at the moment, there is not much more detail that can be added to it than already exists. The entire JTA Skyway system is only 2.5 miles (4.0 km) and all of the line's eight stations are within close proximity of each other. As a member of WikiProject Rapid transit, I am usually in favor of rail station articles, however all these stations are identical to each other, and are only a couple blocks apart, and all the little information in the article can be covered in the main article, JTA Skyway. These changes were implemented into the main article in a previous edit ([80]), however were restored by another editor who did not agree with the changes.

I am also nominating the following related pages because these are the other seven stations of the JTA Skyway, also not notable enough to have their own articles:

Hemming Plaza (Jacksonville Skyway) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Central (Jacksonville Skyway) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jefferson (Jacksonville Skyway) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Convention Center (Jacksonville Skyway) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
San Marco (Jacksonville Skyway) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Riverplace (Jacksonville Skyway) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kings Avenue (Jacksonville Skyway) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

–Dream out loud (talk) 01:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to the last 3 editors. There is no doubt the system is notable but WP:OUTCOMES#Transportation_and_geography does not support inclusion of these stations. What is really missing here is verifyability from reliable sources - it's hard to see how anyone would have (and I cannot find any records of) written about these simple train stops. - Peripitus (Talk) 05:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 07:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition to United States foreign policy[edit]

Opposition to United States foreign policy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article has gone through so much work, but I believe that unless it can be completely re-written to be specifically about Opposition to US foreign policy, it will remain a POV filled list of reasons people are opposed to US foreign policy, and a bunch of opinionated rebuttals to the reasons people are opposed to US foreign policy. It is nigh unsalvageable. Murderbike 01:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's okay -- easy mistake to make. If you put a prod tag on, you don't do anything else unless the prod gets removed. But if you want the article listed at AfD, just add an AfD template to the article instead (instructions at the bottom of WP:AFD). Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 03:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - nonadmin closure. Merge as necessary. The Evil Spartan 05:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muesli Belt[edit]

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

Seems to be a neologism created and used by just one author two years ago. Fewer than 200 ghits, many of which seem to be about a play of this title. Transwiki-ing to wiktionary may be an option, but keeping it here seems a poor option at present. Grutness...wha? 01:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Guardian article quotes source using phrase http://media.guardian.co.uk/bbc/story/0,,677609,00.html 3tmx 22:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/User talk:Shmaltz

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

The result was delete without prejudice to a completely new article, that is well sourced being created. The article as it currently stands has no sources and with it's content, is a very serious BLP violation. Sorry. but BLP trumps notability. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lizzie Grubman[edit]

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

The article itself states, that Grubman gained "notoriety for committing a felony crime." Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not a registry for felons, and this individual is not notable. She appeared on a short-lived reality show, but reality show contestants don't get their own articles either. -- Wikipedical 00:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 07:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs that have won a Grammy Award for Song of the Year and an Academy Award for Best Song[edit]

List of songs that have won a Grammy Award for Song of the Year and an Academy Award for Best Song (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Grammy and Academy Awards are certainly notable. But this list seems like an unnecessary intersection of unrelated awards. Spellcast 00:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you want to know what awards a song won, shouldn't it say so on the song's article page, the page's categories, or both? —Dark•Shikari[T] 00:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, pure vandalism. Pascal.Tesson 00:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Milk v. Nabisco Foods[edit]

Milk v. Nabisco Foods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I think this article is a hoax. I can't find any evidence that this actually was an actually Supreme Court case. Captain panda 00:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G11. The article, as written is ad copy, and no sources are provided that would provide independent verification of notability. —C.Fred (talk) 00:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reality Rhyming®[edit]

Reality Rhyming® (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable art technique. Developer of this technique does not have an article. Captain panda 00:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Moved to project space, redirect deleted. Circeus 00:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of publications on evolution and human behavior[edit]

List of publications on evolution and human behavior (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Solution found: moved to Wikipedia's resource section in the Wikpedia namespace. See Wikipedia:Research resources/Evolution and human behavior. The Transhumanist    20:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a collection of links or a bibliographic database on a topic. It is highly dubious that this could be reworked into a List of important publications (lack of articles, lack of clear topic), so it should be nuked. It has no place in an encyclopedia (although anybody can have it in their user space if they wish so.). Circeus 00:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of black metal fanzines[edit]

A redlink farm (cothurnus is a redirect) and potential external links farm of at best unknown notability. Circeus 04:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 07:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TBA (Nelly Furtado album)[edit]

TBA (Nelly Furtado album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a Crystal ball. This album does not have a title, track list, or release date. Let's wait until we have something substantial. There is no hurry, When it gets closer to the realease date, I have no problem with recreation. Cyrus Andiron 16:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there are many articles about albums, which are real crystal balls[2][3][4]] in contrast to this one, nelly furtado said, that she is recording a spanish album and it also stands in the main article Nelly Furtado.--Dave it 16:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References
  1. ^ ... you dumbass
  2. ^ TBA (Christina Stürmer) Crystal Ball
  3. ^ Before I Self Destruct CB
  4. ^ Ego Trippin'

There is no resaon to delete this article, this album is fixed to be released in January 2008.--Dave it 17:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 appears to be well-sourced, even if suffering NPOV problems. Nonadmin closure. The Evil Spartan 04:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Arabism[edit]

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

The notability of this term, is barely in use in academic circles.[83] And it is not an historical term as the article claims. It seems to be a neologism, or a newly coined term, and the entire article reeks of Original Research. At best, some of the content should be merged into islamophobia.

WP:GOOGLEHITS SefringleTalk 22:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your first arguement is WP:GOOGLEHITS, your second is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The australia article can be nominated for deletion as well. As far as I am concerned, they both should be deleted.--SefringleTalk 23:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Both WP:GOOGLEHITS and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are essays. -Huldra 23:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, than prehaps you can show me the policy where it states that google hits prove notability, or other stuff exists is a valid deletion arguuements for keeping?--SefringleTalk 01:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. WP:googlehits implies that the quality of the results is not considered, merely the quantity. I clearly considered the quality, and the fact that they referred to a phenomenon with what appeared to be a stable definition. (Anyone interested in making a similar argument over at Pallywood? No?)
About otherstuffexists, my only point was that I can't imagine why this article is being singled out for deletion first. You're right, its an inappropriate argument for retention. I suppose I was just thinking out loud.
That being said, note I didn't state my conclusion. I continue to think that stubbing down the egregious OR leaves something that is clearly notable. Not a neologism, not inherently POV, etc. Hornplease 23:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you can provide sources to show us how it is notable? The redirect would be appropiate, as while not all arabs are muslim, the topics are very closely related (i.e. much anti-arabism is called islamophobic, and vice versa.)--SefringleTalk 00:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prehaps you can offer some citations as to how it is notable, and maybe you can respond to my comment directed at Huldra, which is my response to your second point.--SefringleTalk 01:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The two topics are not closely related. The common stereotypes against Muslims is that of terrorism and suppression of sexual freedom. The common stereotypes against Arabs is excessive wealth, indulgence in excesses (including sexual intercourse).Bless sins 01:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TBA (Christina Stürmer)[edit]

TBA (Christina Stürmer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.There is not a title, track listing, or source for this article, although it will supposedly be released this year. The article should be deleted now until something more meaningful is known. I have no objections to recreation later. --Cyrus Andiron 17:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Brazilian grindcore, noise and hardcore bands[edit]

Yet another redlink farm. It is possible that some,or even many of these may be notable, but this is absolutely impossible to assess. Circeus 19:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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