< July 31	August 2 >

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

The result was nominator withdrawal. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy (talk) 01:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paramahamsa Hariharananda[edit]

~~Bio of a non notable religious leader. Sources are questionable as far as asserting notability. Thanks.~~ Ism schism (talk) 23:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 23:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 23:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 23:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Miami Herald ran an obituary when he died, and there appears to be a French-language book about him. The Miami Herald called him the "Spiritual leader of Kriya Yoga movement". -- Eastmain (talk) 04:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction The Miami Herald obituary called the subject "Spiritual leader of Kriya Yoga movement" and not the Spiritual leader of Kriya Yoga movement. The subject was a Spiritual leader not the Spiritual leader. As far as I am aware, Kriya Yoga never had any central Spiritual leader akin to the Pope in Roman Catholicism or the Dalai Lama in Tibetan Buddhism. When the reporter wrote "Spiritual leader of Kriya Yoga movement dies" I am assuming that he meant just that (i.e. leader of a particular Kriya Yoga movement). But, even if the obituary did say that the subject is the leader of the entire Kriya Yoga movement (which of course is not what it says), I don't think that Charles Rabin, the author of the article, is that much of an authority in Kriya Yoga for us to use his published opinion as the basis of the subject's notability. - Shannon Rose (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notable references about him or his work, except for the obituary mentioned above. There is a german version in the german language wikipedia, but at first glance it seems to be a copy of this. I don't speak or read german, I'm saying this seeing the overall structure of the page ChiragPatnaik (talk) 13:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable lightweight in the guru biz. No major achievement, no bestselling book, no big humanitarian project, no fame whatsoever except websites set-up by disciples within the subject's org. No reliable third-party sources, all sources are either written by the subject himself or by one of his disciples published and/or produced by their own printing press. French language book mentioned above is by Paramahamsa Prajñanananda, the subect's successor who now runs his org. Miami Herald article is an obituary and the link to it provided does not allow readers to view the full article, one needs to become a member of the website in order to read the full article, there is no way of verifying if it is just a paid obituary but, even if not, still insufficient to establish notability. – Shannon Rose (talk) 14:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move -I suggest moving to Hariharananda Giri ~~Aranya~~, Wrong naming article due to naming convention. Can the sources be actually added to the article? If yes then article can be retained, if not deleted. I can see quite a few hits on google. Andrea Joy Cohen also wrote a book on him. But it should be clarified as not to confuse him with someone else. Its a question of judgement on what is notable here and if the sources actually talking about him. Article is full of peacock etc. if kept needs to be stubbed to fit the sources. Wikidās ॐ 23:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I believe the answer is no because Swami Hariharananda Aranya and Paramahamsa Hariharananda Giri are two different persons. The former (who died in 1947) was a monk of the Forest (Aranya) branch of the Swami Order while the latter (who died in 2002) was a monk of the Mountain (Giri) branch. - Shannon Rose (talk) 00:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, IF article is kept, the name should have not honorifics (Paramahamsa) and a disambiguation section or link should be added for Aranya fellow. Wikidās ॐ 09:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As Eastmain noted, there were enough clearly reliable sources in the article already for it to pass by the GNG: the Miami Herald obituary and the French book. Paid death notices are different from bylined obituaries, which this is. The obituary also clearly states that he was "the guru of Kriya Yoga"; definite articles are frequently omitted in headlines, but one is present in the article text. Even if disputable, cf the criticism in the article, it goes towards notability. The book by Paramahamsa Prajñanananda is published by a commercial publisher Editions du Dauphin ; their site also has another book by the same author which is probably relevant En compagnie des maîtres du KRIYA YOGA. That these are by his successor is essentially immaterial - and would be even if it were an autobiography - cf the relevant section of WP:BLP on selfpublished sources for a BLP: "These provisions do not apply to subjects' autobiographies that have been published by reliable third-party publishing houses; these are treated as reliable sources, because they are not self-published." In addition, concerning recent edits to the article, reasonable usage of self-published material, if correctly attributed and written neutrally, is permitted even in BLPs if it is by the person himself by this section of policy, and that he is dead may give a little more leeway to use of humdrum material, even if self-published, written by his followers or himself. The recently introduced criticism section adds yet other sources, which should be used to balance any disputed claims. Finally, as I think Wikidas is pointing out, Paramahamsa Prajnananda's chapter in the book A Blessing in Disguise edited by Andrea Joy Cohen and Thich Nhat Hanh is another source on Paramahamsa Hariharananda.John Z (talk) 08:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction John Z is lying on his teeth. That part where it says "the guru of Kriya Yoga" is not a categorical statement declaring or presenting the subject as the guru of the Kriya Yoga movement, it is taken out of context from a continuous sentence that would be grammatically unpalatable if the author used "a guru" instead of "the guru." The sentence reads "...to stand vigil for the guru of Kriya Yoga, who died—only in the physical sense, they say—at age 95 Tuesday of pneumonia at Baptist Hospital." Basically he just said "...vigil for the guru of Kriya Yoga who died at age 95 of pneumonia at Baptist hospital." it is just like saying "...vigil for the doctor of medicine who died at age 95 at Baptist Hospital." It does not make that person the only doctor of medicine in the world because the sentence is about the person's death not about who he is. This is not difficult to understand. Now, with regards to Andrea Joy Cohen, who is apparantly not notable enough to have her own WP article, editing a book which mentioned Hariharananda in the section about his disciple (take note, his disciple and not Hariharananda himself) is different from her authoring the book. The editor is not the author. This glaring difficulty of everyone in favor of keeping the article to cite reliable third party sources is proof that the subject is not notable enough to have his own article in an encyclopedia.

You have a point that I went too far, and that "the" is not so weighty in this context, although "a" or "this" would be acceptable and not seem as positive. But as with the "the doctor of medicine" sentence, it sounds a little stilted, and my belief is that this sort of stiltedness does tend to connote approbation or some kind of specialness. As Phil notes below, the short chapter entitled "My Guru" is the disciple writing about his Guru Hariharananda.John Z (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The chapter referred to in the book edited by Cohen is about Hariharananda. It is written by Prajnananda, not about him. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting "These provisions do not apply to subjects' autobiographies that have been published by reliable third-party publishing houses; these are treated as reliable sources, because they are not self-published." is completely irrelevant because Paramahamsa Prajñanananda's book about the subject is not an autobiography but a biography. Only autobiographies published by reliable third-party publishing houses are exempted from those WP:BLP provisions (the subject is dead by the way so you should not use WP:BLP, you seem to be confused about this matter) and are treated as reliable sources. Nevertheless, commonsense should tell us that biographies published by fanatical cult successors even if not self-published are not credible (only reliable third party sources are). Actually, highly questionable claims like the subject was "instrumental in reviving the bhakti movement in India," was "God-realized," "had already memorized all the puja mantras of Hinduism at age four-and-a-half," etc. came from such unreliable sources. What objectivity would you expect from somebody who inherited the rulership of the subject's cult? He worships the guy. - Shannon Rose (talk) 12:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not confused - I certainly know that Hariharananda is dead, and not the same as Prajnananda. The point is that these differences only make the French biography book more acceptable. The consensus expressed in the quoted observation (not really an exemption) is that we can use 3rd party published autobiographies of living people as reliable sources - and that is a harder case than biographies of a deceased person by someone else, even a follower. To answer your last question, the point there is that one can expect more objectivity in this case than the autobio of BLP.John Z (talk) 23:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's no need for a guru (or anyone else for that matter) to be a superstar in order to be notable. The sources in the article, along with the others referred to above, the ones which have been removed from the article, and further ones found by Google searches (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), establish notability. Why should we discount sources written by followers if they are published by reputable publishers? Of course for any religious figure, politician, pop group etc. sources are going to be written by those who have an interest in the subject, i.e. their fans. An obituary in a major national or regional newspaper is one of the best indicators of notability, as its existence means that an editorial decision has been made that a person's life (as opposed to a single event) is worth noting. I'm getting rather fed up with people at AfD not understanding the simple difference between an obituary and a death notice. I must also say that I find it rather surprising that Shannon Rose is arguing for deletion when he/she has clearly been able to find enough published information on the subject to engage in a content dispute - the very existence of this information is evidence of notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction But the problem here, Phil Bridger, is we do not know where in that local newspaper did the article appear. It is not a question of not being able to distinguish between an obituary and a death notice, you are the only one saying that. One can pay for a full page obituary written by a professional writer and it would still be a far cry from a real article written in, say for example, the front page or the religion section because the religious leader who died was really notable. When Paramhansa Yogananda died the article appeared in the religion section of Time Magazine complete with his photograph, that is notable. Also, the two published information I found is not about the subject, the subject was only mentioned once in both references and only in passing. You should also note that the context of those short mentions contributes to the non-notability of the subject as a Kriya Yoga guru, because those published information I quoted are saying that he was a con man. If we change the reason for the subject's notability and put there Kriya Yoga con man then the published information I provided, which you are talking about, will help establish it. Lastly, it depends on how you define Superstar, if by it you mean "one that is very prominent or is a prime attraction" (Merriam Webster Online, definition of superstar) then that is notability. - Shannon Rose (talk) 12:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. We do know that the article was an obituary (an editorial article about a recently dead person), not a death notice (a paid announcement of a relative or loved one's death), because the part of the article that you can see clearly says "obituary", not "death notice". The phrases have different meanings. To say that a reputable regional newspaper such as the Miami Herald would publish an article as an obituary when it has been paid for is a serious slur on the integrity of that newspaper, which needs substantiation if it is to be used as evidence. We are here to debate whether the subject is notable or not, not the reason for his notability. As far as I'm concerned all gurus/priests/imams/rabbis are con men peddling mumbo-jumbo, but that doesn't stop many of them from being notable. And btw, I'm not a badger. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I do not know where you are getting your definitions, Phil Bridger. An obituary is not necessarily an editorial article but simply a notice of a person's death usually with a short biographical account (Merriam Webster Online, definition of obituary). Your made-up argument of others being unable to distinguish this from that is irrelevant in proving or disproving my claim that we do not know for sure if the obituary was a paid ad or not. But I also said that even if it wasn't it is not enough to establish notability. You are also dead wrong in implying that the reason for the subject's supposed notability is unimportant in this debate. His successor Paramahamsa Prajñanananda's article was deleted because it failed to state why he was notable to merit an article on an encyclopedia. The reason for notability is very important and that is precisely why John Z is trying very hard to pull off the lie that the subject is the leader of the entire Kriya Yoga movement. Now, if you and John Z will agree, I will alter the article and put the reason of notability as internationally-known con man in the Kriya Yoga movement, then I will support it with the references I have already provided. If you agree to this then I will withdraw my vote to delete, if the cause of notability doesn't matter at all. It makes me wonder why can't you accept the glaring fact that the subject, as a guru of Kriya Yoga, is simply not notable? It is all very obvious. You do not have to write your own Dictionary or make endless failed attempts to justify your position, you only have to open your eyes. Are you a disciple of the subject? - Shannon Rose (talk) 13:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for notability would be important if we were discussing article content, but here we are discussing the article's existence, for which it is the fact of notability that is important. If reliable sources say that he is notable as an internationally-known con man in the Kriya Yoga movement then lets have that in the article, but it can't be there to the exclusion of other sourced opinions. I am far from being a disciple of the subject - in fact I find the whole concept of abandoning reason and following any such guru/priest/imam/rabbi incomprehensible - but I acknowledge that many such people are notable by Wikipedia standards. Now please declare your interest: are you a disciple of any competing such guru? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed the edit summary on Shannon Rose's last edit. How is pointing out the undisputed fact that the subject was a real person rather than a mythological character "passionately defending the subject"? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent)I of course agree with everything Phil has said. The more one puts reliably sourced material that this was "an internationally-known con man in the Kriya Yoga movement" the more one shows that he was wikipedia- notable - there is no "wikipedia-notable as a ...", there is just "notable" or "not notable". As Shannon Rose aptly puts it "the cause of notability doesn't matter at all." In my first post above where as mentioned above, I probably went to far on the "the", I noted that any claim to be "the" leader of Kriya Yoga is disputed. The argument that this obituary is not an obituary is very strange. Phil and I are defending the ordinary meaning and usage, and the burden of proof is on Shannon or others to show that the Miami Herald obit is not a reliable source lending proof of notability in the standard way used in countless AfDs. Of course it is possible that the writer and the Miami Herald accepted a bag of cash from this yogi's demented acolytes. It is also possible that Hariharananda is still alive, faked his death and payed for the obit, so he could kidnap Jimbo and take over Wikipedia. But we would need reliable (or any) sources for either belief to have any weight.John Z (talk) 23:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I got bold and cleaned up the article by removing: all the unreferenced material (the 'needs references' tag had been there since 11/07!); all of the unverifiable claims, in-universe writing, and unencyclopedic bio fluff; the criticism section, which was responding to the likely forever unverifiable claim that hh was a disciple of Sri Yukteswar; the quotefarm. Now, people can look at the article without all of the smoke and dust to decide whether he is notable. These news articles in the Google news archive might indicate notability, [1] though many are just adverts. ~ priyanath ^talk 21:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: reverted my overly bold removal of material, per John Z's suggestion.... ~ priyanath ^talk 01:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding the existence of reliable sources. Shannon Rose made an interesting edit to another editor's talk page [2] which includes this paragraph:

Lastly, Hariharananda's claim of being a disciple of Sri Yukteswar is rejected by just about everyone else except his own followers. It is generally regarded as a lie in the entire Kriya Yoga community (in which followers of Hariharananda are viewed as outcasts due to Hariharananda's bad reputation), in fact books and websites like this one abound. Self-Realization Fellowship and Ananda Sangha, the two biggest Kriya Yoga organizations in the world maintain that Hariharananda only came to the scene in the 1940s (when Sri Yukteswar was already dead) and that he was a brahmachari of Yogoda Satsanga Society, who also never met Yogananda in person (have you seen any photograph of them together?), that later broke away. I suggest that you read Swami Satyeswarananda Giri's Kriya: Finding the True Path and Sriyukteswar: A Biography, the latter has notes of Swami Satyananda Giri's testimonial regarding the claims of Hariharananda.

I couldn't have made a better argument in favour of notability myself. Let's have references to these abundant books and websites in the article, rather than argue about deleting an article on a subject who is notable enough to receive all of this attention. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per John Z and Phil Bridger—cleanup article and merge criticism section into body of article. ~ priyanath ^talk 16:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Shannon Rose has shown how this article has clear notability. Also, per Phil Bridger's contributions and comments. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing Admin Nominator changed vote to Strong Keep. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Willet (band)[edit]

A generic Christian rock band with no reliable independent sources, no assertion why they are in any way notable. Guy (Help!) 21:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding their recorded output -

section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion states that "to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable." Willet meets the notability requirement for music Willet's page by having two charted hits ("We're Not Keeping This Quiet" and "Taste") on CHR. Bathysphere (talk) 03:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why it isn't considered for speedy deletion, but is instead discussed for deletetion here (AfD = Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, see there for more information). --Amalthea (talk) 14:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. I looked for a bit now, but I can't say that they pass any of the criteria. Shoutlife (no RS) asserts that two of their songs charted ("Top 20 on CHR Loud Chart"), but I can't find any mention of that, and doubt very much that this refers to a nationwide chart. WEATHERED STEEL RADIO doesn't seem to be a "major radio network" either.
Should this be deleted I'm afraid all the album and EP articles will share the same fate. --Amalthea (talk) 14:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

just to clarify, it was originally considered for speedy deletion, which is why my above post is worded as such. Bathysphere (talk) 18:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Have scoured numerous Xtian music sites too and can't find anything to sufficiently source for passing WP:MUSIC criteria either - and agree per User:Amalthea re conclusion for fate of recordings. Plutonium27 (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a shame if the information about their AIDS charity work is true, but I can't find anything either that passes WP:MUSIC. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 23:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 04:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge into Ruby programming language. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby-gnome2[edit]

Fails WP:N, WP:WEB, has negligible g-hits. The only possible bonus is that g-books return some results (on the flip side, they don't look explanatory, and most of the books are How-to Ruby guides). The article doesn't assert notability in the least. Leonard^(Bloom) 19:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This can be merged into Ruby programming language. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. Leonard^(Bloom) 01:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Ecoleetage. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mad (magazine)#The Fundalini Pages. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Garth Gerhart[edit]

Not only is the article weaselly ("may be best known"), but it's also a permanent stub. There are no reliable sources pertaining to Gerhart or his Bitterman comic strip, which is only a small comic that appears in one small section of Mad. (See also this.) This article is so short that I don't see any point in even retaining a redirect. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 17:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Delete. Fails WP:BIO and WP:ENTERTAINER, and his may be best known strip was deleted for being not notable. --Amalthea (talk) 16:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I say. Being regularly published in Mad is good enough for me. - Richard Cavell (talk) 00:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if there isn't a single source to verify it? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 00:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We would need substantial independent coverage of the person. Can be redirected to Bitterman if that becomes notable enough to be recreated. - Eldereft (cont.) 16:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mad (magazine) because the comic writer doesn't warrant an individual article. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 17:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mad (magazine)#The Fundalini Pages which already includes all the information available in this article stub. -- Whpq (talk) 14:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mad (magazine). Fails the notability crtieria for biographies - no coverage in reliable secondary sources, no evidence of awards or a unique contribution to the field. Even the redirect might be stretching it a little, but redirects are cheap and can always be overwritten if there becomes more to say or an alternative Garth Gerhart (the Arizona footballer for example) becomes prominent enough for an article. Euryalus (talk) 07:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mokhless Al-Hariri[edit]

All in text references point back to this article; no notability has been established. Mazeau (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do they all refer back to the same thing? I found a bunch of articles & sites about this guy, and i've included them in there... what else does it need? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baronsamedi88 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources seems reliable. I see ~~a forum,~~ a couple Amazon links, a list of pamphlets, and a press release. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 17:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but there is the MIT site for the Aga Khan stuff, the Hala something foundation, the piccolo spoelto thing, and i could also put some more documents in when i get them in the next twenty minutes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baronsamedi88 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They still don't seem all that reliable. The MIT site is a press release, and the hala foundation link seems to be a primary source. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 19:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Sean Whitton / 10:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Given the time this has been open and the continuing lack of sources to meet WP:RS I don't see a case for keeping. If that case is made then the article can be added back. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Georgian Aviation University[edit]

Non-notable non-degree-granting university; text is largely (if not completely) a copy of text from the homepage, which is also the only source cited. Very, very few online source, none reliable or secondary; zero new hits. Tertiary institution, but not automatically notable per WP:SCHOOLS because it does not grant degrees. Samuel Tan 05:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination, specifically the lack of sources. tj9991 (talk | contribs) 06:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it's a copyvio, but the notability could be examined. The school could be notable and may have low representation on the English-language internet because it's in Georgia. Maybe someone from Georgia could help find sources. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 08:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm from Atlanta. I'll see what I can do to help y'all. Mandsford (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge Before being independent, it was part of Georgian Technical University, and the information that it is now self-standing could be added there. DGG (talk) 01:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, as a G12 blatant copyright violation of [3] and [4]. I just checked, it's word for word (only the price went up from 9.5 to 12 Lakhs). Since most of the text on the website is embedded in images I assume someone affiliated to pilotgeorgia.com created that article.
Since we haven't heard from Mandsford since I assume he actually went from Atlanta to Georgia (country)?
And DGG, you want to merge this although it was said to be a copyright violation?
--Amalthea^Talk 14:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 between keep and merge, so default to keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rocsi[edit]

Fails WP:BIO; non-notable person DiverseMentality^{(Discuss it)} 02:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - In being a co-host of a notable television series, I think notability can be carried over to the host's article. However, this article is badly in need of sources because the external links provided are not reliable sources. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...}^{protector of all...} 02:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the TV series 106 & Park Sceptre ^(talk) 03:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but could somebody please elaborate a little on actually what she does. There is no actor category or presenter cat. and the intro is too vague. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 09:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a really weak argument for a keep when you don't know what the person does and why she merits an article. DiverseMentality^{(Discuss it)} 18:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She is co-host of BET's top-rated show. I've added a few cites, including an article in The Times-Picayune which is entirely about Rocsi. Keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge with 106 and Park. Not enough for own page Keep. Plutonium27 (talk) 17:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Constantian Society[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Political group with no assertion of notability, according to the ibiblio reference they publish an "oddball newsletter" "on a very irregular basis". Tagged as needing references for the last 9 months. Was nominated for deletion in September 2006 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constantian Society) and kept, but no keep argument was provided there which considered Wikipedia policy, and I don't believe it meets our current standards. No particular improvement in the article since September 2006. --Stormie (talk) 04:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, per nom ukexpat (talk) 15:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See the references at this Google News archive search --Eastmain (talk) 16:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: One of those requires a subscription, another pointed me to a list of my local libraries, a third was about this article. The remainder don't seem to me to amount to sufficient coverage in reliable sources. – ukexpat (talk) 00:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep that's what I found, a few passing mentions, no more. Certainly couldn't find any "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (WP:NOTE) --Stormie (talk) 01:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:The program segment on National Public Radio's Morning Edition seems to represent significant coverage. Visit this page and click on the word "Sample" just below "CONSTANTIAN SOCIETY" NEWSLETTER ABOUT MONARCHY (552 words) – January 9, 1991, MORNING EDITION", which is probably enough to confirm that the item represents significant coverage, even though you would have to pay to see the full text. On the other hand, perhaps an interview of 552 words doesn't quite count as "significant coverage'.

