< April 6 April 8 >
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; there was limited participation in this AFD, but it's clear that no sources have been provided that meet WP:N, and that nobody has been able to locate any that do. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kaphle[edit]

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

This Indian surname appears to be non-notable. A recent PROD was removed as a (somewhat trivial) source was found. There is still no assertion of notability for the surname, nor is there anyone notable listed as bearing this surname. —BradV 02:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Darkspots (talk) 23:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete; default to KEEP. - Philippe 21:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Harries[edit]

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

I believe this to be not notable enough for inclusion per our guidelines. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps true, Squeakbox. I was referring to the fact that our article on the television show Wogan doesn't mention Harries' appearance, suggesting his presence was relatively unimportant. Risker (talk) 01:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given the number of people who have appeared on Wogan, the overwhelming majority were celebs, doubt anyone would be mentioned in Wogan's article unless they murdered the crowd.... Minkythecat (talk) 06:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That suggests, then, that being on Wogan isn't a guaranteed metric of notability. I'd hasten to point out, I've been on TV several times now, (interviewed about one thing or another) and I'm not notable by any stretch of the imagination. ++Lar: t/c 11:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Wogan article is rather short, and can't by any stretch of the imagination be regarded as comprehensive. The lack of a mention there is meaningless, particuarly as Wikipedia can't reference itself. PC78 (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
She's been in newspaper articles and on the telly. Call it a 'media personality', and perhaps model? And transexual:) It's no different from many 'celebrities' these days, many don't have to do anything involving talent. special, random, Merkinsmum 03:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you can reflect that in the article I will certainly reconsider my vote, especially having myself already done my best to at least make it a decent article in the style sense. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Think LOL is the best response. Wogan appearance, THE most notable and indeed only claim to fame - unsourced. Channel 4 documentary - which, if you'd watched it, was extracting the urine - unsourced. Channel Five show - unsourced. Only sourced TV appearance... oh wait, something that may or may not happen. The only other references apply to the personal life section, and that's specifically to an assault. One of which is actually the result of the trial... please refactor your keep rationale... Minkythecat (talk) 07:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Think "Sod off" is the best response. Did you bother to look at any of the refs or external links? Wogan is mentioned in one of the refs and also the Guardian interview, while the Kieth Allen documentary is mentioned in another. While I have no taste for "celebrities" who are famous for being famous, such people tend to be prevalent in this day and age, and to my eyes there is enough here on Lauren Harries to satisfy WP:BIO. PC78 (talk) 08:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Think WP:CIVIL is the better response. Whilst Wogan may be referenced, it's in a powder puff interview with the Guardian. And indeed contradicts the text in the wiki article. All your amazing sources appear to be are a single interview, which by it's very nature is hardly impartial or objective. The rest refer to the assault case; oh wait, and a Lauren harries wiki style page full of self-promotion. You may be satisfied by Harries, but unless you can provide more substantive, independent sources, you're reaching. Minkythecat (talk) 08:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment was hardly brimming with civility either, so don't try and throw that at me. There's nothing wrong with the Guardian interview as a source, and here's a couple of proper articles ([2], [3]) about the Keith Allen documentary. The bottom line is this: Harries is (just about) notable, the article asserts notability, and sources exist (here's a few more for good measure: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]). That's good enough for me. Your arguments, on the other hand, tend to smack of IDON'TLIKEIT. PC78 (talk) 09:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you actually read the links you posted? All of which either refer to Wogan - at age 12, not 10 as the Wiki article states. The newspaper articles focus upon Harries sex change... oh, and being beaten up. Kindly provide something that's notable other than those 3 elements? A BLP should exist for all Wogan guests, hmmm? For all people who change sex? For all victims of assault? You've provided zero evidence for any notability other than having changed sex and been beaten up. It's clear true encyclopedic content. Minkythecat (talk) 09:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, my initial keep comment was based on media appearances over a twenty year period. So far we have Wogan (sourced), the Keith Allen documentary (sourced), the Big Brother non-appearance (sourced), Trust Me, I'm A Beauty Therapist ([9]), and a possible future show (again, sourced). Add to that the sex change and assault (both with ample sources), yet another article ([10]), and you have plenty that satisfies WP:BIO. Now you can ignore all that, debunk it, whatever, because I'm tired of repeating myself and will say no more on the subject. PC78 (talk) 09:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Citing bizarre mag et al interviews is merely propagating the Paris Hilton line of notability; famous for being Paris Hilton. Far from a continued 20 years of notable publicity, you've a) the single Wogan appearance. b) Years of silence. c) A well publicised sex change. d) numerous articles you've not referenced referring to "Lauren falling in love..." all utterly non notable. d) A "documentary" which existed solely to poke fun at Lauren. e) An assault. f) Totally minor television appearances where Lauren was used solely as "freak" interest.
The sole notable incident in Lauren's life was the Wogan appearance; everything since then has solely rested upon the sex change and the impact since. Everything allegedly notable has stemmed solely from the blurring of personal and self-publicised life. Minkythecat (talk) 10:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make a case for Paris Hilton being non-notable, then be my guest. Unfortunately the threshold for fame is depresingly low, which is why we have articles on the likes of Faria Alam, a woman famous only for shagging someone who was actually famous. You may not like it, I may not like it, but that's really besides the point. PC78 (talk) 17:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The entire above discussion loses no meaning at all without the first sentence of every comment, and would have been a lot more pleasant on the eye. No more snippy back and forth from either one of you; please restrict your comments to the discussion at hand. Neıl ☎ 09:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
he's deleted the talk page! lol I'm going to actually discuss improving the article there. special, random, Merkinsmum 17:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, missed the talk page. Restored. Neıl ☎ 17:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This won't be the last we see of her, as she's really keen to be on television etc, and she's interesting enough to meet the needs of modern reality tv. special, random, Merkinsmum 23:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment I have added a little about her involvement with the big brother shows, complete with four sources. Hope this helps. special, random, Merkinsmum 00:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There were five already, so there are now eight reliable sources for this person's article, I'm not sure about the ninth one listed:) Although that one has info favourable to her. So- this person and article has numerous reliable sources, 8 are given for this article's content, some include full length interviews. That's pretty incontravertable notability and verifiability.special, random, Merkinsmum 11:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
unless i misread the article, the point of this is that she did not go on Big Brother. This may be commendable, but I don't think it's notable. DGG (talk) 03:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
that's not for us to judge whether the fact is notable. It was considered notable by several WP:RS sources that she was very likely to go into the house. The reasons why she didn't go in were interesting and notable- one way or another, and were discussed in sources. You could look at the source or google for further speculations.:) It's not derogatory to mention that this person was considered at the time to be some source's strong guess or assumption that she would enter the house- and it is worth briefly mentioning as something sources have discussed about her. The 'big brother' show was something which at the time a lot of everyday people followed intensely in the UK, and valued every in and out. She was also a regular on Big Brother's Big Mouth, which wasn't mentioned in the last version of the article. If this is deleted, I will save it in my user space and add more as she gets upto more, until she's eventually been on telly etc enough to be more solidly notable- though I think she is already due to being known to everyday people in the UK from her childhood appearances, as well as people being amused (or annoyed) by her more recent appearances on telly. To the extent that several dozen reliable sources chronicle her exploits. Merkin's mum 19:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, the fact *somebody* was going in was notable. The same amount of media attention would be gained from anybody, so you can't claim notability to harries over that. Reasons for not going in? Well, the Jade Goody racism kinda meant putting harries in wasn't going to happen as everyone had to be on best behaviour -which shows you the rationale for Harries being in. Aside from that OR, the reasons for not going in were interesting? Allegedly because no nappies would be provided? Off topic again, I don't exactly think you can claim a reliable source for a BLP which, you know, refers to the living person as an "oddball". You seriously believe putting sources in like that are applicable for a BLP? A regular on BBBM? No - wasn't on every show, did appear on a few. Equally, does that mean anyone who appeared on more than one BBBM episode in a series are thus also notable? Please don't presuppose everybody in the UK would recognise Harries - clue, not many would. Go out and conduct a straw poll, think you'll find a minimal amount of people would. The kind of people who believe Hello magazine to eb an encyclopedia... :p Minkythecat (talk) 19:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're presupposing about whether people would know who she was. :) PC78 (talk) 15:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Minky ? I didn't call her an oddball and the article doesn't mention that. Some sources might say what the want and we don't have to, for NPOV, and simply included what was reported in WP:RS rather than their opinion/editorializing . If Big Brother didn't provide what she needed, that reflects badly on them rather than her, and she was comfortable with discussing it herself. Merkin's mum 14:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Try reading reference 11 then. "SEX swap diva Lauren Harries is threatening to pull out of Celebrity Big Brother - unless she can take in nappies. The oddball transsexual has sported diapers since surgery to change gender from child prodigy James five years ago."... reference originally sourced from the Daily Star. A great paper who broke the excusive of a bus. A bus on the moon. Ah well, it'll be kept, I'm sure, people acn reflect on such a great job they've done in contributing to an encyclopedia... Minkythecat (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"whatever happened to..." is usually an admission of lack of notability. DGG (talk) 02:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your assertion is incorrect. "whatever happened to..." almost invariably means someone who had achieved notability at some point in the past. For example whatever happened to Merhan Karimi Nasseri; what ever happened to Eddie "the Eagle" Edwards and what ever happened to Gary Coleman. Jooler (talk) 12:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...and of course, notability is not temporary.PC78 (talk) 12:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not only that, but in her case the answer to 'what ever happened to..' is known, so we can provide people with useful info they might not otherwise have known. And she's not just got past notability but is still sometimes in the press or on telly, so we can update whenever she does something new that is covered, and add to the article. Merkin's mum 14:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the LGBT WikiProject discussion board. --  Aleta Sing 18:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete - lack of sourcing & references, fails WP:BIO. KrakatoaKatie 02:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hasan Salehi[edit]

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

News hits are false positives for someone at the ministry of Labour. There's no evidence he's a notable political activist. While information might be hard to come across from Iran, he's allegedly in Sweden from where we could expect to find sources if they exist. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 23:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete; there was limited participation, but this is a sufficiently open-and-shut case that relisting isn't necessary. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kyjuanderful[edit]

Sources are not worthy, did a bit of searching on sources and couldn't even find anything about the album. Should be deleted. Y5nthon5a (talk) 23:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that there is a song on the St Lunatics Page with it on there, but it's over a year away, and that's not enough proof this album is coming out. The myspace page looks like it was made by a fan, so it could very well be just a song that was released. I still say delete.Y5nthon5a (talk) 23:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 01:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Sledd[edit]

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

Delete because it fails WP:BIO all references that I can access are just simply tiny 'mentions'. Still not notable outside youtube. YooTuba (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete - lack of multiple independent sources. KrakatoaKatie 02:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Saltz[edit]

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

Is the first person from Montana to be killed in Iraq a claim to notability? The claim is true per 4 hits in Google News but I don't think that's enough to pass WP:BIO. A lot of people have been killed so far in Iraq, this appears to be sad for his family and friends, but not particularly notable or even newsworthy. Ghits don't assert that he was notable for anything else. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 23:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment there's one from San Francisco in the search I linked. I think the vague claim to notability is enough to avoid a speedy, although not AfD TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 23:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn, article opened at WP:RFD (non admin closure). Dustitalk to me 17:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Open Conference Systems[edit]

Open Conference Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Odd one, this. The subject of the article is a non-notable software product. I prodded it but another editor insisted on redirecting it to a more general article. Is it notable? Clearly not. So why keep it at all? Original prod is here.

Nomination withdrawn - in the light of the comments below I've changed it to an RfD.andy (talk) 22:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so. I AfDed it because the purpose of the redirect was clearly to contest the prod. andy (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say that for sure- they could have contested the PROD without changing the article, by simply removing the tag. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 23:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 recreation if it's an actual article. - Philippe 21:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fish Heads: Barnes & Barnes' Greatest Hits[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Fish Heads: Barnes & Barnes' Greatest Hits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Page has no content other than infobox. Hellno2 (talk) 22:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was non-admin close; nom withdrawn, see below TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 01:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Registered Historic Places in Kansas[edit]

List of Registered Historic Places in Kansas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Mostly red-linked list. Hellno2 (talk) 22:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was withdrawn by nominator. The unanimous concensus is to keep. Hellno2 (talk) 00:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC) (non-admin close)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mohgborr[edit]

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

Disputed prod. Prod tag read "Non-notable character in a game played by one club." Tag was removed with the comment "Deletion Proposal removed - Isn't this sort of article, and the thought behind it, what helped to spark Wikipedia to begin with?" I agree with the prod - Delete as not notable. Not a single Google hit. Dawn bard (talk) 22:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete - non-notable self-promotion, clear consensus. KrakatoaKatie 02:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Trusted Advocate[edit]

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

A couple of red-link "authors" paid a vanity press (iUniverse) to have this book printed and then came here to self-promote said book with a vanity article that fails WP:BOOK, WP:COI, WP:RS, WP:Single-purpose account, and WP:ADVERT. Article has contained spam links in the past and still contains one. Author was warned here [13] about spamming but continued to spam. Book title kicks up nothing on Google but self-generated sites, blogs, etc.--no reliable sources whatsoever. Clearly, these people think they can use Wikipedia as an advertising and spamming platform for their vanity press book. Let's get rid of it now. Qworty (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malik Simsek[edit]

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

This article looks very reasonable but, upon closer examination, appears to be a hoax. The references don't check out -- they lead to the correct pages, but this individual's name isn't listed where it should be listed. As well, it suggests that this individual's professional football career began at age 13, which is highly unlikely. If someone has more relevant information, I'm prepared to be convinced, but I do think this is just a hoax. I would have deleted it as nonsense, but it's so thoroughly done, I want this gone for good via AfD. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 21:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Smith (author, columnist)[edit]

Doug Smith (author, columnist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This was speedied WP:CSD#A7 a week ago and has reappeared with some references, but they are only the subject's own web-site and that of the local paper on which he is a columnist - not enough to establish notability. Probable autobiography - author is an SPA. JohnCD (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • With that in mind, delete, I'd agree that the circulation isn't high enough to demonstrate notability. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People are writing in slamming me on Wikipedia. You could write in and refute some of what they are saying.

I've read his articles and they are really well written and humorous. He's definitely only a local or regional personality, but is well known in Iowa and Illinois. The QC Times has an average daily readership of 60,000, but they also get 50K to 70K internet readers on a given day. Remember, population is pretty sparse out in the land of corn! They cover a ten county territory of Iowa and Illinois of 375,000. I may be mistaken, but I thought it was the largest or most productive paper in the entire Lee Enterprise chain. I would disagree about him not being the best known Doug Smith connected to the Quad Cities. There are no other famous Doug Smiths, and the basketball player Dhartung references is not from the Quad Cities. (talk)

  • Comment two paras above added by Forumguy13 (talk · contribs), the author of the article. JohnCD (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus to delete, may be redirected or merged at editors' discretion, if there's consensus. Sandstein (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proto-Latvian language[edit]

Proto-Latvian language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I have strong doubts about this article, because Lithuanian language is older than Latvian. --Visconsus (talk) 12:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC) Text copied from article talk page. ➨ REDVEЯS knows it's gonna happen someday 21:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 - fail WP:MUSIC, scant sources. KrakatoaKatie 02:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indy & Wich[edit]

Indy & Wich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

fails music notability; resources difficult to interpret or verify - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 21:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy close after nomination withdrawn. Bduke (talk) 09:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Albanian Wikipedia[edit]

See below- doesn't meet CFI and no references whatsoever. Teh Rote (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep (non admin close). Dustitalk to me 17:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bengali Wikipedia[edit]

I'm nominating Bengali Wikipedia because it is simply not notable enough to be included- I see no references, only one internal link (to the site itself), which doesn't satisfy our CFI. Teh Rote (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. I'm sure it would be a trivial task to find sources for this in the native language. The hard would be to find a translator. The proper thing to do in this case would have been to tag it for citations for at least a few months before bringing it here to give opportunity for improvement. Celarnor Talk to me 23:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are the refs, non-trivial media mentions the nominator was looking for, and which I could come up off the top of my head. More can be provided if required. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 01:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep (non admin close). Dustitalk to me 17:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Gabbe[edit]

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

Just another academic bureaucrat, failing all of the criteria for WP:PROF. Creator of article has a very aggressive and nasty history of edit warring to remove the notability tags from the article, so let's watch out particularly for any disruptive behavior on the AfD. Qworty (talk) 20:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sentosa. No major edits to article since its creation. KrakatoaKatie 02:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sentosa 4D Magix[edit]

Sentosa 4D Magix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Redundant article, mostly duplicates information that is already in Sentosa. Not really notable enough for its own article, mention in the main page on Sentosa covers it fairly well. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 20:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW (non admin close). Dustitalk to me 17:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jody Kraus[edit]

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

Not much to say about it except that notability is not asserted, it completely fails WP:PROF, and it doesn't belong here. Qworty (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Withdrawn. (non admin close) Dustitalk to me 20:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Pulitzer Prize[edit]

2008 Pulitzer Prize (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fork of Pulitzer Prize and its many sub-articles. We don't need multiple articles listing the prize winners each year, there is no other article like this for prior years. Fothergill Volkensniff IV (talk) 20:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is. Speedy keep. Needs to be cleaned up and formatted like the others, but absolutely no reason to delete. Tan | 39 20:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What "others"? All the prize winners are listed in sub-articles. For example fiction winners are listed at Pulitzer Prize for Fiction.Fothergill Volkensniff IV (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you or I missing something? 2007 Pulitzer Prize. 2006 Pulitzer Prize. This goes back to 1917 Pulitzer Prize. Why not have 2008? Tan | 39 20:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Consider:
     
Cleanup obviously needed.-- Kallahan (talk) 20:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to close out an AfD if someone could please speedy close/keep, thanks, sorry for the trouble. Fothergill Volkensniff IV (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mario's Fourth Studio album[edit]

Mario's Fourth Studio album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

More pop-music crystal-ballery - I just removed unsourced track names from this article, which leaves... nothing. Mario's most recent album just came out in December 2007, so there are no sources for this supposed upcoming release, except for a Billboard article stating he is "conceptualizing" ideas for his next release. - eo (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. KrakatoaKatie 03:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shandi Sullivan[edit]

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

No notability outside of reality show, and she's apparently not pursuing modelling anyore. This article has already been deleted once through the AFD process. See precedents at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jayla Rubinelli, another ANTM contestant Dawn bard (talk) 19:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 demo (music). Useful redirect because the phrase is a relatively common neologism, but the album article has no sources and fails WP:MUSIC. KrakatoaKatie 02:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demo Cassette[edit]

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

Non-notable, unreleased album. Fails WP:MUSIC: no substantial coverage provided, none found. Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Vulcan (Star Trek). Editors are encouraged to merge as appropriate. Pastordavid (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Syrranites[edit]

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

I redirected this stub citing WP:RS, WP:WAF, WP:FICT. Another editor has restored the sub citing the same. So, bringing it to the broader community to delete this non-notable, unsourced material. (Note: I don't know if that TV-related embargo is in effect -- if it is, speedy close this and restore the redirect since the embargo calls for 1) no AfDs and 2) no un-doing redirects until resolved.) --EEMIV (talk) 19:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — brighterorange (talk) 01:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Wii games (North America)[edit]

List of Wii games (North America) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This list is just redundant of information in List of Wii games. I believe the article was made due to this section: Talk:List_of_Wii_games#Article_size_concern, however many video game lists by platform have double (or more than what the Wii list has). Size isn't a good reason to just split into a new article. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's not nonsense. I had every right to nominate the article. Have some patience. I'm not on Wikipedia every time I get a talk page message! RobJ1981 (talk) 05:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If he doesn't, I'll nominate them for deletion under the same rationale. Also, this paragraph is essentially OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and ALLORNOTHING which doesn't usually fly at AfDs for the reasons discussed on those sections. Celarnor Talk to me 02:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The "There will be more in the future" argument is ad nauseam. The fact that there will be more doesn't mean we should split it now. If it becomes unmanagable in the future due to size, that is the time to split it; but that is clearly not the case yet. Regarding the released versus unreleased bit, I don't really see why that's a problem. If it's sure that they're coming out, then it isn't a violation of CRYSTAL or anything. Celarnor Talk to me 02:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Versus22 began making this list as for a while the List of Wii games was not sorting properly due to the vast number of entries contained in it. The problem has now gone, and the table is now sorting properly, so the the North America list isn't needed at this time, but I do not doubt that we will have to very soon split the list by region if we would like to retain the sort function, as this was not the first time the sorting has broken, and it will certainly not be the last. -Digiwrld1 (talk) 03:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is this a technical problem exclusive to this list and not any of the other platform lists? If so, do you know why it doesn't affect the others? Celarnor Talk to me 03:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be sorry, you are acting to make the encyclopedia better and we all appreciate that! I'll perform the redirect since it seems everyone is in agreement. — brighterorange (talk) 01:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From Deep Beneath The Sea EP[edit]

From Deep Beneath The Sea EP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable album for non-notable band whose corresponding article was speedied twice under A7. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was boldly redirected to WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2009 (non-admin closure) ~ Eóin (talk) 04:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Smackdown vs Raw 2009[edit]

WWE Smackdown vs Raw 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete one-line unsourced nn crystalballism Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dee Watkins[edit]

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

Delete nn singer/film-maker, article has been tagged for sources and notability since last year, winning a minor award at a film festival even if sourced is insufficient to establish notability per WP:BIO. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin G. Summers[edit]

Kevin G. Summers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not indicate qualification under Wikipedia:Bio#Creative professionals -- Jeandré, 2008-04-07t18:38z 18:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC), -- Jeandré, 2008-04-07t18:41z[reply]

Sorry, I didn't realize that I had to cite the reference right in the article. This is my first time. Kevin G. Summers' works have been cited in several original works (I've added the citations to the article), he was nominated for a Nebula Award, the highest honor for science fiction writers, he's gone beyond just writing Star Trek, and his name and one of his stories came up recently in the debate over whether or not a fan-produced TV series should be nominated for a Nebula Award (http://www.trekunited.com/news/content/view/869/81/) I think he is notable enough for inclusion because of these things. --User:Ahab4ever

Notability requirements for authors from Wikipedia:Bio#Creative professionals:
  • " The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
  • The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
  • The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
  • The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries.
Please cite a source in the article that meets one or more of the above. -- Jeandré, 2008-04-07t20:06z
I can cite several places where his Star Trek stories have been referenced online, such as reviews on Amazon and some other websites, as well as some Star Trek chronologies, but I don't see this information in any of the other listings on Strange New World winners (or anybody else) so I'm not sure how I would include it. I know he's been in at least one Star Trek magazine (an interview), but that is not on the web. After reviewing some other pages, I'm thinking maybe this should be a Star Trek stub. Sorry I'm having a hard time figuring out how to do this. --User:Ahab4ever
Sorry. It just seemed like there are several other Star Trek authors of approximately the same level. I'm willing to accept that I'm wrong here, I thought I was just making an article similar to others that are on the site. I'm not going to spend any more time on this one, so go ahead and pull the plug if you feel that's the right thing to do. --User:Ahab4ever —Preceding comment was added at 23:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not your fault Ahab, there are thousands of articles on Wikipedia that aren't notable enough to qualify. The encyclopedists want reliable third party sources to indicate encyclopedic notability, and the inclusionists want articles on almost everyone and everything. -- Jeandré, 2008-04-08t13:18z
Thanks. Go ahead and take the page down, or is that something I should do? --User:Ahab4ever
It'll be deleted in about 2 days. You may want to edit his memory-alpha page which doesn't have all the info this one does. -- Jeandré, 2008-04-10t12:02z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Philippe 21:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B.C.B.[edit]

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

This topic appears to be non-notable, and may even be a hoax. I have not been able to find evidence for the existence of any of the cited references, nor was I able to verify a Village Voice reference in a previous version of the article (removed after I questioned it on the talk page). Aleta Sing 18:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A myspace profile is not a reliable source. Aleta Sing 01:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lobbycon[edit]

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

This term is a neologism. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide.