As for the list of libraries related to another item, remember that if you have a library card from a participating library, you can access the accessmylibrary.com database free of charge. --Eastmain (talk) 02:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Sean Whitton / 12:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep which might make the balance a no-consensus. That the Phila Inq is unusually hard to access doesnt make it less of a RS, though its very frustrating. That and NPR are enough. DGG (talk) 01:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:RS. Admittedly, these guys are spinning their royal wheels in regard to their mission. But the article meets Wikipedia standards on notability. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Four "references" are presented. I attempted to look at all four. The first (Steinfels, NYT) says of this society: Nearby, on the sidewalk outside St. Ann's Church on 12th Street, Juan Arribalzaga was passing out fliers for the Constantian Society, a monarchist group with headquarters in Pittsburgh. And that's all it says. The second and third (Ferrick, Philadelphia Inquirer; NPR) cost money, which I'm not prepared to pay. Can somebody who has paid please describe them? (Yes, there is some talk above that the NPR piece might be significant, but there's no desciption of it other than its length.) The fourth one was recently "retrieved", we're told; but no link is given: googling for it suggests that it's something about Charles Windsor, not about this society. So what's the significant coverage again? -- Hoary (talk) 01:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC) (revised to make more sense 05:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Delete Readers like stuff like this but it fails WP:ORG, no hint of meaningful, independent coverage. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Of the sources I can access, the mention of the society appears to be no more than incidental (basically, the NYT and the UPI article -- I have trouble finding *any* databases that have the Inquirer and NPR that far back that aren't behind a paywall, which, given that I'm using the database accesses of two major universities, is pretty incredible). The NYT article, as Hoary has said, is a one-liner. The UPI article has an offhand mention of the Constantian society in the context of a story about Prince Charles' marriage. I turned up several more offhand references in Lexis, split between obituaries and a short blurb quoting, ironically enough, our last deletion discussion of this article. So, going on my best guess here, given that good sources are apparently lacking, is that a fringe political group advocating monarchy with a grand total of maybe 4-6 offhand press mentions over 4 decades of existence (several of those in obituaries of its members), is probably not a notable organization. Of course, if anybody could get at those Inquirer/NPR sources, we might see differently. RayAYang (talk) 05:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the sort-of hard-to-find background information Wikipedia is good for. From a little Googling around, it seems to be they are often quoted on the topic of monarchies and succession. In Google Books I found something called Radio Reader, a book about broadcast propaganda during WWII. Aparrently there was a debate over a document whose author claimed to be the king of Poland in exile, and the author quoted the Constantian Society that there was "no heir to the Polish throne". I'd also like to add that there may be 1970s press coverage that's not indexed electronically. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Not a really notable institution, and its position is definitely not mainstream in the US. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion but seems to have survived the death of its founder, which suggests somewhat more real than one might think at first. Can anyone provide the substance of the offline sources? - Jmabel | Talk 23:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article userified as requested Gazi moff 18:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Scapecast[edit]

tagged with notability concerns since Oct 2007. Zero verifiable 3rd party references. Rtphokie (talk) 12:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non notable fancruft podcast. better suited for a farscape wiki. most of the hyperlinks are to external sites (such as episodes of the podcast), WP is for articles, not a free promotional/advertising web host. User529 (talk) 22:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It won the Parsec Award for best fan podcast and is linked on the official site. Request to userfy if it's deleted from mainspace. Gotyear (talk) 23:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment are there any other references that would demonstrate notability of this podcast?--Rtphokie (talk) 01:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Parsec Award does not sufficiently establish notability; there are no reliable third-party sources. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keelakanavai[edit]

Unverifiable, unsourced, repeatedly tagged as such. The best I found is Perambalur police, which confirms that a hamlet of this name exists. Google searches for Keelakanavai, Keelakkanavai, Keezhakkanavai or கீழக்கனவாய் provide no other sources whatsoever, and a grand total of less than 15 total hits, including Wikipedia. Different versions of the article provided conflicting information: Elevation 1,316 m, population 855, elevation 6 m, population 500, elevation 143 m, population 400. Huon (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I nominated an article on a small, apparently unpopulated island for deletion some weeks ago. Several people !voted keep on the basis that geographic locations are "inherently notable", although no one, including the admin who closed the AfD, could direct me to where this is stated or implied. Eventually I gave up in frustration. The proposal Wikipedia:Notability (Places and transportation) seems to be based on populated places and is really just restating general notability guidelines (which the aforementioned island did not meet). Can anyone point me at something which outlines "inherently notable" things? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOTE (but see above comment). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Longstanding precedent recognises that populated places (and islands too) are notable, as long as we can verify that they exist. If you don't think that there are sufficient sources for this specific community, perhaps consider merging to Perambalur district? Nyttend (talk) 04:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to lowest level containing administrative division that has an article. The taluk should probably have an article but there doesn't seem to be one so the district article is probably the best place to go at the moment. --Polaron | Talk 13:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Borderline on notability, but the police station website still establishes that it's a real and inhabited place. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Further research indicates that this is actually a subdivision of a village (Velur village in Perambalur taluk). A village is the smallest entity that Census India tabulates data for. --Polaron | Talk 03:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the risk of sounding like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, there are many other villages like this. i.e. Wyatt, Indiana, Westfield, St. Joseph County, Indiana Also, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chadwick Airport. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 23:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, it would be like an article on a section/neighborhood of Wyatt or Westfield. --Polaron | Talk 02:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard McLester[edit]

No discernable notability - the external links are all self-generated and not even about the person in question, but about his band. Stijndon (talk) 23:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Ironho lds 23:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article does not assert notability. Delete the picture too. - Richard Cavell (talk) 00:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability has been confirmed by the Mayor of Poole - there are plenty of references on both the Mayor of Poole`s official blogsite and also the BBC news website. I can't see anything wrong... Greg Tuble 14:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.32.180 (talk)
- Have a look at Wikipedia:Notability (people) for Wikipedia's guideline about biographies. Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 13:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Until Mayor of Poole's blog becomes a reliable source, there's only one name drop by bbc, and that's far from significant coverage. --Amalthea^Talk 12:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are 3 articles on the BBC website, as well as a television news article + how is the Mayor of Poole´s blog NOT an official source? It documents the entire course of the Mayor´s year day by day, and there are several articles relating to Richard McLester. Greg Tuble 15:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.32.180 (talk)
Also had a look at the Notability Guidelines - notability should be if someone has done something of interest; personally I think the piano stunt referrred to (and referenced) is of substantial interest. Not many pictures on google of a piano actually in the sea ... Greg Tuble 15:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- "notability should be if someone has done something of interest" - sadly for this dude, that isn't how we define notability here on Wikipedia -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." That is the official wikipedia policy according to their notability statement. I'm not making this up (or reading YOUR interpretation of this). Go and read the policy for yourself, and if you judge that throwing a piano in the sea in front of a crowd of people is neither interesting or unusual, then you are as boring as the "academics" you purport to be. There are three individual references from the BBC and numerous accounts from the Mayor of Poole. Greg Tuble 23:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.32.180 (talk)
Delete Not notable. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like a genuine guy; interesting (and I'd say notable!) story with the piano - better than a lot of other things that haven't been deleted gerbilgonzo 22:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Welcome to Wikipedia. Please note that this is not a vote, it's a discussion about the notability of Richard McLester. Opinons don't matter as much as policies do, so try to support your opinion by showing that Richard McLester meets any of the inclusion criteria at WP:NOTE or WP:BIO. While the piano dump might have made the newspapers, this is not enough to warrant inclusion in an encyclopaedia. See WP:ONEEVENT for more information. --Amalthea^Talk 21:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a shred of notability as regards WP:BIO. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 23:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:SNOW. It seems reliable sources have been found which establishes notability for the article. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy (talk) 01:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jaane Bhi Do Yaaron (2007 film)[edit]

No evidence that this film has been released or meets future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources can be found to show that filming has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 23:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? IMDb gives a release date of December 28, 2007, though in fairness, their other details of the film seem a bit sketchy. I've looked on google but couldn't find much in the way of decent sources, though this was complicated somewhat by the existance of the earlier film of the same name. PC78 (talk) 23:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep, in case it's not obvious, as the nom's main concern appears to be invalid. PC78 (talk) 00:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. It is a released film per HERE. Nom's concern has been addressed. Schmidt (talk) 01:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - See Radio Sargam article. Though I must add, that this movie hardly did anything at the box office. ChiragPatnaik (talk) 11:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Sean Whitton / 13:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It looks like it has already been released. I can find at least two articles about it or including it on various websites after a Google search:

[5], [6]. Not exactly extensive coverage, but it has been noticed. Black-Velvet 14:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- The first of those links is for the 1983 film, not this one. PC78 (talk) 01:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 06:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Above, sources found. Neuro√Logic 00:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Much of the debate seems, while on topic, to be sidetracked. Wizardman 15:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Intention Craft (single)[edit]

WP:MUSIC Spoilydoily (talk) 13:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To quote WP:MUSIC "Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album."

This song does not meet any of the above —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.154.131 (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- If you feel it's worthy of deletion, fair enough. I thought it'd be interesting, and definetly has "enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". A couple of delete votes and i'll csd nom it myself. Ironho lds 13:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - You are missing the point; "enough material........" means material that meets the constraints of the foregoing paragraph i.e notability. I notice you have done the same with other songs so I will be AfD'ing those as well.Spoilydoily (talk) 06:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you feel a need to, fair enough. As it happens I haven't, but good luck with that one. Ironho lds 07:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Although I bow to your infinitely superior judgement, I find AfD an odd place to start off, zooming straight to these articles. Since you didn't reply on your talk page i'll ask again; what got you interested in doing this in particular? Ironho lds 07:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Articles related to Pure Reason Revolution have been under sustained attack by a vandal using a succession of single purpose accounts for several months, so editors should tread carefully. Bondegezou (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

**Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Spoilydoily (talk) 06:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You put up the AfD. It's kind of assumed you want the page deleted. Ironho lds 12:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Does that mean that you dispute my right to re-assert my opinion given that a third party has elected to relist the AfD? Wouldn't you serve your cause better by arguing a case for retention? Spoilydoily (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. PRR are a notable band. Taking all the material on the article pages for their different singles and putting those in the main article would make it far too long, so retaining separate pages for each single seems appropriate. Alternatively, someone could create a PRR discography article. Bondegezou (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually the merging wouldn't be neccessary; the first two singles fulfill notability requirements easily by having placed on a national chart. Ironholds 13:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - We are discussing a particular single here which was NOT placed in a national chart and does not attain the somewhat tenuous notability of the other 2 singles with which you seem to want to cloud the AfD. Spoilydoily (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I wasn't trying to "cloud" the AfD, I was just replying to Bondegezou's idea about merging the pages. Please don't twist my words. Ironho lds 18:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taryn Terrell (wrestler)[edit]

Non-notable on-screen character in professional wrestling Gavyn Sykes (talk) 03:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 04:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Leaning towards delete~~, but here is some more information I've found about her: a mention on EOnline about her being in Playboy and on The Showbiz Show with David Spade (trivial at best). I also found an interview (but they did one for all the Diva Search contestants that year). Do either of those things establish notability? Probably not. The only thing that makes her (very slightly) worth keeping is that she is the assistant to T. Long on ECW. However, I don't really watch ECW very much, so I have to ask...how big is her role and how much airtime does she get? She's only been on the show for a little over a month (so at most she's been on 5 or 6 episodes)...so, if all she does is stand there and say one sentence, then I'm going to have to vote delete per WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL. If she actually takes part in storylines and has some sort of presence...then I'd vote keep for now (and wait to see if she is still even with the company in a month; we all know how they like to fire/hire Diva Search contestants). Sorry...that was longer than I intended it to be. Nikki311 03:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She says a few lines every episode. She seems to mainly be the resident eye candy, I guess. They're hinting at some sort of storyline with Ricky Ortiz and this point but it's just speculation. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 03:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Sean Whitton / 12:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: AfD template was removed on July 20. I have re-added it. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 15:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She has minor notability, backed with a few references. Axl (talk) 16:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and I've crossed out my opinion from above. She is not notable as of yet (WP:CRYSTAL). The only sources are primary sources, wrestling fan-cruft news sites (failing WP:RS, and a trivial mention at TMZ. Delete for now...wait until she has had a storyline or something worthy of mentioning before she gets an article. Nikki311 16:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to mention that Image:Taryn-terrell.jpg needs to be deleted from the commons. It clearly is a staged publicity photo, not a photo that someone took themselves...which makes it fair use at best. Nikki311 16:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Shes like Amy Zidian Adam Penale (talk) 15:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Brazilian football transfers 2008[edit]

Per WP:NOT, NOT an indiscriminate collection of information Aaronw (talk) 23:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In what way is this an "indiscriminate collection"? --Nricardo (talk) 04:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not indiscriminate. Also, see similar discussions such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Italian football transfers Summer 2008. - Neier (talk) 07:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely strong keep Useful and sourced list on clearly notable subject. Not indiscriminate in any way. Sorry, must oppose this nomination with great force. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 15:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seeing as the list is properly referenced (extremely well, I might add), I see no reason why this article should not exist. – Pee Jay 21:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I thinks it's an interesting article, but not one that I think many people would find interesting. I just don't see the point in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.214.95 (talk • contribs)

Keep - transfers are covered very badly on Wikipedia as it is but this is a shining light of verification! Just because you don't find it very interesting isn't a reason to delete. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 02:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable. Giant Snowman 11:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. I'm not sure I ever voted, so here it is and more justification. Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) states that

If you create a list like the "list of shades of colours of apple sauce", be prepared to explain why you feel this list contributes to the state of human knowledge."

I am having an extremely difficult time understanding how this list can possibly contribute to the "state of human knowledge". Also, WP:Listcruft , while being an essay and not policy states that

In general, a "list of X" should only be created if X itself is a legitimate encyclopedic topic that already has its own article.

That being said, I can find no article on Brazilian Football Transfers , let alone Brazilian Football Transfers in 2008. Just because a list *can* be referenced well does not make it an encyclopedic topic. List of injuries to Brazilian Football Players in 2008 could be referenced well, but that does not make it an encyclopedic topic. Aaronw (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Transfer (football). Transfers in Brazilian football are likely not much different than what is described in this article; but, to list all transfers around the world in a single article doesn't make much sense, when they can easily be divided into leagues such as this article has. Neier (talk) 13:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Southern Mississippi To The Top. Wizardman 15:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To The Top[edit]

This song and its gesture seem quite notable around the university, but...what about outside the university? Mississipi, USA, the World? I see no importance and no encyclopedic context on this article. Btw, if this nomination succeeds, I'll probably nominate most of the articles intoduced by the author of this one. All of them are related to the University of Southern Mississippi and most seem not to assert notability. Victor Lopes (talk) 01:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, could be a couple of sentences in the USM article but that's it. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to The University of Southern Mississippi, fails wp:note. Jезка (talk) 11:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any useful information in a sentence or two to the USM article, then delete this one. Having had a look at another of the articles mentioned by User:Victor Lopes above, I'd agree with his intention to nominate those as well -- perhaps they could be included here. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Sean Whitton / 14:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Southern Mississippi To The Top, although that article might better off merged to the university article. A merge to anythign wouldn't appear to be very appropriate given that the material looks to be original research based on the editor's own observations or general knowledge without any sources -- Whpq (talk) 14:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

XKnight Game[edit]

New puzzle type with no attempt to establish any sort of notability. No reliable sources, just some link to a message board that's presented as possibly the origin of the puzzle. Original version of article was small and seemed to have been created solely to advertise a website to play the game. Google search for "XKnight Game" finds only 7 hits: that website with the game to play (saghaei.net), this Wikipedia article, and a couple of message boards where "Saghei" posted info about it. Pure promotion for a horribly trivial new puzzle type most likely created by the guy who made this article. DreamGuy (talk) 14:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete no verified notability. Mukadderat (talk) 14:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Author's response: In the last revision I tried to make it notable and I'm afraid further attempt may be illogical. Whether the topic is inherently notable I am sure it is. The proof, which I can not include in the article, is that I myself with a totally different background and career (but interested in math) made a lot of effort to write it. I think notability is a very relative term. To whom it is notable and to whom it is not, it depends on the personal attitude and interests.
Regarding the lack of reliable source it is due to the fact that it is indeed new. Although its base (the knight tour problem) is very old, it is a new puzzle (as DreamGuy stated "A new puzzle"). Prior to writing this article I found only two source by searching the web, and they were already initiated by myself (as DreamGuy detected). How can I include a reliable source if it does not exist? Although there are a large body of references regarding knight's tour problem none of them addressed this new puzzle idea. and I hate to make the reference section inflate unnecessarily by including references to knight's tour problem. The question arise is how the readers believe the idea, and how to prevent falsification? I think this needs a critical mind familiar with the topic, to criticize it and possibly disprove it. This may need retaining the article for a longer period than 5 days. None of the comments given by the DreamGuy or Mukadderat discuss the issue or criticize it, and they sufficed to say it is not notable. It may be better first to show some familiarity with the topic then convince the people that it is not notable.
Addressing the original version of the article as small and advertising, is unfair. You should judge the present state of the article. Initial size of the article is not an important issue and it may grow in time by further contribution. The referenced web site has noting to advertise and its reference was deleted in the revision. indeed the mentioned software is free open source, therefore it is not very difficult to deduce that motivation for linking to the address can be academic. Anyhow pure placement of one's web page address does not prove it's advertisement.
I realized that use of XKnight term may be considered an instance of neologism. In the revision I used it only in the reference section to refer to the forum topic. I was unable (or did not know how) to change the title of the page. It may be more appropriate to title it as knight tour game. In this way the google search will brings huge amounts of information to convince it's not a horribly trivial new puzzle. --Simnaser (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After reading your argument, it was your own statement of How can I include a reliable source if it does not exist? that made me decide against keeping this article. I understand your point and I do think this is a valid, well-thought-out puzzle format. As a programmer and a bit of a logic-puzzle-geek myself, I personally think this idea is great, and would love to see more of them. Inclusion in Wikipedia, however, is based on notability guidelines, which are not dependant on personal attitudes and interests. They require that reliable outside sources are used for verification and to show that subjects are of interest. If, for instance, a published newspaper offered these puzzles in the same way they offer crosswords or sudoku, or a significant puzzle/math magazine or website writes an article about it, then it would meet Wikipedia's guidelines. This type of puzzle must be promoted to puzzle fans and the media before it can be considered for Wikipedia. Addionne (talk) 12:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:Notability. Although I like it, I don't think that any game can be inherently notable, and notability for inclusion into this encyclopeadia is not at all a relative term (although the rules aren't always crystal clear). And, as the author said: this is a new game, there hasn't been significant coverage in relieable sources, and unless it does, it has no place here.
The knight tour problem can't provide notbility for this puzzle, by the way. If the puzzle catches on and e.g. it's being used in magazines or newspapers similarily to sudokus or chess puzzles, I can see a section in Knight's tour or Chess puzzle, but it has to go notability first, encyclopaedic article later. --Amalthea^Talk 12:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the author that notability is relative. Chess is more notable than Monopoly (game), which in turn is more notable than Squander, which in turn is more notable than this game. "To whom it is notable and to whom it is not, it depends on the personal attitude and interests." That's true, but for our purposes, we need an indication that it's notable to enough people. So far it hasn't caught on enough to meet that standard. To me, it looks more interesting than Sudoku, but that's irrelevant. Notability doesn't depend on the game's intrinsic merits. JamesMLane t c 19:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kampas Records[edit]

Non-notable record label, home to dozens of non-notable Myspace artists. Fails to establish notabilty and reads like an advert. Lugnuts (talk) 20:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:CORP. Not sure their distribution arm, Firebox Records, passes either. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Sean Whitton / 13:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Proof (rapper). Wizardman 15:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5 Elementz[edit]

Hip hop group which fails WP:BAND and lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. JBsupreme (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~A7 No assertation of notability. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 20:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]
Strong delete I disagree with Townlake, but I'm changing my !vote just because the A7 was removed. No real assertation of notability per WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 21:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not Eligible for Speedy The group's connection with Proof (a well known tragic figure in hip hop) is an assertion of notability, weak though it may be. Townlake (talk) 21:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~...and Keep~~ Ha, yes - with respect, me and Hammer do disagree. Proof was an early core member of this group, and was later a member of well-known group D12. When Proof died, the guys from 5 Elementz spoke at the funeral (which seems to have generated most of the reliable-source press the band generated; see here). Per WP:BAND - "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable." This qualifies. Townlake (talk) 22:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the otherwise notable member is the only thing that makes them meet WP:MUSIC, then a redirect or deletion would be better. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 23:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see. I added an interview source just now, which I know isn't the world's strongest, but a UK source taking note of the group was a bit surprising to me. Will add one or two of the other sources later today or tomorrow, along with a hook into J Dilla's production credit. This AfD appears headed toward a needed re-list anyway, so I'm in no rush. Townlake (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

let it stay, jdilla R.I.P. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.47.106 (talk) 05:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect to Proof (rapper), as almost the entirety of the band's exposure has been on the basis of that connection. I'm of the mind that either keep or redirect would be appropriate here, and in the interest of consensus I don't see a redir as an inferior choice. Townlake (talk) 22:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Due to the sheer size of this debate I was a little worried in closing it, but the deletes have both the numbers and the better arguments, ergo consensus. Wizardman 19:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nenad Stanković[edit]

A footballer who plays in the top division of the Faroe Islands league, which is clearly not fully professional, and therefore he fails WP:ATHLETE. Was prodded, but removed by the article's creator with the rationale "delete irrelevant". пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hmm. Seems like it should be deleted. But yet... --Meldshal [discuss] {contribs} 22:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't seem to have played at a notable level in his entire career. – Pee Jay 23:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete playing in the Faroese top flight is not a proof of notability. --Angelo (talk) 00:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. – LATICS talk 04:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I migy'sht argue that the top flight of Ireland or Lithuania might well be notable, even if only mostly professional. But even the inclusionist I am thinks that this is going a bit far. Nfitz (talk) 04:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know I wonder what Rangers think of Kaunas now that they got bundled out by what most think as part-timers... Also my favourites Dynamo Kyiv had a handful from Drogheda United and should of also been eliminated!!!!

Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 11:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Don't you guys have anything better to do? NSI constantly participates in Champions League, Stankovic was voted the best player in the league. This is just ridiculous The Faroe islands league is a semi-professional league, with players getting a small salary. --Shustfan (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- At least get your facts right before accusing people of being ridiculous. NSI have won one title in their entire history. This means they have played in the Champions League once. For all of two matches (obviously they lost in the first qualifying round). Plus the fact that the league is semi-professional is totally irrelevant. WP:ATHLETE states "fully professional league". The 10th level (and even some 11th level clubs) in England is semi-pro - are players at that level notable? пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 16:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd think that if the players are truely notable, even playing for a team like this, then they would be getting media coverage. However I couldn't see any for this player. But if there is media coverage, then they can always achieve notability under WP:N. Nfitz (talk)
  - The league does get some media coverage at Faroe Islands soccer news, results and information, also NSI won their last champions league game against Dinamo Tbilisi [7].--Shustfan (talk) 19:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - And yet I can't find a single media reference to him - [8]. Is something wrong with my search parameters? Nfitz (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The fact that they won the second leg of the match is totally irrelevant - they lost the first leg 3-0 and therefore are out of the competition. How is this contributing to his notability? пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Dinamo Tbilisi is a powerful Georgian club winning many trophies, and for NSI to beat them makes the club definetaly notable. Plus, Stankovic is the leading figure in the club.--Shustfan (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Which all sounds great - but why then are there no media references? Unless there are some hidden somewhere, I think you'll have better success arguing his past history in Serbia. Nfitz (talk) 23:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nenad Stanković is definitely an important figure in Faroese football, as he was the named the Best Player of the previous season. However, he has not only played in the Formuladeildin. He played football in Yugoslavian clubs (later Serbia and Montenegro) and only came to the Faroe Islands a few years ago. [9] NSI participates in UEFA Cup and Champions League, and definitely gets a lot of media coverage. A vital player for the team should have an article because he is notable. --Boguslav (talk) 20:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He played in the regional second division in Serbia, which I very much doubt is a fully professional league; even when it was consolidated into a single division the year after he left for the Faroes, the average attendance was 700, with 10 of the 20 clubs having sub-500 crowds. When there were 40 clubs in the regional divisions, I suspect the average was much lower, and therefore unable to support fully professional clubs. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm removing my delete pending further information about his playing history in Serbia. Nfitz (talk) 21:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For one, I don't think it's fair to compare sizes of Premier Leagues, based solely on hard numbers. If you'd base them on percentages, which probably is the most fair way to do it, it should be done like this. Second, I thought the Wikipedia strived for thoroughness, so a player playing in a country's Premier League, should be on the Wiki. Mulder1982 (talk) 02:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but that's just ridiculous. What next; players from the Andorran Premier League, or the American Samoa Premier League. He clearly fails WP:ATHLETE, which was developed for a reason. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To hell with the guidelines. WP:IAR. I think Mulder1982 is correct. Nfitz (talk) 06:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So, let's open up the doors to all the Sanmarinese, Andorran and Liechtenstein player around. No matter they play football in their spare time with no hope or chance whatsoever to break into professional football. They're part of a top flight team, even if from a country with a population of 20,000, so who cares? Obviously I do not support this view of the things, so here I am to openly challenge it. --Angelo (talk) 08:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hey, if the player is or was notbale, they obviously deserve and NEED an article. If, for example, a winner of the Ballon d'Or moved to the Faroese league before retirement, would that automatically make him not notable? Just because the footballer now plays in a semi-professional league he should be deleted? Come one guys, be reasonable. The league that someone currently plays in is not the only way to determine notability. --Boguslav M 17:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - What if this Faroese player did not actually win the Ballon d'Or? What if he just worked out as a carpenter in his whole life, playing football only in his spare time just for fun? I know for good Faroese footballers have a part-time job in real life, even national team players, and I can provide you a lot of sources confirming what I'm saying. Your example just makes no sense to me. --Angelo (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Also, but that player would be notable because he's played in a fully professional league in the past. This guy has not done that. Ergo he fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 18:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ATHLETE BanRay 09:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems there is profound discrimination against players from nations are the bottom of the FIFA rankings. If a player is celebrated in The Faroes, Andorra, American Samoa, or The Heard Islands - Give the player that recogition. If you're not interested in adding details about such an Athlete, there seems to be many out that do. So go find the Athletes that you want write about and stop wasting valuable time! Brudder Andrusha (talk) 13:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not "discrimination"; it's fact. Players in the top division of a country of less than 50,000 people are not notable. Can anyone voting !keep here actually cite a policy or guideline other that WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IAR? пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well there is WP:BIAS and WP:National bias. Though not policy, there are efforts being made to avoid the traditional Anglo-American biases. Nfitz (talk) 21:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Players of those nationalities are not discriminated against. If he moved to a professional foreign club then he would be valid for inclusion immediately. By the same extent there are no articles about the top English pelota players or Chadian polo players. That's because, while the best in their country, they are minor players in light of the sport as a whole. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 15:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The fact is that he started out in a fully professional league and is now in a semi-professional league. He now plays in an important Faroese club. He is clearly notable! --Boguslav M 17:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - When did he play in a fully professional league? пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, he is playing in the highest level league that its possible in the location he is at. Also as a foreigner there what is he doing there for a living? If it wasn't for his football activities I guess his profession would be "professional bludger" trying to make a living. As far as I'm concerned he is very professional. Would a hooker who screws around for $10 and does it once a month be any different from the high classed one who has an internet site and serves the govenor? Both are quite professional! Maybe in different leagues but very, very professional. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 02:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        That's a truly mind-bogglingly daft argument, I have to say. Are you arguing that any sportsperson who receives even a tiny stipend for playing is in your eyes a professional? Like, for example, players in the Combined Counties Football League who get about GB£30 a game? Clearly a "professional" in the sporting context refers to someone who earns enough from their sporting activities not to have to also have a 9 to 5 job. As for what this guy might do for a living, well he presumably does do something, and the fact that we don't know what it is is irrelevant to this debate. And as for the argument that "he is playing in the highest level league that its possible in the location he is at", well I knew a guy who played in the highest level baseball league in England, he got no payment whatsoever and the matches were played in a public park - would you say he should get an article for having played "in the highest level league that its possible in the location he is at".......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Obviously you don't have any wikipedian following the sport (baseball in Pommyland) who would give the player some sort of mention here. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 11:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Delete Lack of notability. I'm afraid I'm unconvinced, even if he really is the country's top player he plays at the semi-professional level which is not enough, especially as he doesn't pass general notability rules. At 50'000 people, the Faroe Islands are no bigger than a smallish town. Therefore it makes sense that the league is not of a high quality and thus not professional. An equivalent would be trying to create articles for players who play in Rugby town's league. Except that more people live in Rugby... Sillyfolkboy (talk) 04:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hmmm... And I'm unconvinced that just because Faroes have 50,000 people living there and England has nearly 50,000,000 that you would dimish the need not to reference. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 11:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sorry, but the guy plays in a semi-pro league which draws a few hundred fans per game, so it would be no different to creating articles on players who play for Margate F.C. The fact that it is the top league in a country with a population which could fit comfortably into Anfield is irrelevant. Note that I might have !voted to keep if the subject passed WP:BIO but there appear to be no sources available to satisfy that -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the player is well-known on Faroe Islands , he got some titles with NSI Runavik and I think he deserves to have a place on wikipedia Bartekos (talk) 10:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Then he should be appearing in Faroe newspaper articles (do they have newspapers there?). If you could pull out a few, that might help. Nfitz (talk) 19:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The salient argument here is the one about the English baseball league. We do not consider every nation to be equal when it comes to sport, because in some countries more sports are popular. There are lots of articles on players from Glasgow Rangers; rather less many from Glasgow Rangers. We don't scale down notability requirements based on the population of countries, just as we don't insist that the only American athletes we include are the top 10% earnings-wise because there are so many of them. The best football team in the Faroes is still... a football team in the Faroes. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The editor above says "to hell with guidelines". I have to disagree, but maybe I would say that, heh. This player does not meet the current benchmarks for notability, and if he is not professional, then surely that means he cannot met them until he is professional? doktorb _words^deeds 18:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having not played in a professionl league or competition. Fails WP:BIO. --Jimbo^[online] 19:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Um... yes he has. Serbian league, Serbian cup, Faroe Islands Premier League, Faroe islands cup, UEFA Champions League, UEFA Cup. --Boguslav M 23:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're absolutely having a laugh if you're claiming the Faroese League and Cup are fully professional. Even User:Shustfan, this article's creator, states further up this debate that it is not. No sources have been found to prove that he played at a professional level in Serbia. And playing for a semi-pro team in the qualifying rounds of a European competition (if it can even be confirmed he did) doesn't confer notability any more than playing for West Allotment Celtic in the qualifying rounds of the FA Cup does....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, he DID play in Champions league matches recently, and was a starter in a win [10] for his club and a loss [11]. I'm pretty sure that playing in Champions League matches, among many other things, and winning makes a footballer notable. --Boguslav M 18:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He's close with the Faroe Islands player of the year [12] (not sure if that's a 100% RS), but I don't think there's enough here to invoke use of WP:IAR. If people could provide some newspaper articles or verify Bogulav's claim that he played in the Champions League (my research is showing he didn't), I'd be open to changing my vote. As is, I can't find enough reliable sources on the guy to merit an article. Vickser (talk) 06:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:HEY. Bearian (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of basic mining topics[edit]

Contested prod. This is an unnecessary fork of Mining. The author states that it conforms to the standard format of Lists of basic topics, but the aim there is to create articles that are outlines of their respective subject areas and "are intended to help the beginner become familiar with each subject". That's a good idea but shouldn't become a shibboleth. Compare this particular article with for example List of basic classical studies topics - that will "help the beginner become familiar with each subject" but this article adds nothing that's not already in Mining. It should be deleted and redirected. andy (talk) 22:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redundant fork. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —andy (talk) 12:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - First of all, the author didn't state that "it conforms to the standard format of Lists of basic topics", I did. I've created or developed most of the lists in that set, and when Andy found a problem with this page, the author came to me to see what was wrong with it. When I looked, I didn't find anything wrong with the page - for a page that was 2 days old, it seemed perfectly fine along its development to me. Andy prodded the page for deletion one day after its creation, apparently conveying the sentiment that list stubs shouldn't be allowed. He also posed above the well-developed List of basic classical studies topics as an example of what this list should be but is not, as if there can be no steps in between - only a completed draft will satisfy Andy (the example list took many hours of development to complete). Andy's type of "all or nothing reasoning" runs counter to the nature of the wiki as a collaboritve medium - if only completed drafts may be posted, then there is no opportunity for collaboration in the development of drafts up to that point. That's a very bad approach. Andy also stated that the list is redundant with the main article. That's the typical starting phase for lists of this type, and while they are redundant in scope, their purpose is differentiated by the format of the page - these are outlines, a sort of cheat sheet, which allows browsing of the relevant topics without reading a lot of prose to get to the links. Redundancy is irrelevant, though these lists tend to grow beyond the scope of the main article in the course of their normal development. Please allow this one to do so. The List of basic mining topics is a very good start. Rather than punish User:Erikzann for creating a list that was requested at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists of basic topics, please keep his work so that others can build upon it. Thank you. Sincerely, The Transhumanist 19:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see how it is redundant, as Mining is a full-fledged article rather than a navigational list, and is very limited in terms of link lists (nor can it accommodate a lot of those). Narayanese (talk) 19:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: why does deleting a pointless article "punish" the author? Nobody owns WP articles. But anyway, despite this afd there has been no attempt to improve the article. I see from Transhumanist's comments on the article's talk page that "over 200 more [similar lists] are under construction... but there are only a few of us working on these." That sounds to me like an overblown project that isn't yielding consistent results. andy (talk) 23:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right there. You belittled his work by calling it "pointless". Don't you care about others' feelings? Yes, that kind of treatment is punishment. He was only trying to help Wikipedia, and you come right along and bash him for it. I take great offense at your approach. Deletions, and deletion nominations, are pretty harsh feedback. A much better approach would be to jump onto the page and collaborate with the author to complete it, or discuss with him on the talk page how the page should be improved. Instead, you nominate the page, which is obviously under development, for deletion on its second day of existence! Ignoring the facts that this is a work in progress and a building block -- if you throw out his work, it will have to be started over from scratch (and will include exactly the same links, which will then be added to). The Transhumanist 20:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And the page is not pointless. It's a topic outline/navigational list, distilling the subject down to its bare links. It is very useful, especially considering it is part of one of Wikipedia's navigation systems, the pages of which together serve as a topic outline of human knowledge. (See Lists of basic topics). And this portion of that master outline will grow to become even more useful. Also, you've failed to address the issue of collaboration - if you delete this page, then nobody can come along and improve it, and you will have wasted the effort of the author of the page, in addition to wasting everybody's time by forcing a deletion discussion. And if the deletion goes through, which hopefully it will not, you will have created a hole in the outline we are creating. The Transhumanist 20:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The other pages of this type that are under development that I mentioned above are in the Wikipedia namespace in draft form. So there's no hurry on those, but by using AWB and other advanced tools, most of the pages are coming along at a fair pace. The team's results are highly consistent (we're currently focused on the geography-related lists in the set which are shaping up nicely), but you can't say that about the work of all Wikipedians, to which all pages on Wikipedia are potentially subject to. :) The Transhumanist 20:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've mistakenly applied redundancy as a reason for deletion. That reason doesn't apply to Wikpedia's navigation systems (see WP:CLN, of which this page is a part. The navigation system has the same scope as Wikipedia's articles, as a whole, and in this respect is entirely redundant. Does that mean we should get rid of the navigation system? :) The Transhumanist 20:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Status report - the page has been greatly expanded and the reasons posted in the nomination no longer apply (though they weren't valid in the first place). The Transhumanist 20:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's get a consensus. andy (talk) 23:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hey, so I'm the person who started the list of basic mining topics. I'm new to Wikipedia, long time reader first time writer, etc. For a large part I don't know what I'm doing, in fact I don't even know if I can vote, but if I can I'm voting for keeping this list since as the Transhumanist have said the list is now greatly improved, containing many things that aren't in the original mining article; specific mining equipment, mining equipment inventors, etc. and I'll be further working on it as well. Erikzann (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The list does what it sets out to do: it provides a good overview of terms to a reader getting familiar with the subject. It also provides information not (readily) available in the mining article. —C.Fred (talk) 22:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 14:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Division III (film)[edit]

Disputed prod, tag removed without improvement. Films not yet in production don't meet WP:NFF. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Contested PROD, and provides next to no information about the alleged film (there isn't even a plot yet), so it can't meet WP:N. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 23:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 01:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Officially confused. Apparently this is the second film called Division III by the same director [13], [14]. Delete, as the newer film explicity fails WP:NFF, but the earlier film appears to be sufficiently notable. PC78 (talk) 01:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as THIS film's article fails Wikipedia:NFF. Had the article been about the 2006 vesion... Schmidt (talk) 02:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 noted, no prejudice exists against creation of this article when the event is imminent, such as when candidates have actually filed paperwork to become candidates. Speaking for myself, I would recommend seeking counsel from Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics, as they deal with upcoming elections all the time. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

San Francisco mayoral election, 2011[edit]

An IP removed the proposed deletion tag I added, so I'm taking this to AfD. This seems to be a clear case of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and standard procedure is against articles such as this one. Enigma ^message 22:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and recreate later. I believe that the standard is that articles about the next upcoming election are OK, but this one has only speculation. Once there are actually declared candidates or issues involved it can be recreated. Jim Miller (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Aside from the fact the election will happen, this article is unsourced speculation. Until somebody does a concrete act for this election, there's not enough WP:verifiable information to establish notability. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I actually took the liberty of actually editing this and adding a source instead of you guys bickering and bitching about this article getting deleted. You can help edit it instead of arguing like and old republican senator. Thats the point of Wikipedia, not to delete articles, to create, edit and make articles better. And you guys who are just showing opinion, why don't you act and help instead of hiding in the corner scared like a dog in between it's tail. I'm sick and tired of you guys who have the word DELETE ringing in your head for every article that doesn't even have one source when you can actually have the balls to Google the topic, source it and put in on the article. Again Wikipedia is a place to create and edit information, not to delete information because of some stupid reason that can be fixed easily but none of you guys have the balls to do it. Ok my rant is over but you should seriously think about it though. Basically everything on this article is basic knowlegde and you can find it on other article on Wikipedia relating to Mayor of San Francisco. The only thing that I see that needs a source which none of you had the balls to do was the potential candidates. At least have the balls to act and speak unlike you losers.--Gndawydiak (talk) 17:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this scheduled future event without prejudice. Cliff smith ^talk 19:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and this event is a significant amount of time away. Recreate with more information when it is available - closer to the date. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 06:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as already done, without predjudice. An encyclopedic artricle might be possible on the subject, so if someone decides to write a verified, referenced article on the subject, we shouldn't hold that back. The best thing we can do for our readers right now, is point them to the cat. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Music of Eastern Europe[edit]

Giving this the courtesy of an AfD given that it's been up for four years - but this is wretchedly bad, says nothing that isn't said better on the articles on individual countries, is highly dubious in its definition of "Eastern Europe", and nobody has shown any sign of cleaning it up in the year since someone raised concerns on the talkpage. (Note to closing admin; this article is currently the subject of a discussion at WR, so this AfD may be visited by some of our more colourful characters.) – iride scent 22:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not only that, it's an unencyclopedic geographical ramble that doesn't even stick to the topic. It's nothing more than an introduction to a navigation template. Beemer69 ^chitchat 22:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was redirected to Category:Eastern European music by Scepter 22:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC). --Amalthea^Talk 12:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Auramatics[edit]

A wholly unreferenced article on a nn band. Fails WP:MUSIC. VanLit (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 14:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laroussan[edit]

No references or sources, Author is the inventor so WP:COI, Absolutely NO related google hits or google news hits. Not notable. -- Darth Mike _(Talk _{• Contribs)} 21:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No refs, no sources and I certainly can't find anything. Looks like a bit of WP:OR to me. Ironho lds 21:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. And it was "invented" this year; obvious vanity. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Google searches on Laroussan and Kyle P. Schaffer turn up nothing. Reyk _YO! 22:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Complete list of potential sources here. Also, WP:OR. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, no consensus to delete. Any merge proposals are an editorial matter. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 23:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Fitna[edit]

With no sources, I question the notability of this. Otterathome (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to merge per few sources found.--Otterathome (talk) 02:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — No sources to prove that is enough notable. doña macy [talk] 21:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 01:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of recent news coverage. PC78 (talk) 01:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notability established per [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], and many others. I have added these EL's to article. Schmidt (talk) 02:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with International reaction to Fitna per sources but half are unreliable.--Otterathome (talk) 02:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to really distinguish it from other anti-Fitna films. It might be worth mentioning in the International reaction to Fitna article, but again, the content is very similar to all the other films. StaticGull Talk 12:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 19:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stevie Hughes[edit]

NN gangster. He was a mobster, he might have been a member of this gang, he's the father of this guy, he was killed... Article shows nothing in the way of notability. Adolphus79 (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Google doesn't yield much, and the aricle doesn't assert a whole lot of notability. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 22:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My google doesn't turn up anything reliable either, but this is not the kind of article where we should rely on online sources.
As it is though, the article contains a lot of "is reputed" information, so I am leaning towards a redirect to The Hughes Brothers. --Amalthea^Talk 12:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the redirect... The The Hughes Brothers article is even shorter than this one, and is unsourced. Not sure it would survive an AfD as it sits right now either. - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Tovian (talk) 15:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Okiefromokla ^questions? 02:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy flush[edit]

Contested prod. Urban dictionary entry with no stated notability except for two trivial mentions in popular media. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki It's a reasonable enough term that I wouldn't call it a neologism any longer, but it belongs there as a dictdef. Jclemens (talk) 21:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article is apparently too much for some users to handle. However, I see nothing at all "inappropriate" anywhere in the content; the most offensive word is "defecation", which happens to already be in the Wiki. Also, how can this be irrelevant because it is a phrase, when there are Wiki entries for "BYOB", "BBW (much more inappropriate than this article - it is primarily used in 'sex-wanted' ads online)" and others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.90.232.82 (talk) 15:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's slightly more than a dictionary definition. It's a novel concept that cannot be expressed with any other word or combination of words. - Richard Cavell (talk) 00:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An unnecessary article that's childish, but also original research. The "how to" section was an added bonus, perhaps the result of carrying a laptop everywhere. I can't see that this would be a worthwhile topic in any event. Mandsford (talk) 02:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again. You could try a transwiki but I don't think this would meet even their standards for sourcing of usage. The current version is nothing more than a dictionary definition of a neologism (both inappropriate for the encyclopedia). One of the alleged sources cited in this article isn't even about this subject - it's about a not-particularly notable product. Rossami (talk)
Delete the second source asserts that "Courtesy Flush" is a product. The first source is not a reliable one, given anyone can edit it (yeah, I know...), there seems to be no indication that this is a notable subject, or widely used, never mind having gained significant coverage in independent... etc. So fails WP:N, also fails WP:V... definite delete, unless you can prove notability and... actual useage. - Toon⁰⁵ 21:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 13:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Rock[edit]

Fails WP:NM, non-notable person with no coverage DiverseMentality^{(Discuss it)} 20:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hasn't released his album yet, fails WP:MUSIC. JohnCD (talk) 21:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Come back when you release something. MrMarkTaylor ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 06:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 14:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jun (guitar)[edit]

Unsourced dictdef. Neologism? Corvus cornix_talk 20:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources and I can't find any; fails WP:NEO#Articles on neologisms. JohnCD (talk) 21:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not quite WP:MADEUP [25] [26], but still a non notable WP:NEO. --Amalthea^Talk 12:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 14:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greenometrics[edit]

A disputed prod. No references or sources to demonstrate widespread -- or any -- usage of this protologism; apparently original research; Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources and I can't find any; fails WP:NEO#Articles on neologisms. JohnCD (talk) 21:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I should have noted that I did a brief source for references and couldn't find anything applicable. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no references. Likely non-exsistent or coined by its author. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 23:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fraggle Rock#Feature film. Wizardman 15:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fraggle Rock: The Movie[edit]

This is a planned film whose inception was announced in May 2008, according to Variety. It has not begun filming yet, so per the notability guidelines for future films, the article does not yet warrant existence. The director, according to his blog, is only scripting so far. No prejudice against recreation if filming does begin on this project. Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per evidence supplied by nom. A previous version of this article was prodded just over a year ago, so presumably the project has been in development hell for some time. PC78 (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles.". JohnCD (talk) 21:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fraggle Rock. It belongs there. Schmidt (talk) 02:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge redirect to Fraggle Rock, until its got sourcing to establish notability as per WP:NFF. Gnan garra 04:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to merge, though... a section already exists at Fraggle Rock#Feature film, also having the Variety citation. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about a redirect? Schmidt (talk) 06:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fraggle Rock#Feature film until this can pass WP:NFF, per Schmidt and Erik. Cliff smith ^talk 16:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fraggle Rock#Feature film, can't see that there is anything to merge that isn't already covered there. RMHED (talk) 23:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 13:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mortgagentsia[edit]

Non notable protologism (WP:NEO). Prod declined. Amalthea (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. If it catches on then start the article again. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is much too new to tell whether it is going to take off. See WP:NEO#Articles on neologisms. JohnCD (talk) 21:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Protologism. Asenine 22:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete - we certainly do not need articles on every neologism someone in the media coins, and I see no reason we need this one. Aleta ^Sing 17:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vasconic languages[edit]

The article is a rather obvious violation of WP:fringe. While some language gropus are universally accepted (Romance languages and others are controversial (Altaic languages), the so called Vasconic languages are not even controversial - they are universally rejected as the brain child of Theo Vennemann. Unlike the case of Altaic languages in which a minority of linguists defend their existence, no linguist not immediately connected to Vennemann has defended the idea of Vasconic languages, quite the opposite. The only publications on the issue are by Vennemann and published in non-notable journals. If anyone thinks that the idea merits mentioning, it could be included as a paragrapgh under the article on Vennemann, but as the idea is merely unproven and universally rejected invention of Vennemann, I fail to see how it merits an article on its own. Wikipedia should include information on both accepted and controversial theories, but not necessarily on any far-fetched phantasy, as per WP:fringe JdeJ (talk) 19:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because the same reason applies; the Atlantic languages are also a personal invention by Theo Vennemann without any acceptance whatsoever. In this case, the article not only violates WP:fringe but also creates unnecessary confusion as there is a hypothetical language group by the same name, Atlantic languages. Although not universally accepted by linguists, there are at least scientific arguments for and against the latter group, unlike Vennemann's ignored personal ideas.[reply]

I agree but I think this is the wrong way to go about it. The right one is to merge the article with Theo Vennemans, and add a redirect. There is already a proposed merger so this should be discussed as a merger and not an AfD. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, maybe merge and redirect. It appears that the idea is universally rejected, but that does not mean it is not notable. In fact, there is no lack of sources about this concept, however they all point to the author Theo Vennemann. From WP:FRINGE: Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is of course a very valid point. However, the general practice on Wikipedia, from what I've seen, seems to be to mention similar fringe theories in the articles dealing with their creators. To take but one similar example, the ideas of Erich von Däniken are not given separate articles presenting them as if they were facts, even if they are much more notable and the name of von Däniken is much more known. As Vennemann is a small von Däniken of linguistics, I would recommend a similar procedure - especially given the current disambiguation between the actual hypothetic language family of Atlantic languages and Vennemann's invention by the same name. JdeJ (talk) 21:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article seems properly sourced and it is not portraying a fringe theory as fact - it's specifically called hypothetical at the beginning of the article and the the criticisms of the theory by the majority of linguists are clearly stated. Edward321 (talk) 00:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as notable, sourced, and well-written. Does not meet any deletion criteria. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. DS (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extranym[edit]

Appears to be a made-up word - no relevant Ghits (this article and an unrelated blog entry), no entry in dictionary.com, probably hoax or something the creator just made up. ukexpat (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 19:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems to be made up. The only source cited talks about the root "extra", not the newly made up word. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as made up. Someone else created the same word but gave it a different definition [27]. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 20:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no source (the one given doesn't mention it). I think "a philosophical thought exercise by noted philosopher PJ Hyett" translates as something made up one day. There seem to be a lot of neologisms at AfD tonight - for the fourth time, I type... fails WP:NEO#Articles on neologisms. JohnCD (talk) 21:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was G11 by DGG, non-admin closure. No prejudice against a rewrite, as Eastmain is usually good at salvaging articles. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 00:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lifestyle Communities[edit]

Appears to be spam IndulgentReader (talk) 19:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per G11 and A7. This is blatant spam. Plvekamp (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:CSD#G11, so tagged. JohnCD (talk) 21:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite. See http://www.globest.com/news/1118_1118/columbus/169238-1.html for a reference. --Eastmain (talk) 22:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC) Another reference is http://www.columbusalive.com/?sec=search&story=columbusalive/2008/0320/u-city.html --Eastmain (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 19:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Neutron's Atomic Collider[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jimmy Neutron's Atomic Collider

Non-notable ride. No reliable sources found. Twinkle crapped out on me. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 19:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unsourced, non-notable ride. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 19:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is an actual ride, says Nickelodean smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 19:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no doubt it's a real ride, it's just not notable enough to merit inclusion. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 19:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Treetop Tumbler smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evicence of notability, and no sources. doña macy [talk] 21:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Smooth. Doesn't have enought notability to stand on its own, but it can at least have a paragraph or two in the main article. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 23:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

PrivateFly[edit]

The result was G11 by Orangemike , non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 19:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A booking service for private jet hire. Questionable notability and, assumig the image tags are correct, the author has a strong COI. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete possible speedy Notice that all the photos and edits other than tags are done by the same author, hmmmmmmm --Numyht (talk) 19:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G11 Seems pretty blatant advertisement to me. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 19:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The last debate closed on July 18 as a default keep. This is way too soon to be relisting. Take it to DRV or the talk page if you think the last closure was invalid. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 19:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Schlafly[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article was originally deleted and redirected to conservapedia after an unanimous afd that pointed out its lack of verifiability and notability. The article was resurrected and failed a speedy delete because it was not the exact same article. However the AFD that followed resulted in no consensus. I am bringing it back up because I feel that the arguments made to keep the article are invalid and all of the substantial problems that lead to an unanimous delete and redirect are still present.

The basic rational for deleting is that the subject does not have enough reliable sources to create a neutral, and verifiable article that fits the basic standard outlined in biographies of living persons. The sources used in the article are either trivial, include only trivial mention of the subject, or are related to conservapedia.

Andrew Schlafly does not inherit notability from Conservapedia, or from his mother. His article must stand or fall based on sources available for him. I would like to call particular attention to an analysis of sources given by User:David Eppstein in the last AFD to quote him:

"I'm surprised — I thought his name was reasonably well known — but I have to agree with Edison that there is still no reliable sourcing listed, even after the AfD has run this long, and that therefore he fails WP:BIO. To break the footnotes in the current version down in more detail: #1 gives a little biographical detail but seems self-published and unreliable (a biz website associated with Schlafly). #2 mentions him only trivially. #3 is unreliable (a tripod website) and mentions him only trivially. #4 and #5 provide opposite sides of the same story but neither is reliable and both mention him only as one of several participants in the abortion-breast cancer faux controversy rather than providing any biographic detail. #6 is Schlafly himself expressing an opinion. #7 is a bio of his mother, and notability is not inherited. #8 is a paper published by him. #9 is a bio on the web site of an organization founded by his mother. #10 is a marriage bann, certainly not evidence of notability. #11 and #12 source only the fact that he ran a losing political campaign, and WP:POLITICIAN makes clear that that does not suffice for notability. #13 is his mother's organization again. #14 is not so much about him as about Conservapedia (which I agree is notable, much as I may not like that fact). #15 is about a scientific discovery that is per se unrelated to the subject, #16 is his own web site about the discovery, and #17–19 are blog posts about his stupid reaction to the discovery. If that's the best we can come up with, I don't think it's good enough."

All of the issues of verifiability and notability are still present, there has been no substantial movement towards addressing any of the issues, expanding the article or dealing with neutrality issues. My recommendation is that this be deleted and setup as a redirect to conservapedia. Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep surely. Whatever us terrible liberals at Wikipedia may think, Conservapedia exists and is notable. I think that he does acquire notability from the act of founding Conservapedia. From whence does Jimmy Wales get his notability - do we question his bio here? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability is not inherited this is an invalid argument, Conservapedia is notable, no one is denying that but he does not gain notability for an article because he founded it. Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep way way too soon Sceptre ^(talk) 19:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. It's a very detailed article, but alas the consensus is obvious. Wizardman 15:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DynaWave Scrubber[edit]

plus some redirects

A specific product air pollution limitation device. Clearly written by someone with a COI and looks like spam. Does it say anything which cannot be added to wet scrubber. (This is not a merge discussion because the title would not be appropriate for a redirect.) — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Very detailed, but spam nonetheless. TN‑X-Man 19:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam article, possible G11. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 19:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete its well written advertising broucher complete with company provided images even with this much detail its a potential WP:CSD#G11 blatant advertising candidate. If it not fromt he company then its probable a WP:CSD#G12 copyright violation of the companies broucher anyway. 04:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom Off! (talk) 13:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators: please make note of sections that need alteration to meet approval. Also feel free to note areas that do not need correction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnassau (talk • contribs) 20:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Was there a section(s) that looked good and informative? Was there a section(s) that you did not like? Where do "voice" modifications need to be made? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnassau (talk • contribs) 20:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updates have been made to the page. The goal is to have an even, neutrally toned encyclopedic article. Company information has been adjusted or removed from certain sections. The features and benefits section has been removed. Various changes have been made throughout. Please make comments so progress can be made towards removing this page from AfD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnassau (talk • contribs) 20:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Only one argument was really given on the page besides just notable/non-notable. Wizardman 15:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jang Il-soon[edit]

Non-notable person. Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:BIO Dalejenkins | 18:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. How is he non-notable? How does the article fail WP:BIO? You should be able to substantiate these claims, not just making short generic statements. PC78 (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 20:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How could the nominator assert that this article fails WP:NOTABILITY with what grounds? He is not only famous for the mentor of a well-known South Korea poet Kim Chi-Ha, but also for his activities on social and environment issues. KO:장일순, you can take a glimpse of his warranted notability in South Korea. --Caspian blue (talk) 19:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable person. Tovian (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 19:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lester Levenson[edit]

This biography is all original or unsourced research and is mostly an advertisement. Not notable to boot. Guyonthesubway (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established; Gnews search got mostly press releases and advertising for his products. RayAYang (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to 2007–2008 Writers Guild of America strike. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the 2007–2008 Writers Guild of America strike[edit]

Delete - Isn't most of his infomation here anyway? Dalejenkins | 18:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 2007–2008 Writers Guild of America strike. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - per above. Duplicates info already found elsewhere. TN‑X-Man 19:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above.--Dmol (talk) 19:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant info into the main article. 23skidoo (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Unnecessary page. Can easily be transfer to the parent article. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Most (but not all! editors should be careful during any merge!) of the information on this page is in the main article. - Tim1965 (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. No way should this be deleted, but if it's redundant, merge. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 22:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - per everyone else --T-rex 04:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to 2007–2008 Writers Guild of America strike. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction by actors to the 2007-08 Writers Guild of America strike[edit]

Delete per WP:LIST. Dalejenkins | 18:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 2007–2008 Writers Guild of America strike. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the main strike article.I don't see it as a WP:LIST issue, but there's no need to have spin-offs of this nature. 23skidoo (talk) 19:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into aformentioned page according to Doc Strange. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 23:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant information into the main article. Delete the indiscriminate list. That list could go on and on if we every got everyone's name that was involved. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Indiscriminate list of picketers, not notable ones. This article title is inapt, as well (the article is a list and about talk show host behavior, not about reactions). - Tim1965 (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge names of actors who went on strike into their respective show boxes. Eg. In the House box under notes make note that Hugh Laurie went on strike. For the actors who were not part of a show affected by the strike make a list of the most notable in the appropriate place. 209.193.29.36 (talk) 00:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge however, it should be noted that the Timeline page is also being considered for merging at the same time. Duggy 1138 (talk) 04:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — CharlotteWebb 23:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supercross (film)[edit]

Blatant advertising, sounds like a press release, extensive POV issues, questionable notability Rhrad (talk) 18:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Motion picture from major studio. Problems mentioned by nom can be fixed by editing. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 18:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The film meets criteria set out in WP:Notability (films). Aside from any perceived POV issues or other things of that nature that can be repaired, there are no valid grounds for deletion of this article as per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Film released by a major film studio starring notable actors (Sophia Bush. Robert Carradine and Robert Patrick among others). Yes, this does need cleanup like removing the "Very Detailed Plot Overview" but theres no real reason to delte it and AfD is not cleanup. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve per Doc Strange --Numyht (talk) 19:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NF. Content issues can be fixed, but this is a major film from a major studio with notable cast members. 23skidoo (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The film has received plenty of reviews, so notability is not an issue. Any other problems are a matter of cleanup. PC78 (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Swik78; notability is clear, and AFD is not clean-up. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No need to toss out notable article when the nom's concerns can be easily addressed in edit. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 21:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus; (default keep). Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 14:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Death Metal (Possessed demo)[edit]

Demo album without indication of notability. PROD was contested with comment: "this is one of the earliest demos of death metal". While I would like to add a "citation needed", in any case it's not a valid criterion per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Sources are missing. B. Wolterding (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this demo is one of the first death metal albums and more importantly, is considered an origin of the genre name "death metal". This nomination is based on a lack of understanding of the death metal culture. Kameejl ^(Talk) 15:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added quote from the book Death Metal Music: The Passion and Politics of a Subculture: "Meanwhile, in 1983, the term was co-coined by some Amrican teens who formed the band Possessed and labeled their demo "Death Metal"." ^[1]. This RfD can be snowballed. Kameejl ^(Talk) 16:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A one-line mention of the album title doesn't make a notable topic. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No?

www.roadrunnerrecords.com
"containing the band's legendary "Death Metal" demo tape"
www.roadrunnerrecords.com
"POSSESSED's classic 1984 "Death Metal" demo has been made available for download at MetalKult.com."
www.voicesfromthedarkside.de
"Sometime in 1984 you recorded your classic demo"
www.ugo.com
"They recorded a four song demo which made its way to the ears of Brian Slagel of Metal Blade Records in 1984."
www.metal-rules.com
"The band started rehearsing a lot and recorded their first three track demo in 1984 and even once bonus track called “Fallen Angel” in the same session which never made to the demo, but instead got spread out by tape traders."
www.metalstorm.ee
"but the album's final track, "Death Metal"—and Possessed's 1984 demo of the same name—just may have given an official name to the genre"

Kameejl ^(Talk) 19:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Apart from the fact that only few of these sources are independent and reliable, they only mention the album in passing, stating the title and year of issue. So it's verifiable that the demo exists, but not more. That's fine for mentioning it briefly in the band article, or in Death Metal if you can really source that this is the origin of the name. (The sources you give don't quite say that, though!) But I don't see that a separate article is warranted. --B. Wolterding (talk) 15:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the point. This is clearly an important ("classic", "legendary") demo. For several reasons: a) it was the first mention of the term "death metal" and might be the origin of the genre name (this is described in the death metal article). b) it is one of the earliest death metal recordings c) Possessed got noticed because of the demo d) The demo was the basis of Seven Churches which is considered "the first true death metal record ever released" (AMG). Kameejl ^(Talk) 00:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not what the notability criteria refer to. Something does not become notable because someone calls it "classic" or "legendary", but because independent sources write about it in detail (these sources are then supposed to be the base of the article). If it's relevant to death metal, mention it in death metal; if it's relevant to Seven Churches, mention it in Seven Churches (or merge it there). --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Delete per WP:MUSIC#Albums although I disagree with the notablity guidelines this article does fall under it's deletion policy. Lympathy ^Talk 15:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —B. Wolterding (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment http://books.google.nl/books?q=%22death+metal%22+possessed+1984 the "sound of the beast" hit looks promising, but the content can't be found there. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 13:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Green Valley Network[edit]

Non-notable coalition. Problems with WP:RS are obvious. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a trade association, and its notability is asserted through what it does and what others have written about it. The newspaper article cited as a reference is from the Northwest Arkansas Times, which appears to be a reliable source. --Eastmain (talk) 20:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if notability not established. The link to the Northwest Arkansas Times article basically says that the company exists. Not notable per WP:LOCAL. And the http://www.mwanews.com/nwat/News/65963/ link is broken. The initial creator of the article also appears to have WP:COI issues. Corvus cornix_talk 20:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correction Comment GVN is a coalition, not a trade association. GVN never identified itself as a trade association. There is a difference. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 14:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Integrated Biomolecule Corporation[edit]

Notability issues. Searches on Yahoo and Google revealed little nontrivial coverage. WP:COI doesn't help either; author is IntegratedBiomolecule (talk · contribs). Just barely escapes an A7 or G11 in my view. Blueboy 96 17:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Article on a non-notable company that will only ever be an advertisment. - Sorf^ane 17:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am the guy who put the COI tag on the article and pointed out its creator for indefinite blocking. But there is a big difference between the author and the article. The company is clearly notable within its field and it passes WP:RS. If anything, this could use a rewrite to remove the COI residue. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A company that employs ten people? The Wildcat, one of the references, is a student newspaper, while the Star isn't particularly notable either (although one of its contributors has won a pulitzer). Google turns up mainly directories (similar to LinkedIn) other than a website run by the company that gives no evidence of notability. In addition, many of the newspaper articles used as notability aren't about the company; rather than "an article about IBC" it's "an article about biology and UA, lets get some spokesperson from IBC in to do a soundbite". Ironho lds 19:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : remove the adverts and the article is ok - they do seem to have a core business producing a chemical - it appears to be a university spin off - hence the huge empty labs soaking up taxpayers money for little benefit...

Here are some links http://web.hitechpharma.com/active-ingredients.html drug tests for shark-oil producers Hi-Tech pharma shows that their products 'Stamina RX' was not spiked with viagra or cialis type products - contrary to the FDA's findings.
mentioned here http://www.bio-sa.org/db/filelib/BIOSAN-_3rd_Quarter_2006.doc see http://www.bio-sa.org
http://www.integratedbiomolecule.com/News-Articles/Top10.pdf 10 employees (in a 18,000 square foot facility)
They also test products for 'nothing in a pill' producers http://www.purecaps.com/aboutus.asp
They tested a product known as a 'nutraceutical' and found it free of harmful additive MSG http://www.enivaquality.com/msg.pdf for Eniva corporation.
They produce galactose-1-phosphate (not Galactose-1-phosphate uridylyltransferase ?) which has any uses? (beyond 1g quantities for research).
Looks like the USA doesn't have to worry about it's balance of payments with the rest of the world with companies like IBC working so hard...87.102.86.73 (talk) 20:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments like "the huge empty labs soaking up taxpayers money for little benefit" aren't really helpful, although I appreciate the rest of the input. The issue isn't tasks they've done, it's how notable the tasks are; we're not saying "this is not a company", just that this isn't a notable company. Biotesting labs are expensive and few-and-far between (my friend Alex is actually helping construct the first such lab in Brazil, for example) so realistically such facilities are likely to be used; showing that they are gives no evidence of notability. Ironho lds 21:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to be so nasty to them. We are trying to explain why we can't have it on Wikipedia, not why they should die in a fire. Thanks for the research though...--mboverload @ 03:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was directed at the IP, right? Ironho lds 11:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Jeepers, give IBC a break.