The proposal to delete was contested. LittleOldMe (talk) 18:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was BOLDY redirected requested below (non admin closure). Dustitalk to me 17:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Urbana Sweet Corn Festival[edit]

Urbana Sweet Corn Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article has almost no content and no sources. No assertion of notability since Google search returns only 310 hits. Chris! ct 18:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. - Philippe 21:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Henye Meyer[edit]

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

This author has published three books, but this doesn't suffice to pass WP:BIO. Google displays mainly book seller's sites, not surprisingly, but I don't see any biographical coverage. PROD was contested with request to list the article on AfD. B. Wolterding (talk) 18:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Non-administrative closing: redirect to notable company - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Double gulp[edit]

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

Poor Sourcing, low notability, redundant to 7-Eleven article CredoFromStart talk 18:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I propose this article be deleted, and the name redirected to 7-Eleven. There's very little content on this page and the only sources come from 7-Eleven's website. In addition the logical (at least to me) main article for Double Gulp would be Big Gulp, which is already redirected to the 7-Eleven article. CredoFromStart talk 18:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adenin TECHNOLOGIES[edit]

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

Being named in the Top 100 Companies that Matter doesn't seem to be enoguh to meet notability. User has also created OC Systems which has been speedied several times. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 21:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shottle railway station[edit]

Shottle railway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Written by people connected to the railway, no refs or citations, and not a notable station BG7 17:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Railway station articles are not excluded from Wikipedia because they are not notable. See Wikipedia:Notability_(Places_and_transportation)#Commuter_rail_services. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but the station isn't even open, isn't likely to be before 2012, and has no refs, other than from the article's authors book, which isn't reffed at the moment. I can't even verify that as I have seen a copy nowhere.
Open yet is beside the point. The station used to be open (a fact an editor removed just before the AfD nomination). Google searches indicate coverage for the old station. Whatever happens with the reopening effort, notability does not expire. • Gene93k (talk) 21:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BG7 17:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at least until it's actually open. The lack of refs, and the fact that it hasn't established notability yet would seem to indicate that there's not any reason to keep it.
Note: The link provided above by User:Cobaltbluetony to the policy about the notability of railway stations indicates 1) it's still in the proposed phase and 2) it states that "...many (but not all) of the stations are notable..." I think this fits under the "not all" portion. CredoFromStart talk 18:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, no way. Try the official websites, www.e-v-r.com and www.evra.org.uk. And notice the staion is between Idridgehay (the current terminus) and Duffield, and the "Dash to Duffield is what is being advertised. It won't be open until that is open, and after that at that! (sorry! :P)
BG7 18:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Since my original unbiased penning of the article about the station and its current situation it has been edited to become nothing more than a drum banging exercise for a minor commercial concern. I therefore feel that the article should be deleted or the large number of references to the company removed. --Skeletor2000 (talk) 18:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 21:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of British animation[edit]

History of British animation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completely OR, reads like an essay or term paper. ukexpat (talk) 17:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

see latest improved version —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecavster (talk • contribs) 17:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deuce (card game)[edit]

Deuce (card game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is not notable, and Wikipedia is not for something made up one day. PROD removed by author without comment. JohnCD (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 culture jamming. KrakatoaKatie 02:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PropagandArt[edit]

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

Not a widely used art or politican term. This article is an orphan and this article has no citations to support any of its claims that this term is used for these things. Beyond the term, there is also an ad company, a song. Again, non-notabile Kingturtle (talk) 17:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 21:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ikki (video game)[edit]

Ikki (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No references noted for many months, no context of notability ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 16:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The game has been released in arcades, home console, Wii's high profile virtual console service. And while the Japanese wikipedia page cannot confer notability, it can give us a good idea as to whether or not this is a subject matter that may appear to be notable and can be expanded upon. The Japanese article is substantive [25]. In translating the article (bablefish only)- there is also a mobile java version of the game that was released in 2006. I've updated the article lead and added some references to the article, regarding the virtual console release. I won't update information about the cell phone version of the game until I can find some additional sources AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently two English language references. [26], [27] both of which are factually reporting the release of the game to the Virtual Console Service. Additional English language references could be found using the "Farmer's Rebellion" name - though it's a broad term, and a quick search yielded just yielded wikis and roms. I'll search in more detail later. With regard to the Japanese language links, they directly support claims made within the article, and considering the prominent availability of this game in Japan that is to be expected. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 12:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. In regards to WP:EL other language links are acceptable as long as there are no acceptable English links available. I just hope that we can find suitable English links to replace those Japanese links. The Japanese links are fine for now (better than the non-verified wasteland that this article was a few days ago). ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 12:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment KLOV does have an entry for Boomerang [28]. Listing it as a maze game that was released by sunsoft in 1985. So that matches up. The description is slightly different though. The wiki article simply states the game was known by other names, I've added a cite tag to get further verification that Boomerang is the same as Ikki/Farmers RebellionAtaruMoroboshi (talk) 16:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment according to Arcade History, Ikki was released outside Japan as Boomerang and also as Farmer's Rebellion, but the site does not have a page for Boomerang, only a pinball game and an allwin machine of the same name and someone could have taken the information from this page and submitted it to them. So that doesn't confirm anything. Raphie (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 09:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OC Systems[edit]

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

This page has been deleted as non-notable a number of times. The account creating it is clearly an employee of some sort and is running all over WP:COI. The page was initially moved to her userspace at User:Amyyaley/OC Systems to give her an attempt to clean it up for recreation, but this user is not aware on how these things work here (uses tildes in the commentspace). Maybe this can be speedied, but given the repetitive nature of this article's creation, I think it's worth considering a discussion, I guess. ju66l3r (talk) 16:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete - no reliable sources, no verifiability. KrakatoaKatie 02:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the Dragon Series[edit]

Order of the Dragon Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Book series that fails to establish its notability through reliable sources. All of the external links provided are to freewebs, blogspot, or similar locations that are not reliable. Further, the article fails to clearly demonstrate that the book series is notable. Finally, the author is not notable - and while non-notability is not transitive, that is corroborating evidence that this is not a major fiction series. —C.Fred (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep in the sense of "not delete." Whether to merge, redirect, rename this article, etc. are editorial decisions outside the scope of AfD. Sandstein (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Median Europe[edit]

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

A nonnotable geopolitical neologism. Not enough google hits to establish the meaning of the term. The article is original essay.
(belated vote: ) merge/redirect the referenced discussions about the nessesity of a new geopolitical entity into Central and Eastern Europe, an established term and long existing article. `'Míkka>t 16:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete I strongly urge people to accept and delete this original research article. --Marc KJH (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Following comments were lost early in the discussion, as per this edit. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Which bit or bits are original research? Do you speak French? ChessCreator (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
now back to your regularly scheduled AFD...
I asked on the talk page to indicate which fragments are "original research", no response until now. The article is footnoted (almost every single phrase). 1950s - it's probably the first research (in English), but at that time it was named "East-Central Europe", the idea is now historical (today, East-Central Europe is often limited Eastern part of Central Europe). Other definitions are from 1990s and 2003. The article might be renamed to "Middle Europe" - two terms are in use and those who like to assess importance of articles by google hits should be satisfied. The term (Middle Europe) was also used by a professor from UK National Defence Minister’s Staff (here) and it's also defined there (page 8). Median/Middle Europe is not Central Europe nor Mitteleuropa, especially on French Wikipedia. Median/Middle Europe is a geopolitical entity, not a cultural one. Montessquieu (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday I added some further readings, one of them ("Borders,Borderlands and Regional development in Median Europe" by N. Popa, Romanian professor of geography) is mentioned on the list of suggested readings in political geography prepared by the Commission on Political Geography (International Geographical Union) (see p. 11-12) Montessquieu (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but Europa Środkowo-Wschodnia is East-Central Europe, not Central and Eastern Europe. I've never heard about Central and Eastern Europe in Polish. Montessquieu (talk) 22:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
pl:Europa Środkowo-Wschodnia translates literaly as Central-East Europe, with Central going first, before Eastern (hence, no Europa Wschodnio-Środkowa).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Central and Eastern Europe" is a fixed phrase in English to describe this region (btw, brings 2,6 million hits). I personally have not seen "East-Central Europe" in English, although it does exist (300 hundred hits in google). Pundit|utter 01:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"East-Central Europe" is commonly used, at least in social sciences (I'm surprised that this might be unclear). Usually "East-Central Europe" is Eastern (post-communist) part of Central Europe (see de:Ostmitteleuropa, there's a map and literature). Middle Europe is East-Central + South-Eastern Europe. "Central and Eastern Europe" is widely used, but it refers to post-Soviet states and often includes Russia. "Europa Środkowowoschodnia" in Polish usually refers to Middle Europe, South-Eastern Europe is almost not used at all (usually by foreign entities as a calque translation from English), see the website of the Institute of East Central Europe in Lublin (Instytut Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej) [29]. It is not Central-East Europe, Polish grammar differs from the English one and the word order is different. Montessquieu (talk) 07:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The term "East Central Europe" is often used by US researchers when talking about states between Germany and Russia (the same like Median/Middle Europe). "East Central Europe" is used to avoid incorrect term "Central and Eastern Europe" which would have to cover Central (with Germany and Austria) and Eastern (with Russia) Europe. See East Central European Center, Columbia University, The East-Central European Studies Program, University of Florida. The history and culture of East-Central Europe (in the German meaning of Ostmitteleuropa) is rather unknown (and neglected) in English-speaking countries partly for linguistic reasons, it's explained here. Montessquieu (talk) 09:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion please see Talk:Central and Eastern Europe#Suggestion of another article. `'Míkka>t 17:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second Group Report: The Humane Society of Montgomery County[edit]

Second Group Report: The Humane Society of Montgomery County (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod tag removed without comment by the article's creator. I confess I find it hard to tell what exactly this article is trying to get at; it seems to be some sort of first-person report of the results of an investigation, mixed in with some cites about interviewing technique. At any rate, it has NPOV problems, seems to be entirely original research either directly or by synthesis, and is -- and this is the first time I've ever used this word to describe an article at AfD -- "unencyclopedic". I suspect it's a case where Wikipedia is being used as a webhost for someone's school assignment. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Ty 15:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Moyer[edit]

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

Non-notable artist and technique. A google search for "dave moyer" farbelism -wikipedia retrieves 2 hits. Kingturtle (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete --- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vox camerata[edit]

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

Contested prod. Since no other edits were made to the article, I will repeat the original prod rationale:

This article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability for inclusion: the subject does not seem to have received non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable sources. An online search for sources (including a standard web search and Google News and Books searches) yields mostly trivial, directory-level coverage; what coverage there is seems to come mostly from personal blogs and forums, which do not qualify as reliable sources.