First of all, you know nothing about the company’s business or finances, so no one should comment on them. It has been in business for 16 years, got a beautiful building and lots of equipment; enough said.
Not notable? Read the last reference describing its work in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Search “cancer vaccine tobacco integrated” and you will see it received worldwide attention. Your search also missed many other publications in scientific journals. 16 years in the biotech field; that's notable.
It is galactose-1-phosphate, a chemical used to test all newborns in the U.S. for a serious disease called “galactosemia.” ...--[User:rsgreen] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsgreen12 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rsgreen, cool the heck down. I don't know if the comments were directed at us or the IP (although I suspect the IP) but there's no need to get angry. Whichever idiot posted about the taxpayer money soaking and so on is obviously looking for some kind of reaction; there's no need to give it to him. Ironho lds 16:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Why is it notable? You can get all the local magazines in Arizona to mention your company (of ten employees!?) but that doesn't make it worth putting in an encyclopedia. Any national/international press coverage? Notable issues regarding the company? How does it play in with larger corporations? I have found no reliable third party facts that would suggest notability. Themfromspace (talk) 02:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that there is no reason that this article should be deleted. It doesn't seem to violate any wikipedia rules. In addition, the article serves as a resource for anybody researching companies in the sciences or biotech industries local to Tucson. Does it really matter how large the company is, as long as its article serves a purpose for somebody? The article seems purely informative to me and does not seem to intentionally try to advertise the company. 69.136.112.168 (talk) 19:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- IP please see WP:NOTABILITY. Ironho lds 20:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

btw, iron isn't shouting at you caps, that's just how we type the shortcuts to the guidelines. =) --mboverload @ 05:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I landed on this page from a link on the Oro Valley, Arizona, article. I do not see what the problem is. The article is neutral, very wikified and informative. I actually know their building and it is large and beautiful. I am researching companies in the Tucson area for a job and I learned all about this company and their business in a short time. I am going to write to them....--[User:jeanie] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.89.19.10 (talk) 00:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an encyclopedia - it contains facts. This article contains facts about a company which appears to have been doing things for some time. Since when is there a size requirement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.170.87.253 (talk) 00:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a size requirement - there's a notability requirement. - sorfane

Comment - Subject may have marginal notability:

Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 17:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not too clear consensus for deletion here, but there is solid consensus on Wikipedia at large that, in the absence of clear evidence of substantial coverage, demos are considered non-notable by default. Refs brought up in the AfD are trivial mentions, thus unsatisfactory. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gyroscope (Demo)[edit]

This demo album fails WP:MUSIC#Albums; the links in the references section do not contain substantial coverage of the subject. PROD was contested with comment: "Deleted prod as the recording is produced by a notable band - in fact is the first recording released by Gyroscope (satisfies Wikipedia:MUSIC#Albums)" This is, I think, a misinterpretation of the guideline. B. Wolterding (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable demo tape.--Michig (talk) 20:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the first recording of a notable band is notable in its own right. Dan arndt (talk) 02:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well sourced and notable WAtoday.com is a reliable media company, The Age nationally avaiable newspaper, 78 Records long time Perth music industry institution, and APRA is the Australian body of International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers. All of these sources are independent of the subject and the media sources have editorial oversight. Gnan garra 04:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, i will vote to keep if there can be some kind of notability written, those links just mention the demo in one sentence, as it should in the Gyroscope article. If not, then i'm for deletion. kiac (talk) 06:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because it fails WP:MUSIC#Albums.
Dan, the first demo of a band is *not* inherently notable, WP:MUSIC#Albums explicitly says that "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources."
Gnan, the sources are reliable, but they hardly mention the album/demo at all. E.g. WAtoday.com only says that "their first two releases were homemade cassette tapes", and The Age says "their first two releases were cassette-only affairs in 1997 and 1998 that both sold all 500 copies made" (which is not even quite congruent with the article). That's it, and that's not enough to establish notability.
--Amalthea^Talk 12:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the sources demonstrate any notability for this demo, all mentions are trivial. notable and reliable sources do not equal notability. The subject of articles need to be notable themselves. Demos are not inherently notable like official releases. Duffbeerforme (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, come to my own conclusion now, i've added a line (that's pretty much all that was needed) into the article, Gyroscope (band)#Early years. kiac (talk) 05:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - My gut says to keep such a well-sourced, well-formatted, good-looking article (WP:V is satisfied after all, and WP:NPOV too). But Amalthea makes a strong argument. I guess I just don't see the harm. -FrankTobia (talk) 07:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notablity of the demo can be established by a quote from Gyroscope's allmusic entry at Gyroscope overview to wit: "Within a year, the band had a demo to push, and were playing as many shows as possible to build up their following." The demo provided impetus for the group to continue their career - this makes it notable in my books.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not what Wikipedia's notability criteria define as notable. If the demo is relevant to the band's history, it should be mentioned in the band article. But an article about the demo as such is only warranted if there is substantial independent coverage about the demo. The allmusic entry, however, mentions the demo only in passing. --B. Wolterding (talk) 15:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A1. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo DS game card[edit]

Recreates information in Nintendo DS#Hardware and provides no additional information BigHairRef | Talk 17:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 18:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete - article is an unreferenced, non-notable, unencyclopedic fork of article on video game's hardware article. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete (A1) — No context. Textbook example of what is described in WP:CSD#A1. MuZemike (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete via A1 - what incredible infomation this page gives, I never knew that the piece of plastic that I put into my DS was a Nintendo DS Card. Gosh, I am so stupid --Numyht (talk) 19:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - tagged as A1. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a3 no real content, a1 insufficient context, no sources, WP:NEO, WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ducktaling[edit]

Appears to be only a newly coined neologism and a dictionary definition and therefore wouold fail to pass WP:N BigHairRef | Talk 17:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g1 nonsense, a1 no context, no sources, WP:NFT, WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JRokoppendium[edit]

Appears to be a newly coined neologism and a dictionary definition and therefore would fail to pass WP:N BigHairRef | Talk 17:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete total rubbish...err..I mean, fails WP:V, WP:N, WP:MADEUP and probably many many more.... :-) CultureDrone (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus (default as keep). --PeaceNT (talk) 05:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simulations Plus[edit]

Page appears to be an attempt to circumvent reverts of links from various articles to company's webpage by attempting to establish notability. Company's software does not appear widely used. Article makes broad claims regarding use by citing a couple primary sources, which doesn't seem sufficient to me. EagleFalconn (talk) 17:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For the above reasons. See also User talk:EagleFalconn#Removed links, company employee's primary justification for keeping the article/links appears to be that such links are common on Wikipedia. Fails WP:OTHERSTUFF. EagleFalconn (talk) 17:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dear Sir, Company's software is being used by almost every major pharmaceutical company in the world. Hence it is widely used in its niche. In fact, GastroPlus is the primary product used for pharmacokinetic simulation. All of this is verifiable. Software made by Simcyp, our major competitor, is used by even smaller number of companies, but you have never considered their page, as well as Simcyp Simulator for deletion, have you? If not, then you would clearly show favoritism towards one company, but not the other.

By the same token, Companies listed on NASDAQ category contains hundreds of Wiki pages about commercial entities. Such as another major competitor Accelrys. Simulations Plus is just one of them. Why single it out? Hence, if you want to be fair, then along with deleting Simulations Plus page you should also delete all of the NASDAQ pages.

Delete NASDAQ argument is specious. Question is to keep or delete this article. Not notable, COI, and blatant advertising. --*Quartermaster (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Though I still think this is a Delete I've gone ahead and edited the article in an attempt to make it more encyclopedic and less a marketing blurb. Specifically, a bulleted list of the software products, without including claims as to their efficacy. Separate articles on each piece of software should probably stand alone (if it can, and if its notable enough). This is OBVIOUSLY a work by interested parties who don't understand wikipedia, but the company likely deserves a stand-alone article. --Quartermaster (talk) 01:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article appears to be mostly spam for a drug company. Also, I suggest a review of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. If there are issues with other articles, they can be addressed at those other articles. TN‑X-Man 19:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Arguments used by User:Quartermaster and User:Tnxman307 seem to be WP:JNN and WP:UGH given without much justification. The article is not a spam, it is a legitimate description of commercial entity (although it should be toned down in description of its products, but not deleted). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.182.120 (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is established through the references (I added some) and through the company's accomplishments. The nominator's statement that "Company's software does not appear widely used." appears to be incorrect. Within its niche, the software is widely used. The term spam is not appropriate in this case. If there are style issues, they can be resolved by copy-editing, not through deletion. The fact that the article's creator uses arguments that are generally recognized as unhelpful does not detract from the fact the company is notable, and that the article should therefore be kept. --Eastmain (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentEastmain could you expand on what is notable in this case? At the moment the references and links are to generic information like the NYTimes piece or press releas/marketing information (an online store company profile and the three "articles" from Business Wire; Medical News Today; and bNet - all actually reprints of press releases). While I'm not a believer that only things widely covered by the mainstream press are suitable for inclusion I'm not greatly influenced by stuff that is basically good marketing either. I was wondering what specifically makes this company notable. -- SiobhanHansa 18:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You should look into the article history if you're interested. In a recent edit attempt to make the article more encyclopedic, User:Quartermaster removed some references to some primary sources and some other news articles that might be considered better sources for notability. EagleFalconn (talk) 18:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThanks - that's much more enlightening. -- SiobhanHansa 19:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know this isn't criteria for deletion, but I feel it is worth noting that the IP 71.160.182.120 added the comment directly above Eastmain's without signing and also deleted Quartermaster's comment above and seems to have (poorly) attempted to turn it into a keep vote. Please see article diff. To the editor who owns the IP: Please do not attempt to change the contents of pages and hope we will not notice. Wikipedia keeps extensive page edit histories. EagleFalconn (talk) 05:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on company's notability, but agree strongly with EagleFalcon's warning. JamesMLane t c 20:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by IP 71.160.182.120. Mr. EagleFalconn draws very quick conclusions with an amazing speed. Yes, I have added comments in this discussion to explain some misunderstandings and present essential arguments. I have never been hiding myself; although I am new to Wikipedia, I'm pretty well aware of the "history" tab. It's not obvious to me if there are any separate mechanisms for posting messages here (are there?), hence I have been using the "edit" tab. The extra "*Keep" was inserted by mistake, for which I apologize. (From IP 71.160.182.120) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.119.176.251 (talk) 02:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have never been hiding myself... Contributing from an IP address is not a hanging offense, a problem, or a prohibition against contributing to Wikipedia. However, it IS undeniably a mechanism for masking one's identity. The claim I have never been hiding myself is not supported. Independent of eventual "keep" or "delete" disposition, this is an article worth responsible and neutral oversight in order to avoid conflict of interest and advertising spam abuse of wikipedia. Company may very well be notable enough for an article (I will accept without malice the group decision) but it is patently obvious that anonymous, and interested, parties are involved here. FYI, I have nothing to do with this company, its competitors, or the pharmaceutical software industry whatsoever. -- Quartermaster (talk) 02:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the IP editor: There is nothing wrong with using an IP, nor using the edit tab to leave messages. In the future please sign your messages using four tildes in a row like this: ~~~~. However, contributing to an article about (I presume) your employer without disclosing your conflict of interest (though admittedly you may not have known to do this or how) is disengenuous. Furthermore, the reason I assumed bad faith in my prior assessment and the reason (I suspect) JamesMLane agreed with me was because the tone of your contributions and the quality of your English improved dramatically in that post. Its suspicious. In any case, the merits of this article have nothing to do with the merits of its contributors. Full disclosure: I have worked in the pharmaceutical industry before as an analytical chemist for 1 summer 3 years ago. See my userpage for more information. EagleFalconn (talk) 04:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Almost all Nasdaq listed companies are likely to be notable, IMO opinion this one is. RMHED (talk) 23:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 13:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Freedom Outreach[edit]

Non-notable. The article is only sourced by the group's website and consists of its claims about itself. Northwestgnome (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Minor evangelical group, does not meet WP:GROUP, only sources link to official site. TN‑X-Man 19:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A Yahoo web search and news search don't turn up any coverage of this group in secondary sources. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable Stijndon (talk) 11:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nominator withdrawal. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy (talk) 01:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Cheskin[edit]

This biography reads like a CV, is full of original or unsourced research and is biased to the point of looking like an advert for the company Cheskin. _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 15:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 17:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The material is sourced to the book listed as a reference. A biography of someone who died in 1981 is not an advertisement for the company that he founded. This is someone historically important, as will be clear from a search on Google Books and Google News archive. Bias is best resolved through editing, not deletion. --Eastmain (talk) 20:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I added his obituary from The New York Times, which is a further argument for notability. --Eastmain (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think the article is on a topic which should not be covered, and it doesn't really seem to read like an advertisement for anything. However, the tone of the article has an extremely pro-Cheskin viewpoint - but this is not even inherent in the content itself, being a product of the tone. With a good bit of copy editing, and maybe the addition of some tempering facts, this article can definitely be up to our standards. Starting it from blank would be a poor option with this much text, and judging by most biography articles on generally good people I see, we'd be unlikely to achieve anything better that way in any case. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 06:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wrote many books, NYT obit, significant accomplishments in his field.John Z (talk) 07:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in its present form. Notability is not the issue — in theory an article about Cheskin probably belongs in WP — but in practice, who will write the new version? The neutrality tag (by me) is already eight months old. The only thing that happened in the meantime was a very brief post to the discussion page, presumably by the original anonymous author speaking of his/her original research. IslandGyrl (talk) 14:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's probably caught up in the backlog. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 03:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Its poor quality does not detract from the core issue: a major innovator in his field. The article is being edited and additional research going on as of this writing. Cheers, Shir-El too 12:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cheskin is clearly an important forerunner in the importance of branding and presentation of products - so I think the article should be kept until either put in a larger context or expanded. I found several independent sources on the web that referred to him. Terriers14 (talk) 15:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination as article is undergoing a massive edit and this is likely to remove anything deletion-worthy. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 16:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 15:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyfree[edit]

nn. It's just one website, no notable mentions outside. shreevatsa (talk) 17:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's more than one outside link now. - Apotheon (talk) 04:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Reads like a Advertisment --Numyht (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you object to the phrasing, maybe you should edit it instead of just suggested it get deleted. This is a wiki, after all. - Apotheon (talk) 15:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article is a combination of WP:DICTDEF and advertising. TN‑X-Man 19:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a notable copyright topic since it differs from copyright, copyleft and public domain. Also greatly discussed on professional forums, and Wikipedia should be a place where professional researchers can find all the topics they want, as long as we can write an article not containing only pronunciation, etymology, meaning and usage and does not have author's original research (vital in all encyclopedias). --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: "greatly discussed on professional forums" / "does not have author's original research" -- that is exactly the question here. This doesn't seem to be "greatly discussed" anywhere, professional or not. shreevatsa (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: (I don't know if this is necessary: I'm the original nominator.) shreevatsa (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It looks like half the "delete" votes consist of "I'm too lazy to edit the way it's presented." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apotheon (talk • contribs) 17:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The question is not about the presentation, but about the topic itself. The concept of "copyfree" doesn't seem to notable anywhere, it is not even clearly different from permissive free software licenses (or even copyleft, depending on what "protects recipients of the material from such restrictions" is supposed to mean), and all of the article's text, as well as links to it on other pages, seems to have been added by just one user (which happens to be you, User:Apotheon). shreevatsa (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would suggest merge but I don't know where. This is a WP:NEOLOGISM and seems like promotion for the website noted. The information should go somewhere, but Free content is a mess, Copyleft is close but not close enough. We should definitely have a comprehensive article on Copyright alternatives that includes this, but this is no way to start. I cannot find a reasonable merge partner. As it stands, it is a neologism that fails to establish notability because there are no sources at all. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me | Review me} 20:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BJ^Talk 03:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pray 4 Me[edit]

Non-notable mixtape. No sources at all. It's all original research and future predictions. Plus the alleged single "Black Juice" is obviously fake, as it was already deleted in the past. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Juice. Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} 17:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, Google gave me nothing, it seems like a hoax.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 18:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. The criterion for 'hoaxes' is only applicable for blatant misinformation, such as "god is the son of Mr. Pibb and gave birth to Michael Jackson after a one-night stand with Joan Cusack". It doesn't apply to this, so delete, due to a lack of references. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 23:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's absolutely nothing to back this thing up, so it seems pretty blatant to me. Might as well call the album "Rainbows & ponies". Your example of a blatant misinformation is hilarious BTW.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 00:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:CRYSTAL at best. Amalthea^Talk 11:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tan ǀ 39 23:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terrence J[edit]

Fails WP:BIO; lacks notability with no substantial coverage. DiverseMentality^{(Discuss it)} 00:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – There's a feature article about him: Coleman, Chrisena. "The Hottest 'Nerd' on TV: Star from Queens Seen by Millions Around the World", New York Daily News, 2008-04-15. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources you added failed to include a link. DiverseMentality^{(Discuss it)} 19:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tried to establish notability, but couldn't find significant coverage in reliable sources [28] [29]. Paul, I can't find the article you name on http://www.nydailynews.com/ — is it available online? --Amalthea^Talk 11:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I found it in my library's database. I've now added it to the article, as well as another article about him from the Greensboro News & Record. I would say there is enough there now to establish WP:N notability. Keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK. I can't judge if those articles constitute significant coverage, so I'll just strike my !vote. I still find it weird that there's so little online news coverage available about a current notable pop music show host though. --Amalthea^Talk 23:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article appears well-sourced. I don't see a reason to delete. -FrankTobia (talk) 07:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 13:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arm hair fetishism[edit]

I'm not sure of the notability of this topic, and many of the assertions in the article seem dubious. "As hairy arms are mostly seen in men, this could be thought as an exclusively homosexual attraction." So women can't have sexual fetishes? We're then told that most of this material features Latino women. Now, absent a history from John Paraskeva Rushton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) this might be merely an OR observation, but this user has been engaged in some borderline racial and ethnic baiting in the past. deranged bulbasaur 16:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge what we can and Redirect to Trichophilia. I reluctantly googled this, whilst looking over the shoulder before clicking search :P I did find that we have a hair fetish article which I have linked for the redirect. Would seem the most suitable thing for this. Seddσn ^talk ^{Editor Review} 17:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's race-baiting. Also, non-notable. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 19:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sourced content to be merged. Some part of me wants to say that paraphilias are inherently notable, but the search term does not appear common enough to warrant a redirect. - Eldereft (cont.) 16:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no source, Google finds only this article - seems to be invented. JohnCD (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 13:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YAYA[edit]

Non-notable neologism/marketing term ukexpat (talk) 16:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable. Youth and Young adult is a widely used term but i don't think its acronym is article worthy. Seddσn ^talk ^{Editor Review} 17:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or maybe move to Wiktionary Non-notable neologism. May be good for Wikitionary, however. Paragon12321 (talk) 18:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; do not move to Wiktionary unless reliable citations for it can be found. Wiktionary is not Wikipedia's trashcan. —An gr 18:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence that this acronym is in widespread usage. - Richard Cavell (talk) 00:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 00:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VKernel[edit]

Deleted in the prod process (even with two prod tags), now recreated. This is a procedural nomination, no opinion from my side. Tone 09:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How can I change the page to keep it from being deleted?--patrick.c.knight (talk) 13:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To answer Patrick, the deletion log shows that the previous version was deleted for 'notability' (presumably lack thereof). WP:NOTE and WP:CORP explain the general notability guidelines and those for companies. However, looking at the current sources I'd say that [30], [31] and [32] satisfy the latter's statement that "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources."—Preceding unsigned comment added by Olaf Davis (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 15:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Passes WP:CORP, if only by a hair. The Byte and Switch article looks good, I'm not quite sure about [33] and [34], but I'd call it significant and reliable. --Amalthea^Talk 11:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep just notable enough per guidelines I'd say. RMHED (talk) 23:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 21:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goldman Sachs IPOs[edit]

Likely non-notable attempt at a list of IPOs by a company. I'm sure there is a lot of information on individual companies getting "IPOed" by this particular company, but I'm not sure if the subject as a whole is notable. Samuel Tan 07:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Okay, it's probably a worthwhile list... but I'm not sure that Wikipedia is the place for such a list. I would think that G-S would have the list on their website, then we would just dupliate it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 15:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Prior to Glass-Steagall's repeal, a vast majority of GS's non-investment activities were managing IPO's for corporations. A proper list may be helpful for readers of the encyclopedia, but this will likely not turn into that list. The topic is notable and probably does not fail WP:NOT, but this list is ad hoc and unreferenced. My suggestion is to delete this, leave it as a red link and impose no prejudice on recreation in another form. Preferably someone would create a List of Goldman Sachs IPOs of which we all can be proud. Also, I cleaned up the NPOV elements of the stub. whoever tagged the article should be pointed to ((Issues)) or at least admonished to not flood the article with ZOMG tags. Protonk (talk) 18:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and Protonk. JohnCD (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 19:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Omnitrix colours[edit]

Non notable subject. Part of the Ben 10 canon, where there is plenty of information. This just isn't important or notable to the show. At a push it could be merged into the Ben 10 article (though with a considerable re-write) Ged UK (talk) 15:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I'm sure this stuff matters to someone's fandom, but it doesn't warrant a separate article. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete really don't think this matters to Wikipedia in any relevant way. Perhaps transwiki to an appropriate Wikia? JuJube (talk) 02:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:OR, fancruft, and I don't see anything mergeable. --Amalthea^Talk 11:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 13:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calvary Baptist Church, Lawton, Oklahoma[edit]

This article is about a non notable church. The article seems to be written by a member of the church for the purpose of advertising. Nothing special happens at the church that would make it more notable than the millions of other churches in the world. Tavix (talk) 15:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N and WP:COI. The pastor is the one writing the article, and the closest you can come to notability is the fact that the church has been around since 1925...try again in 17 years when it becomes a historic building. --Seascic ^T/_C 15:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The user name of "Dking661" could be someone posing as the pastor as well, although that's probably unlikely. Tavix (talk) 17:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the article is written, notability is not established. In general, articles about a specific church are fine, but this one is absolutely non-descript. That and the COI thing. --Quartermaster (talk) 18:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there certainly are notable churches that have articles about them in Wikipedia. I'm sure it's a nice place, but there is no reason why this specific church should be considered notable. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a church directory.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 20:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for non-notability and a conflict of interest regarding its author. Just doesn't belong here. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 23:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Pending the inclusion of references that support the claim of notability, I have to support its erasure. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Call option. It's a one sentence article. Nothing to merge. I'll go type "also called a "clean up call" over there. Keeper ǀ 76 15:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up call[edit]