Black Falcon (Talk) 15:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nom has withdrawn. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 02:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mosto Mostapha Bousmina[edit]

Mosto Mostapha Bousmina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. A google search for "Mosto Mostapha Bousmina" -wikipedia retrieves six hits, none of which do much to support the claims of the article. Kingturtle (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Dhartung suggests, it is probably a good idea to rename the article Mosto Bousmina. Nsk92 (talk) 23:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Callousness[edit]

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

contested prod; Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Michael WhiteT·C 15:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. There is insufficient notability demonstrated for inclusion.. - Philippe 23:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Galt[edit]

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

Does not establish notability with reliable sources which are independent of the subject. Content can be summarized in one line in each of the articles on Frank Lloyd Wright (section on family) and Anne Baxter (section on personal life). Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reconsider, still delete - I was also asked to take a second look based on additions to the article. I still maintain that Galt is notable enough for a mention in each of her relatives' articles, using the Tribune source. I also believe her knack for getting her name mentioned in so many places may eventually lead to her actually meeting the notability requirements, so I wouldn't be surprised if over time there is enough for an article, but not today with what has been provided. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 13:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dont you see that Galt is the brunt of the American Media? Once a source gets wind that she is related to all these famous people they run with that. This is a commodity to a writer trying to draw more readership. This famous stuff gets attention and mainly draws the attention away from Galt herself. She has a published author, a radio show personality and numerous articles clutter the airways. Also, she is usually the keynote speaker in many of these venues and yes the other people who speak at these venues may not be famous or have a Wiki article about them but they aren't the dadgum keynote speaker now are they? Give Galt a break. She bylines in airlines brochures. What more do you want? Artsojourner (talk) 03:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just pointing out that I, like others, was asked by Artsojourner to reconsider my delete vote after some changes were made. I have and I stand by view, which has been bolstered somewhat by DGG's comment below. Galt has some vague notability, but not enough to warrant a Wiki article as far as I'm concerned.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am reading the discussions on this article and I see quite a bit of notability here and sure more to come. OneMarkus (talk) 19:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dont you see that Galt is the brunt of the American Media? Once a source gets wind that she is related to all these famous people they run with that. This is a commodity to a writer trying to draw more readership. This famous stuff gets attention and mainly draws the attention away from Galt herself. She has a published author, a radio show personality and numerous articles clutter the airways. Also, she is usually the keynote speaker in many of these venues and yes the other people who speak at these venues may not be famous or have a Wiki article about them but they aren't the dadgum keynote speaker now are they? Give Galt a break. She bylines in airlines brochures. What more do you want? This is reaaded down here from the top for better readability. Artsojourner (talk) 14:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
unfortunately, as I explain below, not even the media were fooled--the Tribune article almost totally ignores her. And what you say here cannot be verified: I see 2 keynote speeches, not many; I see one weekly podcast, not cluttering the airwaves. .DGG (talk) 23:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a novelty to me: posting a paragraph at the top and bottom of a thread for extra effect. So you say that being related to famous people helps her draw more readership but draws attention away from her. You've lost me right there, I fear. Just what are these venues at which she's the keynote speaker? Do these keynote speeches attract any particular attention? Is she a "lifestyle coach" or a "life coach" and what does either mean and who is Marcia Wieder (or Weider)? If Melissa Galt is "where life comes together", what the hell does that mean? At least one friend of mine -- he gave me his old pushbike (thanks, John!) -- has a byline in airline magazines; should I write an article about him too? -- Hoary (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed this issue on your page. I realized after I added it that it felt lost at the top and didn't feel it appropriate to delete it at the top so I added it to the bottom. This was NOT for extra effect so please don't assume this add in a negative way here. Artsojourner (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. - Philippe 23:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cureheads[edit]

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

This article was prodded and prod2'd several weeks ago and the prods (and cleanup tags) were deleted by an IP promising to improve the article. That was over two weeks ago and nothing has changed. The article's main issues are questionable notability and a total lack of references and consequent lack of verifiability. The only claim to notability I can see that would possibly meet WP:MUSIC guidelines is that one of the members of the Cureheads was once a member of Nosferatu. Nosferatu were somewhat successful, according to their article, selling a combined 100,000 albums, but that is not nearly enough notability to be transitive through one of its members. To me, Nosferatu seems marginally notable; Cureheads, far less so. Further damning is the lack of any references at all. I checked Google to see what I could find and there were a number of ghits but they are MySpace, YouTube, Yahoo groups, blogs and so forth--nothing that would meet WP:RS. More telling is the Google news search which yields a big ol' goose-egg. Without references to back up even its flimsy claims of notability, I say delete per WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:MUSIC. OlenWhitaker • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 15:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been changed slightly, but I still don't see it meeting inclusion guidelines. Two references have been added, but they both point to other Wikipedia articles which does not meet WP:RS guidelines for sources. Even if they did meet WP:RS, the lack of any news coverage (at least that I could find) makes it very unlikely that this article could ever establish a sufficient degree of notability. OlenWhitaker • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 21:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP! This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, and television documentaries. Here: The lead singer was subject to a channel 5 documentry The Worlds worst boss —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.226.219.164 (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm afraid the article currently does not include anything of the kind. It is no good you telling us what the sources might be in an AfD - they need to go in the article. YouTube is not a reliable source, by the way - what is it supposed to prove? They exist, so yes it proves that. But to be notable requires a bit more than mere existence. Ref (chew)(do) 20:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The original video clip is from world selling brand of TV show called "World's Worst" This brand is translated into several different languages and IS a documentary. The brand is owned by Quentin Wilson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.226.219.164 (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And what does that have to do with anything? How is that proving notability? We want websites of decent repute telling us (in words, not video, preferably) that Cureheads are the latest craze, are mentioned as widely as possible as being special, and we want those websites to illustrate why. Then we can include those sources in Wikipedia, and hey presto! the article links to sources which prove the notability of the subject of the article. Your comments certainly do not act as a reliable source - it needs to go in the article. And video is not the natural medium for Wikipedia - it is primarily read, not watched like a TV show. Ref (chew)(do) 20:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I leave your world to you angry man. maybe you try to edit Frendh site sometime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.226.219.164 (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above linked show isn't about the Cureheads; it just has band members in it. That is an important distinction. As I have pointed out on other AfDs, I have appeared on the front page of a major newspaper and been interviewed on a major news broadcast, but I am not notable; I just happened to be a witness to something that was. In other words, simply appearing in a thing is different from it being about you. The band is in this, it's not about them. OlenWhitaker • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 21:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but you are very much wrong. The documentary was directly about The Cureheads and the way that they have chosen to be managed. It even showed two of the mebers in a reality TV situation on a survival course. There were lots and many talks about The Cureheads. Anyway, if it was you that edited the page all niceness now, please accpt my thanks. I will know what I am supposed to do do now on other edtings. Though I really dont want to meet some of these peoples who get so angry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.226.219.164 (talk) 21:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was me who edited the article, to get it into some kind of shape which is acceptable to Wikipedia. It does not mean that it won't possibly be deleted, but at least it is more of an article than it was. You unfortunately mistake neutral discussion for anger. No-one is angry here - if they are, they don't stay very long. Ref (chew)(do) 22:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen an episode of the show Worlds Worst Boss once before; it is emphatically not a documentary. It's pop TV. It's entertainment; it's not documentary in nature and doesn't claim to be. Besides, anyone can be on the show including total unknowns. If you're an apprentice plumber and you think your boss is a jerk, you can nominate them and they may appear on the show. The appearance of the Cureheads on this show does not, by any stretch of the imagination, constitute notability regardless of how one chooses to define the band appearing on a show versus a show being about the band. Such an appearance simply doesn't meet Wikipedia standards. At least, that's how I see it and experience tells me most other editors will probably agree. By the way, I don't think anyone here is angry about any of this. I, at least, am not, so I hope I'm not coming across as hostile. Despite our difference of opinion, I have nothing but Wikilove for you so please, don't take any of this personally. Cheers! OlenWhitaker • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 22:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bone_Thugs-n-Harmony#Faces_Of_Death. - Philippe 23:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Faces of Death (album)[edit]

Faces of Death (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC. Non-notable bootleg. Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep. -- Longhair\talk 09:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forever Slave[edit]

Forever Slave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Alice's Inferno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tales for Bad Girls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fails WP:MUSIC. Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Last.fm shows almost 5,000 listeners, and currently touring with Kamelot.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 15:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a copyright violation of http://www.1015jamz.com/. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kid and Ruben[edit]

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

Delete: Personal essay. Not encyclopedic article. Should be deleted per WP:NOT#OR. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (a7). Article made no assertions of notability or importance. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Starr[edit]

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

No independent reliable sources to establish notability under WP:BIO. hotwifeblog.com is a promotional blog. Doesn't seem to fit the specific notability criteria of pornographic actresses either. Vinh1313 (talk) 14:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ronald Peret[edit]

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

Non-notable. There are no independent sources. Ronald peret (talk · contribs · count)'s self-promotion [32]. See: pt:Wikipedia:Páginas para eliminar/Ronald Peret Tosqueira (talk) 14:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Metroid Prime by Ebelular also the nom agreed that a redirect would be acceptable, so considering that the redirect has already been acted upon I believe that it is acceptable to close this early; non-admin closure. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tallon[edit]

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

no autobiography allowed – i123Pie biocontribs 14:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose, but the admin should decide on that. – i123Pie biocontribs 14:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Article now demonstrates notability. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Melting of Maggie Bean[edit]

The Melting of Maggie Bean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable book by non-notable author - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 14:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep per absence of "delete" preferences (non-admin closure). Consensus to merge is to be established on the talkpage, not at Afd. Skomorokh 19:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blue & Gold[edit]

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

Does not belong in an encyclopedia Bugbox (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought Delete if this is the best that can be done since 2005 it should be deleted, and the second external link doesn't even lead to anything about the article. If someone sources it better to establish notability I will change my vote back.Earthdirt (talk) 02:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Withdrawn by nominator, non-admin close. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 18:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cohen[edit]

Cohen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[((subst:FULLPAGENAME))|View AfD]])

The disambiguation page Cohen is not in compliance with Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Partial_title_matches, in particular: "Do not add links that merely contain part of the page title ... Disambiguation pages are not search indices." Therefore, all the references from Cha Cha Cohen to Cohen designation have to go. All of the remaining references (now listed under "see also"), which include several spelling variants of the name, the religious concept of Kohen, and the fictional character Cohen the Barbarian, are verbosely included in the article Cohen (surname). So the disambiguation page is completely redundant and should be deleted; afterwards, Cohen (surname) should be moved to Cohen. -- 790 (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I don't keep up the request, how to end this? -- 790 (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 20:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flaccid[edit]

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

Wikipedia is WP:NOT a dictionary, previous prod template was removed without any given reason. The article was transwikied to wikitionary after my prod concerns. ImperviusXR (talk) 09:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy keep per withdrawn nomination and lack of delete preferences (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 19:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in Dominic Deegan: Oracle for Hire[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of characters in Dominic Deegan: Oracle for Hire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is being used by the webmaster of the comic as a webpage supplement to the comic (http://www.dominic-deegan.com links directly to the article), in violation of WP:NOT#WEBHOST. Article also fails to assert real-world notability WP:N#, and is in violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE as well. McJeff (talk) 00:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 05:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Munro Chambers[edit]