This appears to be a dictionary definition of a piece of financial slang. Guy (Help!) 22:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to call option. It appears to be proper terminology rather than slang - it's used in publications by the Banque de France and the UK's Financial Services Authority - but I don't think there's really much you can write about it beyond what's already there. Gr1st (talk) 22:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 15:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 13:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manika sharma[edit]

questionable notability: assistant director of a bollywood film, unreferenced director of a yet to be released film, smells of vanity ccwaters (talk) 14:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also Kalpvriksh. ccwaters (talk) 15:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Feels like blatant self-promotion. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article doesn't really assert notability and is written in a promotional tone. Google turned up few hits with nothing reliable to indicate notability. I'm gonna agree with the others and say this is vanityspam. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -a promotional article. I can't verify its claims to notability, and even if I could they're pretty weak. Also fails Geogre's Law. Reyk _YO! 22:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, plus User:Kalpvriksh took down the AfD template to his own page when the discussion was underway. --Themfromspace (talk) 08:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity. I wouldn't be surprised, if we have an article about Kalpvriksh the movie coming soon. ChiragPatnaik (talk) 13:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It came and was speedily deleted... twice. --Themfromspace (talk) 16:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—An IP address deleted the AfD headers diff. I added them back in and warned the IP. Just FYI. Livitup (talk) 07:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 13:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Songs For Christoff[edit]

Article on a bootleg that only seems to be available in torrent or p2p form. Does not pass WP:MUSIC (as it doesn't seem to be a commercially-released product), and is a bit peacock-y and weasle-y if you ask me... There's no mention of it in the artist page (other than discography) and nothing much here to merge into the artist page. Booglamay (talk) - 14:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article was PRODded last Monday (28 July) and the tag was removed yesterday by an IP address with only one contribution. Booglamay (talk) - 14:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Fan-made compilation of bootlegs? Edison (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm getting the filesharing hits, but no indication of WP:NOTE. A link to that album was added by 58.168.216.210 (talk · contribs) to Tegan and Sara, but according to [35] it's not official, so apparently only the fan compilation. --Amalthea^Talk 13:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, Edison has provided sources to verify existence and strong precedent is to keep articles on verifiable villages. Davewild (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kunnathukal[edit]

Hardly notable village. "Its very famous place with Funny stories" it is not enough to pass WP:N, I'm afraid. M0RD00R (talk) 14:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article is poorly written, but real villages are inherently notable. Edward321 (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly so. According to WP:NGL "A human settlement such as a city, town or village is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources." It is not the case here so far.M0RD00R (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a verifiable village, per a Kerala government website [36] and a census of India [37] , [38]. I have removed some unreferenced gibberish and left a stub, which is still very poorly written. Other refs exist, but many are not available on the web rom reliable sources. Book refs include [39]. All such verifiable villages have been kept in AFDs, to the best of my recollection. The new proposed guideline WP:NGL would modify that by setting a higher bar, and would require the deletion of many thousands of articles about verifiable but small villages and hamlets. The proposed guideline has no authority, and is likely to wind up labelled "essay" or "rejected guideline" like many other fine efforts such as WP:CONG, WP:MALL, and WP:NOTNEWS. Edison (talk) 15:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to containing municipality (Neyyattinkara). Subdivisions of municipalities need an additional layer of secondary sourcing to merit a stand-alone article. Split them off only if there is sufficient information that would cause the municipality article to become too long or too unfocused. --Polaron | Talk 18:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All villages are notable. --Eastmain (talk) 19:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 13:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Mickle[edit]

Contested prod. Article is about a minor film employee, with no real claims to notability. TN‑X-Man 14:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Minor film employee with no real claims of notability is accurate. Not a close call. --Quartermaster (talk) 14:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia isn't the place for someone's resume. —D. Monack ^talk 18:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient notability. JuJube (talk) 02:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sources are not reliable. The Mason question is irrelevant either way, as pointed out below. Chick Bowen 21:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Salza[edit]

The article is about an author, but does not pass WP:CREATIVE. There is no claim to notability, either for the subject or for the books he wrote. The article relies purely on one website for sourcing - a website which is written by the subject. The article has been tagged as needing additional verification (with the ((refimprove)) tag) since last November, and no reliable independant sources have been added. Blueboar (talk) 13:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any reviews or discussions of his works in publications that are much more than blogs, and he doesn't seem to meet any of the other criteria in WP:CREATIVE. Olaf Davis | Talk 16:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I originally found this while doing some cat cleanup, and I found the same situation as Olaf Davis above. MSJapan (talk) 19:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Since I posted the nomination, an editor has found more sources (ones that are independant of the subject). However, this improvement does not address the notability issues. Blueboar (talk) 22:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sigh, another ex-Mason up for deletion. He's generated a very hostile reaction in American freemasonry and is well known in conservative Catholic circles for his wider work on apologetics. He's notable, this is not self promotion and I understand the dislike that two of the three editors have for an apostate for their fraternity, but Wikipedia should stop bending rules for them. JASpencer (talk) 22:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is where this sordid episode started. JASpencer (talk) 22:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ex-mason is not the real problem - Oscar Wilde was as well, and a few other folks who are there on the list, including a fair number of expelled people. So I resent the accusation of hiding some sort of "apostasy" (which is a term that only applies to religion, might I add). There's a claims issue with the article subject, because part of his credentials are a claim that he was a recipient of something that I've never heard of, that being a "Scottish Rite Proficiency Card." I'm pretty sure it's a conflation (if not an outright lie); I have it on good authority that there are proficiency cards given by some Grand Lodges (definitely not the Scottish Rite bodies) for the first three degrees, but they apparently only mean that you can recite the material of the first three degrees, not that you are certified to teach it. If Salza joined in the late 90's, Scottish Rite "ritual" is simply memorizing lines for a play. So if he is claiming a status no one else reliably acknowledges (or that doesn't exist), it brings his overall credibility into question. If his notability is then that he is a "Roman Catholic ex-Mason" who really wasn't, his notability is fundamentally at stake. Unfortunately, that will not be resolved in a timely enough manner to affect the AfD. I can verify the record, but it will take a while, if it can be done at all. MSJapan (talk) 06:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mason, ex-Mason, or Anti-Mason... none of that matters to this debate. I nominated this because of problems with the article, not because of the subject. Blueboar (talk) 12:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep John Salza is a notable Catholic writer. He is the author of several books on Catholicism, he is a radio host, has been guests on other radio shows and is also a speaker. I have updated the sources and as can be seen there are many more reliable sources listed now, including one from a Freemasonry website which gives evidence that his being a mason is not just something he invented. The article now has more sources than a lot of articles on Wikipedia. Help make the article better. Dwain (talk) 22:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: if this is so, it should be easy to conform the article to WP:CREATIVE... if this is done, I will be happy to withdraw the nomination. As the article currently stands, however, it does not. Blueboar (talk) 02:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Dwain is Pitchka, the article creator. MSJapan (talk) 00:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A duplicate article is already at Afd; we don't need to discuss its merits twice. Non-admin closure by PC78 (talk) 13:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Year Of The New Gentleman (Aston-J-T album)[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:HAMMER -- Darth Mike _(Talk _{• Contribs)} 13:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete (G4 -recreation of material deleted pursuant to a deletion discussion) by Wafulz. Nonadmin close. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool On You[edit]

A single that isn't notable from a an album that isn't notable. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:COI. -- Darth Mike _(Talk _{• Contribs)} 13:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's just an infobox! No evidence that this guy or his music will ever be notable. PC78 (talk) 13:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aston Taylor, where this and a whole host of related articles were deleted earlier today. PC78 (talk) 13:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NN artist + NN album + article only has infobox = Strong Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:ADVERT and WP:NOT#WEBSPACE Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 13:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 19:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Sails[edit]

Unsourced (wp:v and wp:blp) and does not indicate notability (wp:bio). Speedy nom was deleted without fixing article. -- Jeandré, 2008-08-01t11:38z 11:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect by Wikipedia:Notability (music) - "members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability". I just restored the dab page for George Craig too, another band mamber. --Amalthea^Talk 13:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: it's no candidate for A7 speedy deletion because notability was asserted, him being a member of a notable band. --Amalthea^Talk 13:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge; (action to be taken by others). The nomination did not provide any justification for a delete outcome, which suggests this was the wrong venue for the discussion to begin with. Although some participants opined that deletion was the proper course of action, these minority opinions were countered by a preponderance of merge or keep opinions. The discussion did not reach a consensus as to exactly what content was to be merged where, so it is not reasonable to expect a closing administrator to carry out the merge. As well, AfD is not 'articles for editing' or 'articles for merge'.Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reversible express lanes in Seattle, Washington[edit]

This article is not needed, it can be merged, and is in need of attention. The article hasn't been edited for months (except the addition of merge and clean-up tags). --CG was here. (T - C - S - E) 20:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into both Interstate 5 in Washington and Interstate 90 in Washington as appropriate. Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 21:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as merge since the nominator doesn't even suggest deleting it. The two express lanes have very little to do with each other, and thus should be covered on the articles in the individual highways instead. -- Kéiryn (talk) 16:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close as possible merge, which I'm not sure is a good idea; these things may merit their own article(s) much like the Sounder commuter rail operates over BNSF Railway trackage. --NE2 17:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category: AfD debates (Places and transportation)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Any possible merge into I-90 or I-5 would be redundant as the info is already there. Just delete the thing. Tavix (talk) 15:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge any useful content into I-90 or I-5 (provided it's not already there). These lanes aren't really notable for anything. These aren't the [Zip lanes]in Hawai'i, which I should point out still aren't notable enough for an article of its own. --Seascic ^T/_C 16:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reversible express lanes are very common. Adequately covered in the other articles about the roads involved.Edison (talk) 16:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Besides what others have said, the article is sourced only by primary sources: The government agencies that set up the lanes and run them. The is no evidence that secondary sources have found them interesting enough to mention. Northwestgnome (talk) 18:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The info is not already adequately covered in the merge targets. The I-90 article has a single sentence saying that they run from Seattle to Bellevue, and the I-5 article doesn't mention the express lanes at all. -- Kéiryn (talk) 20:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The lanes exist on two separate interstates, and have for years. The lack of secondary sources in the article is most likely due to failure to search for them. Cleanup is not a reason for deletion. Jclemens (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, the lanes exist on two separate interstates, so it doesn't really make sense to have them in a single article like this. And since people haven't searched and expanded the material, there's not really enough to warrant having them separate from the actual interstate articles. -- Kéiryn (talk) 22:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever traveled in Seattle at rush hour? The express lanes, both I-5 and I-90, are part of a unified attempt to deal with commuting here. That is, I fully believe they fit in their own article. As far as sources, WP:TIND. Let's see, 10 seconds to search ProQuest and we come up with "Mike Lindblom. Seattle Times. Seattle, Wash.: Mar 29, 2008. pg. B.1 abstract: 'The express lanes of Interstate 5 go to waste every weekday for 50 minutes, the time it takes to reverse direction from southbound to northbound.'" That's one of 370 ProQuest references--while many of them may not deal with the reversability per se, they're all from RS's and a much better indicator of notability than ghits. Jclemens (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Reversible lane article should be broken up, as so-called suicide lanes are a distinct topic, and the list of examples of roads which wholly or partly reverse direction (on a set schedule, not on a whim for passing or turning left!) occupies the better part of what's left, and I doubt the list is anywhere near complete. It may sound complicated but I think the best solution would be split off part of it as List of reversible lanes in the United States and merge/redirect Reversible express lanes in Seattle, Washington to it. — CharlotteWebb 23:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just as we'd keep a major interchange, we should keep these. A related common feature for the two roads. . DGG (talk) 00:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This information is not notable for its own article. It is notable to keep in the texts of I-5 and I-90, however. And just because they're important to traffic in Seattle doesn't mean that grants notability for an article on Wikipedia. --Son (talk) 04:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Commemt -- I do not think this article is needed, but the reversible lane article givesonly very brief details of roads with them worldwide. I would have throught there might be a case for a series of regional aricles. Note that "Suicide lanes" currently redirects to "reversible lane". It might thus be possible to use this article as a starting point for Reversible lanes in Washington (state). Peterkingiron (talk) 23:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any other reversible lanes in Washington State? I'm not aware of any. Jclemens (talk) 00:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are not --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 00:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into reversible lane and maybe add a short bit to the affected roads. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge where appropriate. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.-Wafulz (talk) 13:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Year Of The New Gentleman[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:HAMMER -- Darth Mike _(Talk _{• Contribs)} 13:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This AfD should also include Year Of The New Gentleman (Aston-J-T album), a duplicate article which I have redirected to this one. PC78 (talk) 13:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Let me get this straight: this is an article for the forthcoming debut album by someone who doesn't yet have an article of their own? I would think that this fails WP:MUSIC in every conceivable way. PC78 (talk) 13:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article creator created this article twice as he/she made a typo the first time. I tagged the one with the typo (Year Of The New Gentlman) for speedy and moved the AfD that was added there to the correctly spelled one. Just in case the result is keep. So#Why ^{review me!} 13:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly nn, and WP:COI Mayalld (talk) 13:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aston Taylor, where this and a whole host of related articles were deleted earlier today. PC78 (talk) 13:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Recreation of ~~Previously~~ Very Recently Deleted Material. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 13:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Well, then this is part of that AfD consensus and an admin can just speedy delete them as G4. So#Why ^{review me!} 13:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 13:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Beijing Cocktail[edit]

A bit off-key in regard to WP:MUSIC Ecoleetage (talk) 13:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -- Darth Mike _(Talk _{• Contribs)} 13:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No label, and self-promotion on you-tube. Definitely NN at this time --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 15:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No consensus to delete, and consensus even to merge is spotty. However, the redirect is reasonable, and the content can be removed from the target article through talk page discussion if there is feeling that it doesn't belong there. Chick Bowen 21:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

White Horse Flag[edit]

In the ~~WP:V~~WP:N Derby, this horse doesn't finish. Serious consideration and ~~shameless equine puns are welcome.~~ no jokes, please. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "references"; one is a geocities site and one doesn't mention the flag at all. Wikipedia is not for things you made up when horsing around one afternoon, but I'll be shouting myself horse trying to convince noobs that until i'm old and grey in the mane. Delete (And I also request I be trialed for war crimes with those puns. Sorry to saddle you with them.Ironho lds 13:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The one that isn't a personal site is the BBC web news. Pretty good for WP:RS Andy Dingley (talk) 16:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the BBC article rather cruelly points out the lack of notability in this story. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with Mint Juleps for All Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 13:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ WP:V issues - trotting over to Google (as one test) [40] shows problems. A brief canter through Flag of Wiltshire doesn't seem that anything should be merged there from this article. Best to put this out to pasture. Pedro : Chat 13:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - first thing, this is nothing frivolous - if you feel the item is not of sufficient interest fine but this is a genuinely intended attempt to include information about a flag design that is in existence and which I feel deserves some wider notoriety. I didn't realise that geocities hosted sites are unacceptable - this is the site where the design originated so it seemed pertinent to include it as the main reference, what exactly did I do wrong here? No the other reference does not metion the flag, why should it? It does mention the horse designs which are typical of the county and on which the horse design flag is based. Should one not include information about such origins then? There is nothing here dreamt up on an afternoon so perhaps we can leave the puns and sacrcasm to one side. If this article fails to meet your eaxcting standards that's ok but I would appreciate a little more guidance and a little less ribaldry or I shall just inform associates and colleagues that Wikipedia is full of clowns and jokers and to refrain from using it as any sort of reference. Vexilo - August 31

Reply Vexilo - apologies. You are quite right. Regretfully seasoned editors of Wikipedia become slightly jaded at times and the opportunity for a bit of humour is siezed on - without proper thought. Please don't feel you are being mocked in any way - it's more self mocking than anything else. With regard to the article it fails two of our most exacting criteria - notability and verifability - basically an alternative design for a flag of a county of England that was not accepted is not particularly notable (as opposed to, say, historic designs of the Flag of The Union) and even then we have few reliable sources with which to verify the information being presented. Again, apologies for the puns and sarcasm and please let me extend my welcome to you and see what we can do to help you as a Wikipedian. Pedro : Chat 14:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Vexilo, I am sorry that you feel stressed by some of the humour related here. However, the comments were clearly not a personal attack against you or your contribution. Any article that is submitted to AfD is open for dissection, and I can say that many of the comments that are generated in other discussions within this forum can be considered cruel or worse. However, calling people "clowns and jokers" is not exactly a high road comment - please remember that civility is a two-way street. Furthermore, it appears that you have been an editor on Wikipedia since February 2007. I would like to assume that in that period you have been aware of the standards required in putting articles online; your article clearly did not meet these standards, which is why it was nominated for AfD. If you require assistance in further understanding the WP:RS policy, I will be glad to help you there. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added a couple of refs, though whether this is sufficient is another matter. RMHED (talk) 14:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Work. Looking at those references, I wonder if there may, in fact, be scope to expand Flag of Wiltshire with some of the information here - however I think we'd need a ref to the effect that this specific design didn't succede but was notable within the competition itself. Pedro : Chat 14:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can understand it there wasn't an actual competition just differing proposals for a county flag, none of which has any official status. The Flag of Wiltshire though, is the one that seems to have been most widely adopted. RMHED (talk) 15:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - read "campaign" - I'd say the flag that won the campaign is notable (and we have an article). So the question becomes - is one of the flags that was in the campaign but not accepted notable? Not for it's own article, but possibly in the Flags of Wiltshire article as a section or at least passing reference? Just thoughts really. Pedro : Chat 15:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As neither flag has any official status then I think the White Horse flag should also feature on the Flag of Wiltshire article. A merge and redirect would be a good idea. RMHED (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Merge and redirect to Flag of Wiltshire. Pedro : Chat 15:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good finds, RHMED. But the proposal was a one-man notion from two years ago -- if nothing happened since, this may be just a case of WP:NOT#NEWS. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Pedro, thanks, my faith is restored. I fully accept that articles will be deleted if they do not reach the high standards you set and appreciate your reasoning here. To Ecoleetage, it’s not a question of minding the criticism or being stressed by it, I just don’t feel your comments were particularly helpful. Yes I have been making contributions, to Wikipedia from time to time but I am no expert, indeed I find it a bit of a quagmire but if I come across something that I think may be useful I like to provide new information and learn from the errors if it is rejected. I am sure you resent terms like “clown” and “joker” but such phrasing is inspired by the tone you set.

Yes there was never a competition for the Wiltshire flag, the design that has achieved some recognition as the county flag was initiated by a local firm with great resources, which allowed it to achieve huge publicity and effectively brow beat the local council into accepting the proposal as the county flag. However, it has no more real validity as the county flag than this proposal, which did not get into the public eye as well because it was the creation of a lone individual. I just thought I might even up the playing field a little by giving it a public airing here. I suppose it might be possible to include its illustration and a line or two of its background as a paragraph in the article on the Great Bustard flag – I leave this for your consideration.

Vexilo August 1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vexilo (talk • contribs) 15:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Flag of Wiltshire (possibly Keep). This is a real topic and notable. My only concern is that it's better presented as an overall article on the issue of choosing the county flag. I don't know what silly bustard prefers the other one. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge with the winning flag. Same as politicians; if you don't win, you're not notable. Tan ǀ 39 16:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I cannot agree to merge since (1) there was no official competition for a Wiltshire flag, so inserting the article there makes no sense since it was never officially sanctioned even for consideration; (2) this effort was strictly the solo effort of a young man whose entire campaign consisted of putting up a cheapo web site in 2006; (3) there wasn't even a real flag created -- the Western Daily Press said the "flag" was made from Mr. Fears' mum's bedding! -- and (4) the BBC confirmed that Wiltshire already had its own flag flying by the time Mr. Fears went online in 2006, so his efforts seemed pointless. And has anyone taken up Mr. Fears' campaign in the past two years? The article's author claims the current flag "has no more real validity as the county flag" -- uh, NPOV? And as for the effort to "even up the playing field a little by giving it a public airing here" - that is not what Wikipedia is about. I don't see the notability of this article. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In general something that is just proposed doesn't meet WP's standards of notability. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Flag of Wiltshire. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable; don't merge per Ecoleetage's comment just above. JohnCD (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect to Flag of Wiltshire per above arguments. Tovian (talk) 15:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 07:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Marston[edit]

This seems an autobiographical puff-piece for a non-notable entertainer Grahame (talk) 13:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 13:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Honestly, how low do we set the notability bar? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 13:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unsourced material - no references, no citations. Fails to meet the notability criteria specified in WP:BIO. Dolphin51 (talk) 00:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Everyone employed in the voice-over business gets their name listed on the agency websites. There are tens of thousands of them. Why is this guy different from the rest? --Lester 10:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Bjenks (talk) 05:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 blatant copyright infringement of http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/physicians/002032-220-e.html (WP:CSD#G12)

Steven Singh[edit]

Doesn't appear to be notable, no references, google search turns up little of relevance (eg searching "Steven Singh" + Meknes gives [41]. Delete Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 13:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, if the Morocco oil poisoning can be expanded to place the article into a category for such food-contamination mass poisonings. That's notable, not sure if the bio alone is. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - copyright violation of [42], with occurances of Dr. Gustave Gingras replaced by Steven Singh, so probably a WP:HOAX too. Tagged as G12. --Amalthea^Talk 13:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 13:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Affirmative Action President[edit]

More neologism shenanigans. And if these guys are going to attack "Barak Obama," they should at least give him the courtesy of correctly spelling his name. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: it's mentioned in passing in Conservapedia's article ("Its entry on Obama also asserts that he "has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action"). That's surely enough! TheresaWilson (talk) 13:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:

Alas, they spelled it right and I didn't. Probably had something to do with the hour of the morning.

Please, do NOT consider this an anti-Obama article. I assure you it is not. The need for it arose as I was working on the Conservapedia article. (Refer to my change in the Political ideology section.)