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

This article as it stands is obviously a mess, which is beside the point, but for the time being I think this person fails our notability guidelines per WP:BIO. Subject has had parts in films and television per IMDB, but our notability guidelines for biographies state that a person "is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." A Google search does not reveal any secondary sources discussing this subject. Thus there is little we can do to clean up the current article using reliable sources and as a result it should be deleted until the subject achieves sufficient notability. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 failing WP:CORP and as copyright violation. KrakatoaKatie 08:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noesis Innovative Technologies[edit]

Noesis Innovative Technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:CORP. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- only 8 ghits for "Noesis Innovative" and 24 ghits for vWEB2.0, and most of those are just because the software was used on that page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SarekOfVulcan (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 Speedy delete (A7) by Wafulz. Non-admin close. Xymmax (talk) 18:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Howard Johnson Experience (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The Howard Johnson Experience (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BAND. Anthony Rupert (talk) 07:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Alberta

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 09:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

…And in Closing[edit]

…And in Closing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable release (demo). No reliable sources are available for the band or the tape itself. No critical commentary exists. There are no reliable sources that confirm it was ever actually released. The only notable aspect of the tape is Matthew Good's involvement, but there are no sources to confirm the details of his involvement. (Per WP:MUSIC.) ChrisB (talk) 01:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sleep demo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

-- ChrisB (talk) 01:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:MUSIC, demo tapes are inherently non-notable. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 01:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These demos are well-known within the Matthew Good fan community and deserve recognition as releases. There are few sources with which to cite these early demos because Matthew Good himself has only recently started to acknowledge their existence. Previously, he denied them ever having existed to dissuade people from purchasing them illegally from a former bandmate who released them on a 2-disc set without permission. The law-suit has been settled in favour of Good and he has even offered up a few mp3s from these old demos up on his website. They are also notable because they represent his earlier folk-based roots, to which he has returned on his more recent solo endeavors (see Hospital Music).


The Foo Fighters' first demo Pocketwatch (album), had the same story up until a few years ago when they decided to include a reference to it on their official site. Simply because an artist does not wish to acknowledge their earlier roots does not mean that the rest of us have to deny any record of them. Leave them up. Please. - Haircut-Rabbit —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haircut-Rabbit (talk • contribs) 18:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pocketwatch is a bad comparison. Unlike all of Good's demos, Pocketwatch was released on an actual label, Simple Machines. Furthermore, the tape has been repeatedly mentioned in sources that recount the history of the Foo Fighters. There was no need to wait for it to be mentioned on the official site - it could have had its own article regardless.
We're also not saying that the demos can't be mentioned in other articles, eg Matt's or the discographies (which should be merged, btw). They just aren't notable enough to deserve their own articles. -- ChrisB (talk) 01:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn (non admin close). Dustitalk to me 18:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wodzionka[edit]

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

    wikipedia is not a dictionary. Only contributor states they will not be able to contribute to expanding article beyond a simple definition for sometime therefore tagging as inuse or underconstruction is not appropriate Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    WITHDRAWN? Not sure how to do this but, I'd like to withdraw the nom. I finally made it to page 10 of google and found a couple of things I'm in the middle of "pirating" without copyvio in order to help get the article out of definition only stage. I'd still like an explanation for the "parody" comment though. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was keep per WP:N. Bearian (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Rock is Dead (tour)[edit]

    Rock is Dead (tour) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Marilyn Manson is notable, but why Wikipedia needs this listing of tour dates is unclear to me. It seems to violate WP:NOT (directory, statistics). B. Wolterding (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was keep. John254 01:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Apple II Graphics[edit]

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

    Reads like an essay, no references, too much detail on an obscure topic. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment:I meant all the details on the graphics modes was obscure. The Apple II is very prominent and I never intended to imply that it was otherwise. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Port Macquarie Presbyterian Church[edit]

    Port Macquarie Presbyterian Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Contested prod. References have been added, but none establish notability. This is just your average local church. StAnselm (talk) 13:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 13:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sebastian Sabater[edit]

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

    This seems like a hoax to me. No ghits, and I think I would have heard of a very old soccer player who kicked 13 goals in a World Cup qualifier (although the article is confused between Thompson and Sabater). It failed speedy, so I've come here. Grahame (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    "Philip Liborio Gangi"[edit]

    "Philip Liborio Gangi" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    The subject of the article seems to fail WP:Notability requirements. A Google search turns up 130 hits, however, they are mostly not WP:Reliable sources to confirm his notability or even identity, some of them are his personal sites such as photo albums and Facebook account. This article from Palo Alto Daily News only speaks of him as a cab driver who was a witness to an accident. SWik78 (talk) 13:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Maybe I should sum up my opinion about the subject of this article. I believe he is a cab driver who is involved in photography or he is a photographer earning his living as a cab driver. It definitely seems to be self-promotional since the author of the article and the only contributor is GangiPLG (talk · contribs), a clear reference that he is one and the same as the subject. SWik78 (talk) 13:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete This page shouuld be deleted under WP:CSD#G11. Also it seems to be a violation of WP:COI as the username indicates that User:GangiPLG is most likely, Philip Liborio Gangi. ~ LegoKontribsTalkM 22:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Evidence has been provided that Mr. Lacey did not win an Emmy; therefore, non-notable.. - Philippe 19:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Aaron Michael Lacey[edit]

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

    Previous nom closed with no consensus. "Keep" decision merely procedural, not an endorsement of the article. Non-notable actor. Roles as an extra are not notable. Uncredited extra even less so. Sources provided in the article and in the edit history virtually all self-published or user-submission based sites. DarkAudit (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Qworty you sound like you know this actor? Which ep did you see him on? When you say, as always an extra, have you seen him in other things as well? When you say manual labor around movie sets, have you actually met and worked with him? Let me know I would love to meet him sometime.AMLFILMS (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. I disagree with that position. I would agree with you if the previous result had been Keep. But the previous result was not Keep. The previous result was No Consensus. Wikipedia is all about reaching consensus. There's no point in a no-consensus article continuing to take up space. Let's reach consensus, as editors are always supposed to do, and resolve this issue now. Qworty (talk) 14:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Deletion review is for "appeals to restore deleted pages and appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion." This article doesn't fall under that rubric. It wasn't deleted and it was never determined to be a Keep. It was merely No Consensus. I think we should reach a real consensus now and vote to delete it, though if an admin sees this and wants to Speedy it, I'll certainly be satisfied. Qworty (talk) 14:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply - from WP:DRV, "Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly", which I interpret to apply to no-concensus decisions as well. And a SPEEDY wouldn't apply here because it has been through AFD before, and at least at one point, there was an assertion of notability in winning a regional emmy. Note also the info the closing admin left at user talk:Polly -- Whpq (talk) 14:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I certainly respect your position, though I'd hate for this thing to continue to exist due to any kind of wikilawyered technicalities (NOT that I'm accusing you or anyone else at this point of wikilawyering in the article's behalf). Thank you for posting the link to the closing admin's comments on another editor's talk page. Frankly, I don't think the final outcome should come down to him. He's had his say, and now I would prefer to see consensus prevail. Qworty (talk) 14:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment You profess to want to help correct facts and verify information. What research have you done to support this article? What does baldfaced mean, did you mean to say boldfaced? Because I think that is the correct cliche.AMLFILMS (talk) 09:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Interview/article "The Commonwealth Times" (USA) 30 August 1995, Vol. 27, Iss. 3, pg. 1+6+10, by: Sara Kukorlo, "To the other Shining in Sheen's Shadow " "The Washington Post" (USA) 20 March 1997 "The Fairfax Journal" (USA) 24 November 1995, Vol. 57, Iss. 227, pg. C-6, by: Jen Chaney, "Actor has an 'Edge' in filming new picture" "The Springfield Connection" (USA) 2 November 1995, Vol. IX, Iss. 44, pg. 10+19, by: Jennifer Lafley, "Actor films movie in Northern Virginia" "The Burke Times" (USA) 26 October 1995, Vol. 2, Iss. 80, pg. A-1+A-7, by: Caron Carlson, "Living on the 'Edge' actor turns store into set for his new movie" "The Burke/Fairfax Station Connection" (USA) 26 October 1995, Vol. IX, Iss. 43, pg. 1+6+29, by: Jennifer Lafley, "Lights, Camera . . . Action! Actor films movie in Northern Virginia" "Loudoun Times-Mirror" (USA) 18 October 1995, Vol. 197, Iss. 42, pg. A-12, by: Heather DuVall, "Cameras Focus on Airmont" "The Washington Times" (USA) 5 August 1995, pg. B1+B2, by: Mensah Dean, "Going from bit parts to the 'Edge'" "Georgetown and Country" (USA) August 1995, Vol. 3, pg. 1+5, by: M.J. Firestone, "Double take" "The Enquirer-Gazette" (USA) 20 July 1995, Vol. 112, Iss. 30, pg. A-1+A-5, by: Ken Garber, "Actor uses stories and silver screen to change lives" "The Fairfax Journal" (USA) 7 July 1995, Vol. 57, Iss. 130, pg. C-3, by: Jen Chaney, "Hometown boy does a double take" "The Burke Times" (USA) 15 June 1995, pg. A-9, by: John Reosti, "At 26, Burke Center Film Veteran Aims Camera at Hollywood" "The Burke Connection" (USA) 8 June 1995, Vol. IX, Iss. 23, pg. 1, by: Jennifer Lafley, "Burke actor takes his shot" "The Port Gazette Packet Port Plus" (USA) 8 June 1995, Vol. CCXXII, Iss. 18, pg. P-1+P-3, by: Robert MacMillan, "Big deals in works for actor" I called everyone of these newspapers and talked to the clerks and found these issues do exist. To say this actor is not notable is a different issue. We can agree he has done all of this work, which to me, is amazing. I personally could not do half the stuff he has accomplished or even begin to know how to do it. I actually watched the John Adams episode and saw his name in the credits. If that is not giving an actor credit, I do not know what is. "There are not small parts only small people." Notable means: conspicuous, memorable, great, remarkable, noticeable, noted, outstanding, unusual, and uncommon. He also inspires me to take pride in my job at the lab. He is an inspiration worthy of giving him one little page on an institution that houses 2 320 000+ articles on the English version. I do not think he is powerful enough to bring down a whole institution as the importance of Wikipedia, and I donot think he is any more important than any of us. However, I do think his story is an interesting and inspirational one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMLFILMS (talk • contribs) 09:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC) AMLFILMS (talk) 09:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Oh one more question so I can understand your idea. Are you saying he has done none of this work and therefore is non-notable? Or, are you saying he has done this work, only that it is Background artistry work and therefore is non-notable? Or, are you saying he is an actor because he is with Screen Actors Guild, only he has done only Background artist work and therefore is non-notable? Also, I will call the Regional Emmy Awards branch and talk to Sue personally. I will tell her what is happening and to expect your call if you like. I know trying to get in touch with these people is almost impossible, the same thing almost happened to me after I called all the newspapers. I would actually like to do what you guys do, this is fun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMLFILMS (talk • contribs) 15:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Alright, I have a question. Considering that you are the creator and sole editor of this article, and that your user name shares initials with Lacey, why are you referring to yourself in the third person and asking others about your motivations?  Ravenswing  15:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: It is too forward, especially since I am not the only person to whom you've asked it. I do not need to "prove" my credentials -- to the degree anyone can over a computer -- to judge articles in AfD discussions based upon their verifiability, notability and adherence to Wikipedia policy and standards. I strongly suggest you cease to ask people this.  Ravenswing  17:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    These are the member stations of the region. The competition was only among these stations (give or take any stations added or removed to the list in the intervening years). So you're talking about a region from Baltimore to Richmond, and the show only aired on one channel in DC. DarkAudit (talk) 16:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Yeah, it's about time for an admin to close this and delete the article. Given the repeated and ferocious insistence by SPAs that this non-notable subject is in fact notable, as well as the repeated proffering of "evidence" that turns out not to be true, I'd be happy to see it Salted as well.  Ravenswing  17:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hear hear. I second the gentleman who nominates this subject for a thorough salting. Look at all of the time and energy this trivial matter has taken up, simply because an extra--cough, cough, excuse me, a background performer--decided to come here to write an article about himself, and then, when it was quite rightly prodded for deletion, flagrantly violated WP:COI by showing up here in person to constitute the sole voice in his own defense. And now it turns out that the most "notable" fact proferred by the individual is--let me try to phrase this as delicately as possible--not in the strictest or even loosest terms congruent with the facts. Salt, salt, salt, salt salt away, salt this one like a snail... Qworty (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was keep, in the expectation that all parts of the article that violate copyright (if any) will be excised shortly. Sandstein (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Austria)[edit]

    Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Austria) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    The primary author put this up for peer review, but sadly, it belongs here instead. Every word of the descriptive text in this long list article is a copyright violation from the Austrian Mint website. You can see it by picking any coin with a footnote next to its name, and clicking on the referenced source. You'll find the exact same paragraphs for each coin in the list, as well as all the same images. This article has so much copyvio that it has essentially nothing that isn't lifted from the Austrian Mint, and thus, it needs to go. Ig8887 (talk) 12:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The only point that I saw in doubt was whether it should be deleted, or SPEEDY deleted. According to WP:COPYVIO, an article that is entirely comprised of copyright violations should be reverted to a previous non-violating edition. No such edition exists, so the official policy says it should be deleted. To be clear: This is an article that has had exactly one author, and is more than 90% copyright violation. What possible rationale is there for keeping it? Is there a WP:SEEMSGOODTOME that trumps copyright violations? --Ig8887 (talk) 13:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It took me months to find all the information for the silver and gold euro coins of different countries (for some countries I am still investigating), which I am still putting together in Wikipedia. Unfortunately or fortunately, the Austrian mint is one of the few mints that gives extensive information on the coins they mint. It also happens, coincidently, that Austria is also the first country in the euro zone alphabetically, and that is the only reason I started from there. As you can see, I am currently working on Belgium, and there is no information at all from the Belgian mint web site, not even in Dutch or French.
    - The description of the coins in the article can be changed, by using better English, and I will work it out extensively if I need to in order not to be the exact description of the Austrian mint (that was the main reason to ask for review).
    - The description in the cited web site is a description of a currency coin, which itself does not violate any copyright. Even and ad-hoc personal description of a small item like that will be very similar to the one cited in the Austrian mint site.
    - All the references to the Austrian mint can be removed. I put that on purpose there, so people know where exactly the main information came from, and it is not "made of" information. I thought that would be fair for the Austrian Mint web site. I wrote them a few weeks back telling them I am building a wiki article about all gold and silver coins in the euro zone and that I was referencing to their site. I asked them to update their English text of all coins, since all coins from 2007 onwards did not have any description. They never replied, but all the information of all coins in their site is now updated.
    - I am planning to do a similar article for all the gold and silver euro coins of all the countries in the euro zone. You do not need to, but believe me on this one: such information does not exist on the web or it is staggered in hundreds of sites in at least ten different languages. I have tons of mails to different sources, friends, colleague collectors, and they all agree is a shame that information like this one does not exists (or cannot be easily found).
    - I am open to suggestions of any kind, even writing to the Austrian mint and asking for their permission if needed, but I strongly believe that once all countries in the euro zone have a wiki page explaining as detailed as possible their gold and silver euro coins mintage, it will be very valuable information for all the numismatic enthusiastic.
    - I am working on other non-numismatic articles as well, creating references in the articles of the different motives of the coin back to the coin (check Vienna Philharmonic or St. Benedict for example). Someone told me that was a good idea, since lots of people do not know that some of their favourite places, figures, objects, people, histoy events ... etc. has been the main motives of silver and gold coins that can be preserve for ever. I personally thought that information in the other articles was really cool. Obviously I am carefully referencing back in this article as well.
    - Please take a look at the stats, it has been only less than a month and it is receiving 40+ hits per day. That have to mean something right?
    Allow me a few days and I will change all the texts. I will re-submit for peer-review then. Apologies, but I am a newbie to Wikipedia, I hope you can forgive me, let me work on the article, and let the article survive, I think it deserves it. Best regards. Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tom Nipp[edit]

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

    Non-notable. No consensus was reached when this was nominated a couple of years ago, but notability has still not been established. StAnselm (talk) 12:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment. Actually, it doesn't. At least, I don't think so. I think it refers to "mayors" and then also "council members of major metropolitan cities". Maybe the ambiguity needs to be fixed. StAnselm (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    NOTE: Noble Sponge has been confirmed per checkuser as a sock account. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Singularity 07:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Funeral For My Chemical Valentine[edit]

    Funeral For My Chemical Valentine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Fictitious dawkeye (talk) 12:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    A bunch of middle aged men have nothing better to do with their time than try to delete articles on wikipedia that have nothing to do with them, Sad. Granthardie (talk) 22:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please don't leave the ladies out of your scorn. Equal time, you know. :)--Fabrictramp (talk) 00:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A bunch of teenagers who have nothing better to do with their time than try to add articles on wikipedia that no one cares about, Sad. JuJube (talk) 11:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    yet it's not wasting time to look on google and amazon for whether it exists or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Granthardie (talk • contribs) 12:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmmm let's see five google hits most using the term to describe a mocking amalgam of the bands Funeral for a Friend, My Chemical Romance and Bullet for My Valentine. Amazon gives me no matches. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 13:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what it means. MCR was the only one of those bands I'd heard of. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 14:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination withdrawn with no delete votes. NAC. Celarnor Talk to me 13:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wonderland Online[edit]

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

    This is an unreleased game that hopes to enter a closed beta test in the next two days. Until it is released, it will not be able to meet the criteria for notability, and as such should be deleted until released and documented in third-party reliable sources. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The game is already documented as existing in reliable, third-party sources such as IGN and Gamespot. It seems strange that you would want to delete an article that is just going to be rebuilt in less than 48 hours. That being said, the game was already released in Alpha form, and, to great success. Further, the game already exists in China and Japan, and I am currently in the process of getting my hands on information about those versions of the game. I thought that it would be more appropriate and wait to include that information once references were available, rather than to simply throw it in there and hope for the references later. This may take a little while for me to get, as I am working with a group that does not possess English as its first language. Translating that material may take more than a few seconds, so I would ask for your patience.--Fuen Fuboo (talk) 12:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My contention is that even in 48 hours, being in beta release does not establish notability for an encyclopaedic article. The article simply refers to the English version of the game, and the references are to an official site, and a one-line summary and some images at Gamespot. This does not appear to meet the depth of coverage at present Fritzpoll (talk) 12:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am suitably embarrassed not to have spotted those. Nomination withdrawn Fritzpoll (talk) 12:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fram (talk) 09:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Anthony J. Mifsud[edit]

    Anthony J. Mifsud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Total lack of reliable sources, questionable notability, and edited extensively by User:Mifmaster, who appears to have a conflict of interest. Stifle (talk) 11:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment menright63 is the articles original creator and also has an apparent COI. Beach drifter (talk) 02:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Yet another bad faith sockpuppet nomination. FCYTravis (talk) 04:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jewish Motorcyclists Alliance[edit]

    Jewish Motorcyclists Alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    595 ghits does not make this organization notable Moosato Cowabata (talk) 10:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You may not realize it, but this is actually an improvement argument, not deletion argument. Per WP:DEL, if it can be fixed by methods other than deletion (such as editing), it's not a good deletion candidate. Celarnor Talk to me 12:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sources simply not placed in the article yet doesn't mean the topic is non-notable, it just means the article on this notable topic should be improved.--Oakshade (talk) 04:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - consensus to keep, and it's a bad faith sockpuppet nomination. If someone wants this deleted, they can open another one. FCYTravis (talk) 04:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of motorcycle clubs[edit]

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

    There is a category for such, terefore a list would not be needed as for most of these are redlinked. Moosato Cowabata (talk) 10:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Even things in list have to adhere to notability guidelines. The inclusion of a few redlinks isn't a a rationale for deletion. It's a rationale for improving the article and removing them, or if they are notable enough to have their own article, to write their articles. Celarnor Talk to me 12:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply a few red links is wonderful for red link development but if they're never going to be articles because they're not notable, they're dedtined to be perma redlinks. That's why I asked the likelihood of these ever being notable. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 14:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: I have boldly removed the redlinks and the prose cut and paste stuff at the bottom, it realy should be a list of WP articles only. MickMacNee (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Singularity 07:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Leann Collins[edit]

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

    A biographical article which has all the tell-tale signs of an autobiographical puff piece; before it was substantially cleaned up by Spark.blue (talk · contribs), it read like something you'd read on the back cover of a book. The sources do not speak to the subject's notability and all, and she gets little more than 600 Ghits. I don't think this photographer is as notable as the article makes her seem. I strongly suspect the primary author, (Dsefton88 (talk · contribs), is Collins herself. JuJube (talk) 09:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Delete ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Aimee G[edit]

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

    Take your pick: non-notable musician who falls below our threshold at WP:MUSIC, also a nose-tackle in training who fails WP:ATHLETE; generally not notable per WP:BIO. Eusebeus (talk) 09:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I assume that the content of this article is enough to avoid a speedy for recreated material? Xymmax (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment @ Great Pumpkin King - I'm confused. Is your position that the subject is notable specifically as a musician? None of the links (outside of the group's own website) even address the subject's music. She even indicates on her own website that she is taking a break from "all the artsy stuff" and that she "may or may not" make more music. None of her songs have charted. Surely she's not notable for her music? Xymmax (talk) 15:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. Dustitalk to me 19:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of business failures[edit]

    List of business failures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Nominated because a company collapsing is a common occurrence, also there is no definition of this list as it is undefinable for the fact administration does not mean the end of the road for a company Dr Tobias Funke (talk) 09:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Singularity 07:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nata Menabde[edit]

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

    Delete a deputy director of a regional office is not notable - so nn we don't know where or when she was born, red flags of non-notability in a modern biography. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 08:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Singularity 07:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blank Noize[edit]

    Blank Noize (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 08:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Delete ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Spunout software[edit]

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

    Does not pass our notabiltiy guidelines for organizations (WP:CORP) Produced some homebrew games that were only published through public domain and magazine coverdisks. Does not appear to be any substantial, reliable, independent coverage. Marasmusine (talk) 09:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Delete. Vanity press publication, plus a lot of self-promotion, does not equal notability. Pastordavid (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Enzo Fardone[edit]

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

    Not verifiable by third party sources and hence not notable. Google (21 ghits) doesn't bring up anything interesting. MER-C 08:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Made major news
    Can we justify the notability of that? Regional news, professing forthcoming litigation that never happened. And of course we might diss the Google test, but only 100 or so hits is, as you say, worth noting. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    sent by a lawyer ...
    ... called Enzo Anthony Fardone [44] Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Singularity 07:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thiago Alcántara do Nascimento[edit]

    Thiago Alcántara do Nascimento (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    PROD contested by a brand-new user at his first "contribution" ever. This article is about a 17-year old guy contracted with the Barcelona youth system; the subject fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN (no professional appearances). Angelo (talk) 08:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Delete ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    FxMarketSpace[edit]

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

    An advertisement for a company of minor importance

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 08:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete, including images; SPA "keep" opinion discounted. Sandstein (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    SAMVA USA chart[edit]

    SAMVA USA chart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This is a non-notable 'chart' created as original research by an internet user interested in astrology. The text is taken verbatim from the internet user's blog , which has also been inappropriately linked to as the only reference for this 'chart' The pictures are also original research creations - Other, historical references are again simply synthesized original research.