Counting Fox News Corp, this is creeping into use via America's right / neo-cons. My intent is to

document the societal and historical occurrence
capture the actual verbiage before it's altered at its source (In other words, have an accurate portrayal even if it's changed at its source later.)
use it to document the Political Ideology section of Conservapedia

Although the original article mentions affirmative action, it missed the even more powerful insinuation of "Affirmative Action President", a powerful accusation. Without this backup article, part of the reference material to explain Conservapedia would go missing.

As far as it being a neologism, that's true. All words start that way, including, say feminazi. Perhaps it's just me, but since this is something happening in our society, affecting our society, and potentially affecting our history, I felt it was worth documenting.

regards, --UnicornTapestry (talk) 14:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Conservapedia is not a reliable source, just as Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Not every fulminating rant from the extreme right attacking Obama needs its own Wikipedia article. Edison (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and userfy. We can bring it back if it actually makes it into common usage. RayAYang (talk) 16:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 16:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork. Attack page (for all intents and purposes). Borderline racist nonsense. Neologism. RS issues. Protonk (talk) 19:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV. I did not support Obama during the primaries but do now. The concept of this article is bullshit. He did not win through AA. There ought to be a policy WP:Bullshit that (in summary) states all bullshit should declared by consensus, bullshit, and then deleted. This AfD would be in complete compliance with such policy. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Edison. The main (albeit not exclusive) source used for this article is another wiki, which is an inherently unreliable source. At best, this topic might warrant one sentence of coverage in a hypothetical Criticism of Barack Obama article. I don't know why we would need to devote so much space to crediting Andrew Schlafly for making up this phrase -- particularly when it had been applied by others back in 2001 to George W. Bush. [43] --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A non-notable neologism. Nsk92 (talk) 12:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G10 (attack pages). The name and the conservapedia page themselves are attacks, of course, but I also feel that it can be an attack to give this sort of content more prominence than it deserves. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Metropolitan90 pretty much covered it. This isn't the first use of the word, nor will it be the last. Though not a supporter of Obama, I can see the intent of the article, which isn't informative in nature. I also agree with the notion regarding referencing a wiki within a wiki...not so much on the reliable source side of things. --Infero Veritas (talk) 13:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was A7/G12, take your pick. Either way, it's gone. TravellingCari 16:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gwandalan Rural Fire Brigade[edit]

Local fire brigade of no obvious notability. Problems with WP:N, WP:ORG and WP:RS. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7 surely. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 14:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability, and clearly written by member of the organization, so has conflict of interest problems. Edison (talk) 16:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 13:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neericode[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Neericode

Article on Pages for Translation thingy for three weeks now. Time to delete Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - well it's been a while at WP:TIE, maybe some more time, but I see nothing encyclopedia like in this article (in it's current state).--S_RX 12:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. According to its entry on pages needing translation, it is in Malayalam and apparently about a town. I discover to my delight and surprise that I have a Malayalam font installed on this machine. The subject likely is worthy, and it apparently has a substantial article on the Malayalam Wikipedia, so any deletion should be without prejudice. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Unless anyone wants to translate it, I would have to concur on its removal. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't understand... this article was deprodded by the same person who made this nomination. It had been prodded for the same reason too. Anyway, since no one wants to translate this article, I guess the principle behind WP:BLANK applies here. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:BLANK and the "principle" behind it do not apply here. The page is not nonsense. It is understandable by people who speak Malayalam.--Rockfang (talk) 12:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I know that. That's why we have WP:PNT. But that's also why we have Wikipedias in foreign languages as well. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This might be a worldwide-used Wikipedia, but let's not stretch it this far. No one speaking Malayalam seems to be willing to translate this article and I can't see one reason to keep it. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 13:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no prejudice to recreation if someone will write it in English or translate from the Malayalam WP, but there's no point keeping this hanging about. JohnCD (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It has been on Pages needing translation for over three weeks without success, it doesn't appear to be likely to be translated anytime soon, if it is notable it can be re-submitted in English. -- Rfsjim (talk) 08:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 blatant copyright infringement of http://www.stalliongroup.biz/promoters.asp (WP:CSD#G12). PeterSymonds (talk) 14:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sunil, Suril & Mahesh Vaswani[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Sunil, Suril & Mahesh Vaswani

This article is about some Nigerian businessmen who were deported and then let back into Nigeria, but who don't seem to be notable for any other reason than the scandal. According to WP:BLP and WP:NOT#NEWS, I am nominating it for deletion. Slashme (talk) 12:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom.--S_RX 12:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - copyright violation of [44]. Tagged as G12. --Amalthea^Talk 13:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 13:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rehearsal (Dimmu Borgir demo)[edit]

Demo tape, fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. The article is unsourced, but says at least that the tape is "extremely rare", so independent coverage is unlikely to exist. PROD was contested without comment. B. Wolterding (talk) 11:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -- Darth Mike _(Talk _{• Contribs)} 12:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom.--S_RX 12:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, unsourced.--Michig (talk) 20:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails WP:MUSIC, WP:V and reliable sources reporting it. --Kanonkas : Talk 11:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 13:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crematory (demo)[edit]

Demo albums typically fail WP:MUSIC#Albums; this one does not seem to be an exception. No sources are given. PROD was contested without comment. B. Wolterding (talk) 11:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom.--S_RX 12:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not every recording is automatically notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Fails WP:N and WP:MUSIC#Albums. Edison (talk) 16:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of coverage. Not notable. --Michig (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails WP:MUSIC#Albums which states that "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." so this also fails WP:RS, and WP:V. --Kanonkas : Talk 13:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, consensus is that he is notable. Davewild (talk) 21:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Pentland[edit]

This person does not seem notable to me. All of the "references" are from the same website (his place of employment), and 3 of them are userpages from one of his employees. I don't see any 3rd party sources, I don't see anything at all that actually illistrates what he's done that has made him notable sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 11:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:N, as none is established, fails WP:BLP, reads on the lines like a "auto-bio".--S_RX 12:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Delete CSD A7. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC) Change to Weak Keep Somewhat notable, nut needs more references Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Nut?" Perhaps you meant "but." Edison (talk) 16:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The refs provided do not quite make the case for notability, but if someone has access to databases of scholarly citations of his papers by others, that might make the case, and if the claimed recognition by a national news magazine is referenced, that would help. I would expect some general media to have taken notice of his "socioscope" which can track the wearers movements, social interactions, and conversations. Sounds like just the tool certain repressive authoritarian societies have been waiting for to monitor and control people. The article is not written in an encyclopedic tone, and seems like a puff piece. Edison (talk) 16:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, notable as an academic. He's a tenured, chair professor at MIT. RayAYang (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article text is very similar to that in this link. The current article version was created by an anon in June with the edit summary "Plagiarised content removed", but the conference is recent and the article here is much older, so I'm reluctant to just tag this as a g12 — the conference may have used our text rather than vice versa. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Definitely notable as an academic per WP:PROF and probably notable under WP:BIO as well, although better sourcing is needed in the article. A quick GoogleScholar search shows that his work is extremely highly cited[45] with top citation hits of 4606, 1906, 918, 449, 415, 415, 398, 380, etc. I also did a WebOfScience search and got similar (but slightly smaller since WoS does not index citations in conference proceedings, but only in journals) numbers. Also he is frequently mentioned and quoted in conventional media as an academic expert: googlenews gives 121 hits for him[46] and there appears to be sufficient coverage there to pass WP:BIO as well. Nsk92 (talk) 01:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep A very notable academician. The article needs enhancing, not erasure. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nsk92. --Crusio (talk) 17:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nsk92. John254 02:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 19:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish-speaking gentility in Finland[edit]

The article doesn't contribute anything to Wikipedia. While some of the content is indeed relevant, it is already dealt with in various other articles dealing with Finland Swedes and the History of Finland. This article consists of nothing else but a text in very bad English without any Wikilinks or any sources and without adding any new information not already found, in much better and more encyclopedic form, in other articles. JdeJ (talk) 11:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge - the article can either be deleted or merged into the two articles stated in the nom.--S_RX 12:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the same information seems to have been introduced into Swedish-speaking Finns#The historical Swedish speaking Gentry. --Amalthea^Talk 13:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Juusomoro (talk) 11:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --ArttuS (talk) 14:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, however I've merged the histories due to the merge performed by MickMacNee. PhilKnight (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Poole Harbour bus accident[edit]

Non-notable road accident BarretBonden (talk) 11:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - car accidents are mostly never notable.--S_RX 12:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Recentism as its worst, and no indication of permanent notability. Same reasons we eventually deleted 2007 French Alps coach crash. Circeus (talk) 13:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE WP:SNOW Not a hint of anything distinguishing it from any other accident. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Andy Dingley and WP:NOT#NEWS. Strictly a local news story about a traffic accident. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep keeping a non-damaging non-fatal unimportant earthquake but not keeping a non-damaging non-lethal unimportant road accident is systemic bias Sceptre ^(talk) 12:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a weak argument for a keep. Road accidents are a common occurrence that happen around the world every day. I don't think this one shows any notability. BarretBonden (talk) 13:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Earthquakes are a common occurrence that happen around the world every day. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Earthquakes are irrelevant to this discussion. You haven't explained how this article is notable. BarretBonden (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Circeus (talk) 22:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are too many such accidents to document, sorry. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- multiple vehicle crashes are unfortunately common events; even those involving buses are not that rare. These are a suitable subject for journalism, but not for WP as an encyclopaedia. Clearly NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a common and non notable event. MilborneOne (talk) 21:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wilts and Dorset. It was a rare and unusual event, certainly not 'just another accident' as some are stating, but this not enough for an article (It already looks quite padded out). MickMacNee (talk) 23:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Having re-read the comments, I just have to reiterate, open top buses toppling over after wheeling along on two wheels and flinging people out of the top deck, is absolutely not a common event at all. I would wager it is once a decade in the UK, if that. MickMacNee (talk) 00:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note Per SNOW I have merged the usable content to Wilts & Dorset#2008 Poole Harbour accident. I suggest closing this Afd as keep to preserve the GFDL history. MickMacNee (talk) 00:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.-Wafulz (talk) 13:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aston-J-T discography[edit]

This is another article from Aston Taylor, who recently has had a number of articles deleted as hoaxes. There are no hits to establish his claims; fails WP:V and WP:N Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 11:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom.--S_RX 12:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt This page provides no information whatsoever. It also fails numerous issues with almost every category possible...WP:CBALL, WP:MUSIC, WP:N, WP:V, WP:COI, etc, etc, etc --Seascic ^T/_C 13:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 13:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysia Airlines Flight 684[edit]

The article is very short with unclear details. HeLLboy2HeLL (talk) 10:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article doesn't assert notability and a few web searches from me couldn't find anything. -- Darth Mike _(Talk _{• Contribs)} 11:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable air disaster. All I could find was this [47] which I dont think certifies any notability. - Sorf^ane 11:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable accident. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, as no notability is established and details are unclear and none is present to warrant the article.--S_RX 12:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. According to unreliable sources, Flight 684 was the first crash of an Airbus A300. Everybody escaped, but the plane was destroyed by fire. First for its type appears to be this accident's only claim to notability. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minimal context and little notability asserted in this article. Artene50 (talk) 04:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign of deaths or of unusual circumstances for WP:N or the draft guidlines at WP:AIRCRASH to be satisfied. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 00:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:SNOW, WP:HEY. The article has been moved and reworked to focus on the incident, per WP:BLP1E. That the incident meets the Wikipedia's guidelines on notability is not remotely in doubt. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 00:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Tim McLean[edit]

Non notable homicide victim. Jmount (talk) 10:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using ((subst:spa|username))

Keep The story definitely merits discussion and record-keeping on the same lines as various other stories on university killings and other human psychological events

This story has been picked up by the BBC, The Chicago Sun-Times, The Chronicle Herald, The Winnipeg Sun, Canada.com, The New York Times, The LA Times, The Associated Press, Sky News, The Guardian, and Bloomberg. I think that probably covers notoriety. :) 209.97.84.246 (talk) 10:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC) — 209.97.84.246 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Where are your proofs? HeLLboy2HeLL (talk) 11:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right here. 209.97.84.246 (talk) 11:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC) some anon.[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP: CSDA7 HeLLboy2HeLL (talk) 11:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The poor guy isn't notable, but his death is; this murder case is getting a lot of publicity all over the world and will probably have an article soon. This can then be merged and redirected. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 11:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep HellBoy2, what kind of a discussion is this? You wanted "proofs" and you got them. Your response is to delete it, except now it's a Speedy Delete. How does this work again? Collaboration and discussion... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.105.203 (talk) 16:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The incident is notable, the person is not. A person does not inherit notability by being involved in a notable incident. -Djsasso (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's a close call. The case has received extensive coverage across all of Europe and North America, but it's true that the man himself was not notable. However, it would not be the first case of an unfortunate person becoming notable in death, other examples can be found at Wikipedia. JdeJ (talk) 11:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've just done a bit of research on the precedents for this sort of thing, and the best example I've found is JonBenét Ramsey. The precedents in this case seem to be that, first, if the murder of an otherwise non-notable person receives sufficient media coverage, the murder (if not the person) is notable, and second, the page should be named after the victim (in this example, the article is named "JonBenét Ramsey" rather than, say, "The murder of JonBenét Ramsey", even though JonBenét Ramsey herself was non-notable). I feel that we have clear-cut notability thanks to ongoing coverage in dozens of notable news sources, and we also have a precedent for the handling of such cases. The article should be kept and improved. 209.97.84.246 (talk) 11:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC) some anon.[reply]

In the Ramsey case, it notability was established as it was an enduring case. It wasn't just a single media frenzy on a slow news day. I would have no problems with this article being recreated if it is still being widely covered in the media beyond the next few days. Jmount (talk) 15:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename - The murder has received extensive media coverage. A 5 second search yielded an AP article as well as CTV coverage suggesting that the incident satisfies notability requirements. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 12:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Modified my !vote to Keep and Rename, although I have reservations as to whether "Greyhound Decapitation" would be a suitable title. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 20:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This case has received significant worldwide coverage (CNN, BBC, CBC, Reuters, AP, UPI, Washington Post, Scotland, Australia, Thailand, etc.) due to the horrific nature of the crime (beheading, cannibalism) and the fact that it occurred on a bus, which we all assume are safe despite the lack of security compared to air travel. And lastly, in Canada, the nature of this crime is unprecedented. As a country, we've never seen/imagined anything this gruesome, and hope never to see it again. --Todd Lyons (talk) 13:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Adjust article - allow me to explain. While his life may not be notable, it appears from the source that his death is. Perhaps a "Death of" article would be more appropriate for Wikipedia, as long as notability was established in the article. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...}^{protector of all...} 14:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY DELETE: Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability. At the end of the day, although tragic for the family, this is just another homocide.--Quebeccityontheriver (talk) 15:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ to the Notable incidents section of Greyhound Lines and Greyhound Canada's incident section. There is sufficient content related to the incident. Maybe some extra content can be merged there if necessary. The individual even though it made worldwide news doesn't seem fit enough for a separate article. Was he notable beyond this?--JForget 15:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Keep as the name of the article has changed to the murder event from the one from the individual. The murder is clearly more notable then the individual has some good references, even parts of the article would need some extra ones.. Redirect any other article name related to the incident here. However, still a good paragraph in both Greyhound articles could be maintained. --JForget 20:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into the article on Vince Weiguang Li, per general practice with murders. - SimonP (talk) 16:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per much previous precedence, muder victims are not notable enough for an article. Possibly redirect to notable incidents section of Greyhound Canada. -Djsasso (talk) 16:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having an ordinary homicide is not enough reason to put it on wikipedia. Let's not let the media influence our thoughts shall we? ADB15 (talk) 16:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep but rename to Murder of Tim McLean or Bus beheading and merge in as well the article about the alleged killer Vince Weiguang Li. Notable case per [48]. Non-notable victim of probably notable crime. He was apparently simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, napping when the attack began, and became the victim in a gruesome and widely covered [49] non-run-of-the-mill crime. CBC called it a "grisly story that made international headlines." Edison (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to an article about the incident. As an inclusionist, I have no trouble with an article on the incident itself. But it shouldn't be an article about the (poor guy) victim. Re: international coverage of the incident itself? Is this even a question? It's, to name one example, the #1 most-read story on the BBC's website right now. Note the precedent of articles such as James Kim. Moncrief (talk) 17:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wiki is supposed to be an encycplopedia, not tabloid. We simply can't have everything that is hot on the news today included. M0RD00R (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that we can "simply make the choice" not to have on everything currently newsworthy, but I don't agree that "we simply can't" have such articles, full stop. Why can't we? We have the bandwith. We have the willing, free labor. We have the quality-control assurance. (And yes, I've read Wiki:NEWS, etc., so don't bother linking to those guidelines. I get that point of view.) Moncrief (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - So thy bother with AfDs? We should archive it as obsolete when if it is not the encyclopedia, but rather "The data storage about everything" that concensus wants.M0RD00R (talk) 18:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - My personal perspective is that AfDs are useful for the gibberish articles that fall through the cracks and that admins don't catch at first, and for extraordinarily non-notable topics, which of course I'd define in a way not everyone would agree with. Moncrief (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Just one look at website like this one [50] makes me wonder how many more "WP:RS"sourced, "WP:Notable articles" "free labourers" could create if given green light.M0RD00R (talk) 19:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This particular case has prompted interest in a knife registry in Canada which is notable enough to deserve some merit. --Kuzwa (talk) 18:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the only talk of a knife registry was from Stockwell Day saying that such a thing would be completely unfeasible. DS (talk) 21:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional keep - this is no ordinary homicide, for certain; butchering a total stranger on a public vehicle is not ordinary behaviour, even for most well-publicized psychopaths. If the accused is to have an article other than a redirect to the article o fhte venue, then I think that would serve it best; ortherwise give it a generic 'incident' title and keep Mr. McLean as a redirect to that. Radagast (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Another example of an article concerning the notable murder of a non-notable victim is Kitty Genovese. --MikeGodwin (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per those above. Thankyoubaby (talk) 18:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: However it should be renamed for the crime. As much as this incident may be isolated, this is among the worst and most barbaric murders in Canadian history. The poor victim was not just killed, but butchered before several terrified witnesses. It will likely be cited in future research in criminology as well as psychological studies. Dcouprie
Delete. This is a textbook case of Recentism. Will this continue to be a big story next year? next decade? next century? If not, then no matter how much news coverage it is getting right now, it is not notable. LordAmeth (talk) 19:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. The Kitty Genovese case is famous for its significant news coverage and its effect on the criminal justice system and social psychology (see bystander effect). There's nothing definitive indicating that this will have a lasting impact in history. We live in an age where people have a penchant for strange and bizarre news; the news coverage of this incident reflects this phenomena. I don't believe the normal notability criterion (regarding news coverage specifically) should be considered in this situation. If this murder continues to receive serious media attention in a week or so, or if it becomes a point of interest in the criminal justice and psychology fields, then I would reconsider my decision. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. The identity of the victim has yet to be officially announced, even though it's being widely reported that it was Tim McLean. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to redirect to article about the incident. There no longer seems to be any doubt about the identity of the victim, and the incident is unusual enough to make it notable. It has already brought about calls for airport-style security at bus stations, a knife registry, and other changes. Exploding Boy (talk) 03:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article satisfies WP:N and WP:V. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The event passes those things, but the person does not. The person falls under WP:ONEEVENT. -Djsasso (talk) 20:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Article could be renamed to "Murder of Tim McLean" to satisfy that. See Emily Sander for a similar topic. No reason to delete. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this would be similar to the murder of james bulger. his name redirects to a page regarding the murder. In that case, the story received worldwide coverage, but not because of the victim, but because of the brutality of the crime. 142.161.188.58 (talk) 22:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikinews per WP:NOT#NEWS Jclemens (talk) 20:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See above re JonBenet Ramsay and Kitty Genovese. --Lukobe (talk) 21:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Shanda Sharer would be relevant also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.209.140.21 (talk) 23:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe that wikipedia is a good place to keep information about this person, and others like him. Someone may find this article useful in the future. - Richard Cavell (talk) 00:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ~~Greyhound Canada#Incidents~~Vince Weiguang Li. Stabbings aren't that unusual. There must be at least a dozen or so other bus stabbings in North America in the last few years. I'd hardly call it that significant - though the media is having a field day; not sure why, stabbings are common enough, and cutting up a corpse isn't unheard of ... more like the actions of a mentally-ill individual than anything else. Do the other stabbings have articles? The whole thing should be merged to Greyhound Canada#Incidents as has been done with Vince Weiguang Li (the accused). There aren't articles, or redirects, for other similiar victims. Michael Oatway was stabbed to death in 2006 on a bus in Ottawa - and I find no mention of it here. In 1989 a Montrealer called Jon Rose was stabbed to death on a Montreal bus - and I find no mention of it here (and I mention one so old as he was a friend of a friend). Nfitz (talk) 00:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Were they stabbed to death for no reason whatsoever as well as beheaded, with the beheader then presenting the disembodied head to onlookers? The article has many independent reliable sources. If Oatway and Rose have coverage then maybe we SHOULD have articvles on them. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They certainly had coverage at the time; the latter because it was an anti-gay killing, and former had national coverage. But should we be turning Wikipedia into an index of murder crimes? They only receive coverage because there are so few in Canada. There must be a thousand a day in the world at least. Robert Pickton cut his 49 (or so he claims) victims in pieces, put them in a meat grinder, mixed it with pork, and passed it off as pork from people getting meat from his farm ... but his victims don't have pages. And that one got similiar international coverage. Perhaps the best example is Holly Jones who was also dismembered, received massive media coverage, and that one simply redirects to her murderer. Nfitz (talk) 01:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per user Richardcavell's reasoning, third post above this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.235.251.198 (talk) 00:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) (which isn't finalised) suggests that there should not be an article for the victim, unless they were otherwise notable, and that there shouldn't be an article for the Perpetrator, unless they are otherwise notable, they killed a famous figure, or the motivation or "execution of the crime is unusual". That seems to be where we are. So I'll change my vote to merge to Vince Weiguang Li. Nfitz (talk) 01:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Since Vince Weiguang Li has now been merged and redirected to Greyhound Canada, this one should probably stick around, since the execution of the crime is…well…highly unusual. dcandeto (talk) 02:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Wouldn't it be simpler to simply create the proper article where it should be - rather than rely on the single person who merged and redirected Vince Weiguang Li. Nfitz (talk) 04:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:RECENT, WP:BLP1E, etc. As shocking as this news story is, especially to those of us in Western Canada, it is still a news story, and one for which very few of the news articles actually discuss McLean. The few that do do so in as little detail as any other murder victim. Reso lute 04:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If he were American, there'd be a 10 page entry on him already and this debate would not be happening. Witness there is no debate over there being an entry on JonBenét Ramsey, because she happens to be American? Violence like this is not that normal outside America. Randal Oulton (talk) 02:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence suggests otherwise. Google news shows over 2,000 articles related to stabbings on/near Greyhound buses or facilities - and these all at least one month old - [51]. If anything the frequency of bus stabbings there may make the whole thing less notable. One celebrated incident was the September 2002 stabbings by Arturo Tapia Martinez which resulted in 2 deaths. You'll notice that there is no article for him, or his victims. Nfitz (talk) 06:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The JonBenet Ramsey story has been going on for close to 10 years, that is quite different than this story that is now a grand total of 2 days old. The Ramsey story in itself is not notable just because the victim was American-- look at Madeline McCann for a direct refutation of that. Finally, this Greyhound incident has made the news because violence like this is not normal anywhere, let alone in America or Canada.--Gloriamarie (talk) 08:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Ramsey case is being cited because it gives us a clear, specific precedent for naming conventions when a non-notable person is the victim of a notable murder. 209.97.84.242 (talk) 14:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC) some anon.[reply]