    "Disagree as you will about the merits of such claims or the astrological interpretation offered for each horoscope, but please also consider that for those people doing such research, the work is dead serious." The problem is Wikipedia is NOT the place to publish this research - this should be referenced in a third-party published source. That is an all-encompassing Wikipedia standard, it is not thrown out for astrology articles. Brando130 (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    *Weak keep though it needs some editing. The history part is somewhat peripheral. The astrology does not seem excessive detail for the subject, and it's hard to say it is less significant or valid than anything else in the subject. The copyvio seems only in the exact reproduction of the actual charts--discussing them is not copyvio. DGG (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The text itself is taken verbatim from chart's blog, not the reproduced images. Brando130 (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "The author has identified an event's date and time that matches with properly referenced history, and used a brand of astrology to see it's significance." - Yes, exactly. original research. Also a little strange that a vote on this chart would be your first ever edit to Wikipedia. Brando130 (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Shortland Street#Settings and Storylines. Editors are encouraged to merge as appropriate. Pastordavid (talk) 15:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Shortland Street Hospital[edit]

    Shortland Street Hospital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    N-n fictional hospital. Absolutely no out of universe notability Earthtried1985 (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 07:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Delete. Keilana|Parlez ici 02:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bad Stain Records[edit]

    Bad Stain Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
    Chase Stain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    AZ Ska Punk Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Numbers on napkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Per WP:N. Sources are all local and/or not independent of the subject. Sources which are independent do not offer significant coverage. swaq 17:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 07:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was keep per absence of delete preferences (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 13:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Richard Fraser[edit]

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

    First, this biography of a (supposedly) living person is entirely unsourced, and has been so for more than one year. Second, while it seems he contributed some lyrics to the songs of Emerson, Lake & Palmer, I do not think that he passes WP:MUSIC, contrary to the findings of the first nomination. He would be notable if he "[h]as credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition", but applying this to every song of the said band seems like over-stressing the principle. B. Wolterding (talk) 07:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If and when notability can be established by reliable sources for the show itself, article may be recreated. Pastordavid (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Rational Alchemy[edit]

    Rational Alchemy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (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.

    Nicholas Stix[edit]

    The result was Delete. Consensus is that he fails WP:BIO. Jayjg (talk) 02:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Subject is a barely-noted blogger and freelance journalist. He has not been the subject of any profiles, and has not won any awards, though he has been mentioned in passing in a few articles on other topics. Previously, an editor, possibly Stix himself, made a nuisance of himself by doing nothing but adding links and mentions of Stix to numerous articles.User:70.23.199.239/User:70.23.167.160 This article was created by a brand-new account, and I suspect it's more self-promotion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    At most three - the biography and the reviews - can be said to be "discussing the subject", and there's hardly any information. When was he born? Where was he educated? Has somebody analyzed his political views? Is he, as some sources suggest, a "white nationalist", or, as another source claims, a "self-anointed protector of black students"? From the sources we have, I can't tell. Google Books gave me just a dozen results, including three of our "sources". In effect, Stix has written quite a lot, but nobody writes about Stix. Huon (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You can access the PDF by hitting enter in the address bar of the "access denied" page. It requires a referrer from amren.com. But there's no point since he isn't mentioned in the document at all; the SPLJ source just says he quoted it once, which isn't significant enough for mention in an article, let alone anything supporting notability. --Dhartung | Talk 23:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 author's request. faithless (speak) 20:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Megy[edit]

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

    Not sure it's a hoax so did not send to CSD. Re WP:V cannot find anything referring to this concept. "Megy" seems to be a word/name in the Hungarian language; nothing else evident. Taroaldo (talk) 06:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Right, thanks! Don't know why I added the pointless csd comment - subconscious notion, maybe. ;) --- Taroaldo (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This gesture has roots in Trinidadian culture and its name was not derived based on a word. Due to its nature, it has not found itself to be documented or labeled in any text as it is a fairely recent developement. It is also only practiced by a certain age group (mainly adolecents) in the country. Any cultural expert in Trinidad and Tobago with knowledge on adolecent sub-culture will be able to validate this article. --- Matcityus


    Valid articles should not be removed due to cultural ignorance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matcityus (talk • contribs) 21:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Singularity 06:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Golden Age of Knowledge[edit]

    Golden Age of Knowledge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    At present, article is only sourced to self-referential primary sources affiliated with the Church of Scientology, the publisher of these works. I could not find significant discussion of the article's subject matter in secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources. I could not find any mention of "Golden Age of Knowledge" in any books or in a news archive search, or a search of scholarly works. In addition, zero hits came up in searches of InfoTrac. If this subject matter has been significantly discussed/analyzed in secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources to satisfy WP:NOTE - I have not been able to find any mention in searches of multiple different types of indices of secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 06:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: If there is nothing of value here and zero independent sources, then why redirect, instead of just Delete? Cirt (talk) 00:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Alvestrand (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as WP:CSD#G12 (copyvio) at 06:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC). cab (talk) 06:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ucweb[edit]

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

    Appears to be a direct copy and paste of another page on the web and likely fails WP copyright policies. InDeBiz1 (talk) 05:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Delete ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Joseph Paul Santoro[edit]

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

    Article is about a non-notable mob figure. InDeBiz1 (talk) 05:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was keep. John254 01:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    David Jaffray[edit]

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

    Appears to fail WP:N, definitely fails WP:V. Wizardman 05:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC) Appears to be much better now, I'll let the afd continue though I'm now satisfied. Wizardman 21:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 12:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Guatemala Street[edit]

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

    Article is about a street that appears to be non-notable for any major landmarks, historical impact, or anything else that would justify it having its own Wikipedia article. InDeBiz1 (talk) 05:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Singularity 06:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of conscious hip hop artists[edit]

    List of conscious hip hop artists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This list appears to be original research. What, exactly, does the "list of conscious hip hop artists" entail? What does the phrase "conscious hip hop artists" mean? I work in the music / radio industry and have never heard this prhase used. As such, I've nominated this article for deletion as original research. InDeBiz1 (talk) 04:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    But what if there were two other reliable sources that pointedly argued said artist was not a conscious rapper? I can easily imagine some hip-hop publication arguing, for example, that Jadakiss "has done some conscious hip-hop," however in general most would not consider him a conscious artist. As I said the term "conscious" is far too subjective, but the article title gives the impression that everyone on the list is indisputably a conscious artist which is not the case. I would not mind having a list along these lines but I think it needs to be called something else, though I don't have any big ideas offhand.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And then there is the matter of what to do with the fact that the early gangsta rappers were not slow to self-identify as "reality rap", hence linking themselves to Chuck D's dictum that hip hop was "black CNN" and linking themselves to the same lineage of socio-political commentary tracing all the way back to Melle Mel. 86.44.28.245 (talk) 08:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment With all due respect, you'd be wrong with your assertion of WP:IDONTKNOWIT. I have enough experience in the radio / music industry that IF this were a commonly used phrase and this article WASN'T original research, I would have heard the phrase. But, as it is, this article is the very first time I have ever seen it or heard it. I stand by my nomination. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you that this should be deleted, but honestly I'm guessing you are not all that familiar with hip-hop if you have never heard this term before. It is incredibly, incredibly common in hip-hop circles. Many folks will claim they only listen to "conscious" rap. Other terms have been used in the past (for example "message rap"), and other similar terms are used today ("backpack rap" is also a synonym). An article on conscious rap is very much warranted and is not OR, it's just that this list is problematic. If you don't believe me look again at the links Pixelface provided.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering that I program a hip-hop radio station...... --InDeBiz1 (talk) 22:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe you, but perhaps this term slipped under your radar somehow. Again, look at the sources provided by Pixelface, or just google "conscious hip-hop" which comes up with 83,000 hits including a bunch of stuff that's relevant right off the bat. A Google books search is also revealing (see this chapter from a book by Michael Eric Dyson, the title of which was partially taken from a Nas lyric: "Cause it's trendy to be the conscious MC / But next year, who knows what we'll see?"). Anyhow this really is a notable if admittedly vaguely defined term which is referenced all the time by all kinds of folks in the hip-hop world. I teach a urban history course at a college in the Bronx where we listen to a ton of hip-hop and my students (generally 8-10 years younger than myself) are quite familiar with the term, as are my friends who are hip-hop heads. I'm surprised you haven't heard of it, though possibly it's used more frequently in certain regions of the country. Anyhow, sort of a side point, but relevant if someone is questioning the legitimacy of the concept rather than the list (which seems to be the case for some of the delete voters).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This will almost certainly be deleted, but we need to let the AfD run its course I think - which is five days as a rule - and let it be closed by a non-involved admin. I don't think this is a WP:SNOW candidate if that's what you were suggesting.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Singularity 06:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Roy Wilson (Irish politician)[edit]

    Roy Wilson (Irish politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable local councillor in Northern Ireland. Only ref is to his party's website, so he fails WP:N; as a local councillor he fails WP:BIO BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (A7) by Alexf. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 11:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    WhatIfGaming[edit]

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

    Non-notable gaming site with no legit refs. Created by someone who has a possible Conflict of Interest in the article. BoL (Talk) 03:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Response: I think you're severely mistaken, and I'm just a reader--so there are no "conflicts of interest." The site gets nearly 1.5 million hits, and is sponsored by all the major gaming sites, and has many things coming up. Also, do your proper searches via N4G before nominating it and labeling it as a "non-notable" aka corporate fanboy gaming site. Seriously, grow up. Also see the AwStats: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:March08awstats.jpg. And learn to use N4G.com--as they have had countless articles on there that got above 950 degrees. Also, they're doing an interview with Rockstar soon. Also, their Alexa score is high--showing a lot of IE users (15% of their readership) go there. Google analytics shows the rank as high as well. Learn to search. This isn't an attack. It's telling you to learn something before you go around reporting stuff you don't even have the facts straight for. Also stop harassing me and deal with the fact that you messed up. And they are referenced by COUNTLESS sites including maxconsole, jeuxfrance, and JOYSTIQ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidGamingeff (talk • contribs) 03:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    That doesn't mean they have to be notable. WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N. BoL (Talk) 03:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    CommentDude - calm down theres no need to tell anyone else to grow up. First of all there are no reliable sources that arent biased. Show me the source that states it gets 1.5 million hits. By the way - before you tell anyone to go "learn something" you clearly have no reliable sources. BTW where did that graph come from? Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 03:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Oh okay..so see I thought them being referenced by other blogs like Joystiq, maxconsole, GoNintendo, (and sites like PSU) gave it some credibility. Also the graph came from the owner through a press forum, which you guys don't have access to, but I do since I handle press stuff for the community site the owner revealed it on. Also look at Google Analysis ...and the Alexa (showing that 15% of the users are IE users and visit it)...the ranks are fairly high. Also, they have ads with Sony for infamous and littlebigplanet. Something I just noticed. That doesn't happen out of the sky. Also check all their posts on News 4 Gamers (a gaming community site). They are very well established. I can't show you sources for their numbers...what gaming site wiki SHOWS that? This is seriously ridiculous to be honest. It's like asking 1UP to show their "reliability" sources. They've been around the web, and so had this site..especially on N4G. I can't really "add sources" anymore than I have. WP:Blogs.

    What I can do is removed the # sources. But the site itself is notable and reliable.

    "which you guys don't have access to" Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 04:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    I removed the # references completely. The rest are just facts about the site itself if that's fine J. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidGamingeff (talk • contribs) 04:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, they have ads with Sony for infamous and littlebigplanet

    I could get a ad with sony, if I paid $1000 million PS can you sign cause its creating heaps of edit conflicts Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 04:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, sorry. I actually just see that GoogleBots are rejected ping to the site itself..and the site doesn't have an Alexa tracker..but an AwStats one. So, the only way to prove it is if the website owner disclosed the stats themselves via AwStats. If it helps---they did MENTION their numbers in one post (I think). But I removed all the # references.

    —Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures comment added by DavidGamingeff (talk • contribs)

    Haha, thanks for telling me how to do that. DavidGamingeff (talk) 04:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It's up to you J. If you need to delete it, then delete it. But I just have to say that...the article is just facts about the site itself, and they have a ton of news posts, references from Maxconsole, joystiq, XBOX360 fanboy, and n4g + PSU---basically on a lot of places and have interviews going on with huge game publishers. As for the number sources, sorry I disclosed closed information not available to public. Should have known better. Aside from that, that's all I got. Thanks for hearing me out. DavidGamingeff (talk) 04:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It's simply an article about a gaming website with facts about it. I took out the # references etc. It should not be deleted IMO, but w/e. Also I already stated they are blocking alexa sprawlers--etc. So those stats are inaccurate that you're getting from Alexa. Refer to their FAQ. Also you aren't searching right if all you could find was 1 mention. And even so, those huge media owned sites don't just link to sites that they know are not notable. Also I stated already they blocked google sprawlers apparently, so using a link:http:// won't work...and bring up minimum results. The site has amazing content, it has references, and it has notability. Maybe not according to Wikipedia standards, but to gaming standards it definitely does. I'll keep arguing this same position for any other requests to delete it (so refer back to this post again and again), but I refuse to let it be deleted unless an admin feels otherwise. Consider this my statement for all delete requests now. DavidGamingeff (talk) 06:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please read wikipedia's notability standards WP:N and wikipedia's notability standards for websites WP:WEB.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 06:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, if these articles are so easy to find and in such abundance you could clear this all up very quickly by linking to them directly in this debate. Please do not link to the main site, link only to the exact articles you are talking about.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 06:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Okay Torchwood. I read the WP:N more, and I have some questions so we can resolve this. I understand that WP's guideline of notability, is not necessarily the same thing as fame, etc etc. A website can be famous..and not be detailed on Wikipedia unless, if I read correctly, outside 3rd party sources specifically speak about that subject in detail. Now..is this to say that...any subject matter, which has not extensively or at all covered by a WP:Reliable source is not notable enough to be added to the Wikipedia encyclopedia? If I got this all right, I will agree to deletion because I was under the impression that we can add info about a website.....in general...like a biography of literally any website we choose. Because I'm not really understanding your reason for asking for it to be deleted. It kind of sounds like to me that you're trying to delete information about a site's bground, etc---and claiming the site is a huge farce..and copied/pasted...and completely fake and unreal, which is just not true at all. DavidGamingeff (talk) 06:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I tagged the article for A7 deletion because of your comment at AfD. Yes, you are reading the notability guideline correctly. All articles need to have extensive coverage in reliable third party sources. When the site gains some of these you are free to recreate the article citing the new sources.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 06:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

    It's background information on a site. How is it an "advertisement." I don't understand your logic. Since when was describing a site, it's review policy, and all that--an advertisement? Btw, n4g is a community of gamers who only approve news they believe to be noteworthy from reliable sources (strict guidelines) and requires 10 approvals PER article. Here are just the MAIN ones this site is covered in (Excluding reference sources under other stories already--which are countless):

    http://www.n4g.com/NewsPending-126912.aspx http://www.n4g.com/NewsPending-131373.aspx http://www.n4g.com/NewsPending-128215.aspx http://www.n4g.com/NewsPending-127397.aspx http://www.n4g.com/NewsPending-127389.aspx http://www.n4g.com/NewsPending-126909.aspx http://www.n4g.com/NewsPending-126913.aspx

    That's literally in an excess of 70 people who approve anything the site has to say. DavidGamingeff (talk)

    How is it an "advertisement"? Because it's written like an advertisement. Instead of trying to argue with every single person who disagrees with you, why don't you just cleanup the article and add your references to it? Redrocket (talk) 06:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I just got word from Torchwood: "I tagged the article for A7 deletion because of your comment at AfD. Yes, you are reading the notability guideline correctly. All articles need to have extensive coverage in reliable third party sources. When the site gains some of these you are free to recreate the article citing the new sources.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 06:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)"

    I agree to the terms of deleting this. I just understood the guidelines. Thank you torchwood who! I appreciate your awesomeness in the matter. DavidGamingeff (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. Singularity 06:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Power of the Dragonflame (single)[edit]

    Power of the Dragonflame (single) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    I created this article like 2 years ago. I thought there was a single called "Power of the Dragonflame". Well that was a promo-release, and every Rhapsody album by Limb Music Productions had a promo-release. We have an article for the album so there is no necessity to keep this one. --Neo139 (talk) 20:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Darkspots (talk) 03:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Singularity 06:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The Nacirema Dream[edit]

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

    Fails WP:MUSIC, unreleased albums require substantial coverage in reliable sources. 1st source gives very little info about album, 2nd source isn't about the album. Unable to locate additional reliable sources. Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Darkspots (talk) 03:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete: Nowhere near enough coverage to justify an article about an unreleased album.Kww (talk) 17:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Moved to Center for Catholic Studies (University of St. Thomas). Rewrite/cleanup needed. Pastordavid (talk) 15:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Catholic Studies[edit]

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

    This article reads more like an entry out of a course catalog or brochure than an encylopedia entry on the University of St. Thomas CathStudies program. Futhermore, rather than covering the discipline and impact of Catholic Studies, which is featured at numerous colleges around the country, it discusses only the UST program. Apparently, it was created by a user seeking only to promote the program (username: catholicstudies). I am a Catholic Stuides major at UST, but Wikipedia is not a guidebook, and I don't believe this article has any merit at all as presently written. --BCSWowbagger (talk) 02:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 vandalism/hoax. ... discospinster talk 02:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Diego Caupaphara[edit]

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

    seems A hoax, no source to support it Matthew_hk tc 02:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 – multiple independent references in reliable sources. KrakatoaKatie 01:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Lending Club[edit]

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

    Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:WEB. Has a few links but they seem to be self references, press releases and trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 02:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    AccessMyLibrary reproduces articles from print publications, much in the same way that ProQuest does. It's a perfectly valid search site, very useful for those who don't have subscriptions to larger, better ones. Celarnor Talk to me 15:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    CNN Money, Denver Post, Boston Globe. None are from AML, all are reliable sources with independent coverage, not press releases. The existence of some press releases doesn't invalidate the other coverage. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 15:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G2 (test page). The author has copied Sporting Clube de Portugal and tried to change the player names, but has given up after a few. The team actually probably exist, but as a reserve side, are non-notable. Black Kite 07:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Udinese Calcio Reserves[edit]

    Udinese Calcio Reserves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    In Italy, they called Primavera, but the page only contain a incomplete squad list, and some players were copied from Sporting's article Matthew_hk tc 02:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the speedy deletion A7 criterion. Rudget (review) 11:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ultraform (Artist)[edit]

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

    Written by the artist himself, then speedied [57], then recreated by the artist himself. Fails notability due to WP:AUTO, WP:COI, WP:RS, WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:single-purpose account, WP:MUSIC, and probably several more guidelines we could throw at him. Let's delete this and salt it forever. Qworty (talk) 01:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Keep--JForget 23:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Megan Marshak[edit]

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

    Biography about a non-notable person. Marshak has no notability beyond the death of Nelson Rockefeller and various conspiracy theories related to that. Delete and redirect to death section of Rockefeller article. Dual Freq (talk) 01:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (outdent) I have never alleged a conspiracy theory about Rockefeller's death. Where in the world are you getting that? In fact, nobody in this entire AfD discussion has claimed that anybody was out to get Rockefeller, and yet you keep saying conspiracy, conspiracy, conspiracy. If someone had been trying to kill Rockefeller, then having his pretty assistant screw him to death would certainly be an absurd way to go about it, don't you think? And again, be aware of WP:recentism: Notability does not depend on WHEN an event occurred. The same can be said for the books you cite. If the publishing industry had been as scandal-driven in 1979 as it is today, you can bet your sweet bippy there would've been half-a-dozen books about Marshack in 1979. Are you not aware of the changes in publishing since that time? We can't judge Marshack by the publishing standards of today--that too is a form of WP:recentism. So I don't see any logical underpinnings to your argument here. Most of it is WP:recentism, with a little bit of straw man thrown in, claiming that the article's advocates have stated a conspiracy to kill Rockefeller, when not a single person in this discussion has done so. Qworty (talk) 17:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (outdent) That makes no sense. First of all, sources DO exist. Secondly, there is no WP policy that requires this article to be as lengthy as the one on Winston Churchill. Articles are as long as they need to be. Qworty (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Any useful content could be merged into record collecting, but care should be taken to avoid the no how-to guide and no original research problems. KrakatoaKatie 03:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Music collecting strategies[edit]

    Music collecting strategies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Original research. The "references" are mostly examples rather than actual sources of information (including the author's own website). —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 00:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, will merge article skeleton into a new Record collecting#scope of collections section, after deletion. Jidanni (talk) 01:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe transwiki to wikiversity. --Emesee (talk) 08:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So what would you write in a Record collecting#scope of collections section, or do music collections have no scope, no bounds, no limits? Jidanni (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Will the persons above who stated they find merging an acceptable solution please merge the one or two lines of the article that you find acceptable, and throw away the rest. Thank you. I cannot because I have a conflict of interest. Jidanni (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Merge/Redirect Yateley#Education, as basically there is nothing much new info then there and most have opted for that option. --JForget 23:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yateley Manor[edit]

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

    So many tabs, stub, no hope. unreferenced, possible hoax – i123Pie biocontribs 00:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin close). PeterSymonds | talk 13:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Suomen Huippumalli Haussa[edit]

    Suomen Huippumalli Haussa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    The correct way to write it is Suomen huippumalli haussa (lower case h's). I created the page and didn't correct it. Now, there are two pages. The correct one is Suomen huippumalli haussa. Please delete Suomen Huippumalli Haussa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leopea (talk • contribs) 08:49, April 7, 2008

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

    The result was Keep per overwhelming snowfall. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Lopadotemachoselachogaleok...[edit]

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

    Word not found in dictionary ,not used and is one in another language of a fictional dish.No citations have been given.Hopefully copied it right.Clearly not notable and not used.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, redirect. Celarnor Talk to me 01:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    a 171-letter word. As the article points out, the significance of this addition by Aristophanes has been looked at by other scholars (an explanation is in order for Henry Liddell and Robert Scott (philologist). Mandsford (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • It's not a hoax, but it's impossible to use the entire word as a search term in Google. Here are some hints at potentially helpful sources: [62], [63], [64]. Zagalejo^^^ 05:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There is zero chance it is a hoax. Pick up a copy of Assemblywomen. I deeply, deeply urge the closing admin to disregard this probably-in-good-faith, yet obviously-deep-misunderstanding-of-the-subject matter comment. Celarnor Talk to me 11:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. John254 01:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Rodney Pocceschi (2nd nomination)[edit]

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

    I still don't see why this person is notable. There was a small amount of local coverage when he died, but no more than any other local murder case. Renominating. —Chowbok ☠ 19:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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