Keep and rename as Murder of Tim McLean. While neither the murderer nor the victim are notable beyond WP:ONEEVENT, the grisly nature of the murder and its aftermath have attracted sufficient interest to remain notable. WWGB (talk) 07:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename the article to focus more on the incident.--Gloriamarie (talk) 08:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as Murder of Tim McLean. This incident is not only unprecedented in its horror, but may raise any number of questions as to the circumstances of the presumed killer Weiguang Li. Naming the incident something like Greyhound Stabbing is unfair to Greyhound since it has no connection with that company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilfred Day (talk • contribs) 08:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This story already made international headlines, obvious keep considering similar murder stories are on wikipedia Thisglad (talk) 11:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because multiple, international news sources are covering it. Meets the official verifiability policy so there is no reason for deletion.--Hope of the Future (talk) 13:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep- Plenty of ongoing news coverage, and you can bet that public hysteria will not let this die down. And before someone tries to WP:CRYSTAL me, I'm going to counter with WP:DEMOLISH Umbralcorax (talk) 14:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above reasons. NorthernThunder (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP is simply not the news. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename and redirect. This article isn't about Tim McLean, it's about his murder. The murder is notable; see Canadian Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day's comments: "probably one-of-a-kind in Canadian history."--Bumpschool (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for now, this is recentism; while well-covered, there's no evidence this case will have lasting notability. Biruitorul ^Talk 18:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it made the news because it was just a bizarre murder (and mostly reported as the "weird news" type). we go through this almost weekly on NN news stories (and I bet this article will eventually be moved to Murder of Tim McLean through compromising). i'm surprised there isn't a policy that directly addresses this issue yet. --Philip Laurence (talk) 18:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - merge any pertinent information about this into a single article about the incident. The victim is not notable other than for being a victim. This has little in common with Kitty Genovese's situation, the comparison is not relevant. There are 10000+ murders per year in the USA, 1000 in Canada, and many of them make the news. A spurt of international coverage because of the extreme and bizarre nature of this incident does not in any way make this person notable. Many of the keeps are citing ludicrous reasons like "ongoing news coverage" - as several have mentioned, this is an encyclopedia, not a news site. Will Tim McLean be a part of Encyclopedia Brittanica in future? Not likely!CokeBear (talk) 20:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. A thousand murders a year in Canada - you think us barbarians? - no politician could survive that - 594 last year - at that rate (1.8 per 100,000) the US would have about 5,500 murders a year ... though if List of countries by homicide rate can be believed it would be over 17,000 - though that does seem unrealistic. I certainly agree with you though, but let's not exaggerate the figures. Nfitz (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with Greyhound Lines or re-name. This murder is notable enough to have some kind of mention within Wikipedia. ~A H1^(TCU) 20:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as Murder of Tim McLean. As per above, the victim may not be notable enough to make up an article, the bizarre nature of this crime certainly deserves one. smileydude66 (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename As many above me have said, I believe the article needs to be changed to have the focus be on the incident itself, not the victim. This crime is certainly much more than "just a homicide" and meets the notability criteria. Observer31 (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename The incident, which made international news, and will most likely have continual coverage as more information becomes available, is notable. The article should be given the name of the incident (Manitoba Greyhound bus attack or similar). The names of the perpetrator and victim should redirect. Hellno2 (talk) 01:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Murder of Tim McLean, per precedent (Murder of Eve Carson). faithless (^speak) 02:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThis is all over the news worldwide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.217.67 (talk) 02:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per requests above, I have moved the article to Murder of Tim McLean, thereby making it about the notable crime of beheading an innocent victim, carving him up. and eating parts of him"Decapitation Suspect Allegedly Ate Victim" (CBS) on a bus in front of numerous witnesses, rather than a biography article about a non-notable victim who was apparently simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. This is in accord with the policy WP:NOT#NEWS and the essay (earlier proposed guideline) WP:NOTNEWS. See previous examples: Murder of Adam Walsh , Murder of Airi Kinoshita , Murder of Amanda Dowler , Murder of Anthony Walker , Murder of Arlene Fraser , Murder of Axel Blumberg (and that's just names starting with "A"). See also Lindbergh kidnapping which is not Charles Augustus Lindbergh, Jr.. Edison (talk) 02:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep Other Canadian murder victims have pages, even though their noteworthiness was limited to the manner in which they did. For example, Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy have pages in addition to Paul Bernardo.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.252.233 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 3 August 2008

These names, of course, remain household names 15 years after their death. To say the same of this individual is WP:CRYSTAL. Perhaps a better example are recent bus stabbing victims such as Michael Oatway. Nfitz (talk) 05:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all respect, Michael Oatway wasn't slowly decapitated alive in front of dozens of onlookers, carried around as a trophy, then flayed and cannibalized. This is, to say the least, a VERY unusual murder, and while it's impossible to say whether it will become a "household name" sort of thing, it meets all current standards for noteworthiness and verifiability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.152.39.92 (talk) 06:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most definitely keep, for keep reasons above. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia a source for notable information, this is a very notable incident.--Sugarcubez (talk) 07:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just because something hits the news for a few days does not make it notable - the notability guidelines specifically mention this; any statements made to the contrary violate policy. The fact that there are other people who were notable only for their deaths is not a workable argument either; if time passes and this person is still notable, that's a different story, but Wikipedia is supposed to compile information on things that are already important for one reason or another, not be on the cutting edge of deciding what's important. MSJapan (talk) 18:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Murder of Tim McLean, or merge to Greyhound bus murder in Canada (or similar article); Alternately, merge to Greyhound Bus 1170 listed under Notable incidents and accidents section; this would be analogous to the way we handle aviation incidents (e.g. American Airlines Flight 63 listed under American Airlines accidents; also see Eagle Airways Flight 2279 and Indian Airlines Flight 814). Also, there is a similarity with the murder of passenger Leon Klinghoffer aboard the Achille Lauro. Finally, this incident has gotten at least 50% to 66% the media attention that the tragic Murder of Maria Lauterbach got. Clearly, this assassination was a tragic and gruesome incident. So, keep, thanks! --Inet^pup_:o3^{⌈〒⌋▰⌈♎⌋} 19:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per LordAmeth. WP is not wikinews. Another beheading also happened in Santorini, Greece this weekend. Are all beheadings going to get articles now? --Shuki (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's see how long before Adamantia Karkali (or Murder of Adamantia Karkali) turn blue. WWGB (talk) 23:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Murder of Tim McLean or related heading. Not every beheading or murder gets a page, but when the international press continues giving it the publicity that it does, then it becomes notable. OJ Simpson, anyone? LegalFiction (talk) 02:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Murder of Tim McLean with redirect from Tim Mclean This is a major news event in Canada (and, as shown above, around the world) and will be researched in the future. Non-notable person, but massively notable news and issue in Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.40.47 (talk) 02:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Murder of Tim McLean.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 02:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lurgis (talk) 03:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to something more descriptive such as Greyhound bus murder because victim's name is not notable. --Voidvector (talk) 05:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, years from now it will be easier for readers to locate the article if it is named "Greyhound bus murder" or "Canadian bus murder (2008)" rather than a name that most people won't remember. Chergles (talk) 15:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's what redirects are for. In my opinion, and based on Wiki precedent, we should name the article with the most specific and accurate title ("Murder of Tim McLean" works for me), and use redirects to get readers there from the more generic article names you've mentioned. Moncrief (talk) 16:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note I suggested renaming above, but there have been other murders on Greyhound, like this 2001 incident. Such a title should indicate at least one of the two things: That it happened in Manitoba, and that it took place in 2008. To call the main title "Murder of Tim McLean" is insufficient. It does not show what is notable about this event. Tim McLean is otherwise not notable, per WP:ONEEVENT. The distinctive attribute about this event that captured the world's attention was not that Tim McLean was murdered, but that a murder took place aboard a Greyhound bus. Hellno2 (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever name is decided upon, you can redirect or disambiguate pages in order to direct readers to the right event. "Greyhound bus attack" can be a disambiguation page, with Murder of Tim McLean AND the 2001 event above both leading from it. I think it's more important that the title be specific than that we worry that people won't find it because there have been other attacks on buses. Disambiguation pages and redirects work well, when they're used properly. Moncrief (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pashator (talk) 11:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agreeing with others. I'd like to see a warning (like the current 'consider for deletion') for the content however. SailorInMtl (talk) 14:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)— SailorInMtl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. Could also consider renaming, to making it more line with Wikipedia precedent for these types of events. Andrew73 (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as "Murder of Tim McLean" and use redirects as stated by others. Demetri1968 (talk) 16:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.183.168.107 (talk) 17:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Redirect As stated multiple times: McLean isn't noteable, but the incident surrounding his tragic death is. Should be moved/renamed and Tim McLean should redirect to the article about the incident._{TIM KLOSKE|TALK} 18:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't get why people keep trying to delete things from wikipedia. I have this theory that they're a certain class of people, "power trippers", who get off on trying to control something. Wikipedia is a natural outlet for them since it's free to contribute, but since they lack the creativity or talent to actually contribute content, they instead use their false sense of power to destroy work. Hey guess what. All those articles you keep trying to delete? People actually put time and effort into them. And you just come by with a flimsy "I don't think it's important, so it's not" excuse and want it deleted. Am I missing something? Does the mere existence of the article cause you harm in some way? Wikipedia is supposed to be a great informational warehouse, but it is FAILING because of people like you. Notability rules are BS. I am SICK of contributing to articles just to have them deleted because of some power tripping douchebag thinks the article is not important. HEY GUESS WHAT. There's an article on every single pokemon in existence, and yet no one ever deletes those! Yeah. Wikipedia is such a joke. You've just lost me as an editor forever. Way to go. If everything we write can be destroyed by people who clearly cannot contribute anything meaningful... well. Enjoy your mediocrity. 65.204.30.126 (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, strong words from someone who thinks that removing an AfD tag stops the debate! [52] Don't think we have lost much from his departure. WWGB (talk) 00:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mess with pokemon! --IdLoveOne (talk) 01:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It stays: As per precedent set by Kathryn Faughey, an article is allowed to stay if it is decided that it is notable, and this story has gained world-wide attention (and from the looks of it, much of the Wikimunity seems to agree). The people involved aren't notable, but the crime of the murder is. Aren't these kinds of disputes getting old? --IdLoveOne (talk) 21:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"It stays" is your vote? I think that's a decision for the admin, and it's probably much better etiquette to vote "Keep" or "Delete," rather than "It stays." Moncrief (talk) 23:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it matters if I do or don't, from the looks of it, it's gained substantial support already (and yes, I do believe that the article deserves to exist). --IdLoveOne (talk) 01:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think It stays is just a synonym for Keep, so either works for me. Varying it is kinda cool because it keeps the tallying editor on their toes. :-) --Inet^pup_:o3^{⌈〒⌋▰⌈♎⌋} 03:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A person does not inherit notability by being involved in a notable incident????? How 'bout JonBenét Ramsey. How's this, if in 10 years this is article no longer necessary THEN we can delete it. Lets not get all caught up in theory here people.\ (talk) 00:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Smackalot. Madeleine McCann is another example. Harry the Dog WOOF 08:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that the article Harry the Dog cited is actually Disappearance of Madeleine McCann, not Madeleine McCann. It is about the notable incident, not a "biography" of the previously non-notable individual, just as this one is about the murder and not the individual. The same should apply to the JonBenét Ramsey article. Edison (talk) 13:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a noteworthy incident in Canadian Criminal history due to the rarity and brutality relative to the normally reported crimes. Also the location is extremely relevant to all Canadians as I would guess millions of Canadians have occupied that stretch of highway at some point in their lives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.98.128 (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC) — 69.207.98.128 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep- let's put this in perspective. A guy was decapitated on a bus in a G8, first-world country. If this happened in Zaire it's still a big deal, perhaps not worthy of a Wikipedia entry, but this sort of incident is unheard of in the normally peaceful country of Canada. A bizarre, singular incident surely merits some mention on Wiki. Heck, I myself have learned a lot from this article. And that's the whole purpose of the project, isn't it? Learning? Yes, no? Of course it is. Keep. The real tragedy here isn't the death of Mr. McLean, it's the fact that anyone would consider this article worthy of deletion. Well, maybe not, but you get the idea. Vranak (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's get the facts straight - the guy wasn't killed by decapitation. He was stabbed to death - in itself not an unusal event on a bus, not even an unusual event on a Greyhound bus. Only afterwards did the guy start cutting off body parts and eating them. Also there are other similiar events in first-world countries - like this one in Greece last weekend yet I'm I haven't seen an article here on that yet. Nfitz (talk) 17:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that fact that Tim was killed by stabbing and then decapitated, gutted, eaten etc. is a material factor in this article's notability. He was stabbed, killed, decapitated, gutted, defiled, partly eaten -- the time of death in this grisly sequence is rather immaterial wouldn't you agree?

Second the Greek incident is perhaps better suited to a the Greek Wikipedia -- we Anglos are probably and rightly more interested in affairs in our own part of the globe. Vranak (talk) 19:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough said really, the murder is as gruesome as any other big time killings. --Footballgy (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Laci Peterson was not notable in life, either, but her murder warranted its own page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laci_PetersonMindian (talk) 20:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- this case is very gruesome, and will certainly generate a lot of attention. The argument of Wikipedia is not news is not valid, for if that merits the deletion of this page, then many other pages, even pages on the assassination of certain people (such as the Litvinenko Murder will have to be deleted. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 21:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Only because throughout the years Wikipedia has become more of news source of non-notable people in unusual events and less of an encyclopedia. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 23:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - although it deals with a non-notable person, the incident itself is very notable. As long as the article focuses on the incident, and not the person, then it should definitely be kept. Beebolini (talk) 23:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The incident is notable, therefore subject matter; including victim and villain are also notable. This is story that deals with a case of the lunatic fringe, generally a curiosity amongst people. People want to know the details of events such as this, because it makes one think. Why did this happen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.13.85 (talk) 06:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 13:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Ajram's 7th studio album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Nancy Ajram's 7th studio album

Article fails WP:HAMMER. Sceptre ^(talk) 09:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER-- Darth Mike _(Talk _{• Contribs)} 09:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - violates WP:HAMMER and Wikipedia is not a CRYSTAL BALL.--S_RX 12:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others - but this would also have been a good WP:PROD candidate... --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER. Do I even need to say any more? :-P Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 18:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER & WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails WP:V and does not appear to have any reliable, third party sources. Also fails WP:CBALL. --Kanonkas : Talk 14:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Insufficient evidence of notability, so a separate page can't be kept. History can be restored on request if anyone wants to merge & redirect to Frank Iero. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leathermouth[edit]

Very very tenuous notability - the only claim is that it's fronted by the lesser known of MCR Sceptre ^(talk) 09:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all sources but one are straight from the bands website, can't find anything to assert notability on google aside from the MCR connection -- Darth Mike _(Talk _{• Contribs)} 09:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Notabality HeLLboy2HeLL (talk) 11:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Darth Mike. Notability doesn't come from MySpace or your own website. Edison (talk) 16:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weakish delete. The MCR connection and the fact that events websites show that they are currently undertaking a US tour, may have been enough to pass WP:BAND, but I couldn't find any real coverage in reliable sources. If a few decent sources could be shown to exist, I think it could be kept.--Michig (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge and redirect to the article about Frank Iero. Surely self-published sources are OK to use in an article, as long as they are not the only sources. There's no real need for deletion here.--Hope of the Future (talk) 12:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Frank Iero page.--FallenWings47 (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep — See the sixth point on Wikipedia:BAND#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. It reads "contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable." Since James Dewees and Frank Iero are members, it really can't be merged. – Zntrip 00:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 13:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leathermouth's first studio album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Leathermouth's first studio album

Article fails WP:HAMMER. Sceptre ^(talk) 09:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER-- Darth Mike _(Talk _{• Contribs)} 09:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER.--S_RX 12:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. Besides, it's fun to cite WP:HAMMER. Edison (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails just about everything, including (wait for it!) WP:HAMMER. We don't even know the title yet, so we're not likely to know anything else yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 18:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER & WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 13:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kreator's 12th Studio album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kreator's 12th Studio album

Article fails WP:HAMMER. Sceptre ^(talk) 09:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER-- Darth Mike _(Talk _{• Contribs)} 09:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. Also fails to show notability and to satisfy verifiability due to absence of reliable sources. Edison (talk) 17:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverifiable info, WP:HAMMER (that's really gaining popularity, no?) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 18:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER & WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails WP:CRYSTAL. The article needs to have WP:V, WP:RS and no WP:NOR. --Kanonkas : Talk 12:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 13:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roxy Music's ninth studio album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Roxy Music's ninth studio album

Article fails WP:HAMMER. Sceptre ^(talk) 09:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER-- Darth Mike _(Talk _{• Contribs)} 09:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER.--S_RX 12:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. Also fails to show notability due to absence of reliable and independent sources. Edison (talk) 17:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rumor-mongering, WP:HAMMER. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 18:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER & WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a crystal hammer. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails to give third party reliable sources. Also fails WP:V, and WP:CBALL. --Kanonkas : Talk 14:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 13:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teairra Mari's Forthcoming Studio Album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Teairra Mari's Forthcoming Studio Album

Article fails WP:HAMMER. Sceptre ^(talk) 09:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wow, nothing but spectulation. When your main section is called "Rumored songs," you know there isn't much to build on. Movingboxes (talk) 09:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER-- Darth Mike _(Talk _{• Contribs)} 09:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER and nom.--S_RX 12:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. Also fails to show notability due to absence of multiplereliable sources. "Rumored songs?" This is not "Rumorpedia." Edison (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing but rumors and WP:HAMMER. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 18:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER & WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOR. --Kanonkas : Talk 12:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Gazi moff 20:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cassie's second studio album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Article fails WP:HAMMER. Sceptre ^(talk) 09:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER-- Darth Mike _(Talk _{• Contribs)} 09:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER and nom.--S_RX 12:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:HAMMER sums it up. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 18:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER & WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:MUSIC#ALBUMS and -- of course -- WP:HAMMER. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Stapp's 2nd Studio Album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Article fails WP:HAMMER. Sceptre ^(talk) 09:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER-- Darth Mike _(Talk _{• Contribs)} 09:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER and nom.--S_RX 12:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. Edison (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crystal, Hammer. Says it all. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 18:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER & WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fails to give reliable sources about when the album is going to be released, a fan site like that isn't reliable. Also per WP:CBALL. --Kanonkas : Talk 14:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 13:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Prodigy's fifth studio album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Prodigy's fifth studio album

Article fails WP:HAMMER. Sceptre ^(talk) 09:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER and nom.--S_RX 12:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. Edison (talk) 17:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the ever-popular WP:HAMMER. We don't even know the title yet , so almost nothing is verifiable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 18:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER & WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER & WP:CRYSTAL. I've been babysitting this article for a while. When I first found it, it was in a sorry state. Even with all the crud removed, it still contains almost no substance. dejaphoenix (talk) 23:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to a subsection of The Prodigy or its Talk page, because although it fails WP:HAMMER and WP:CRYSTAL this information, as updated pending announcement of the title, will be useful in a proper article. Julyo (talk) 12:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails to give third party reliable sources. Also fails WP:V, WP:CBALL. --Kanonkas : Talk 14:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polish christians[edit]

Unreferenced WP:OR, WP:SYN essay, fork of Poles article, written by disruptive [53] WP:SPA. There is nothing worth merging into any other article. The article had previously been submitted for proposed deletion (WP:PROD) but that was contested with an argument that "You would have to be a chauvinist to delete this page."[54]. M0RD00R (talk) 08:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poorly written, not containing any new information, original research. JdeJ (talk) 11:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:SYN indeed. -- Alexf⁴² 12:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article seems mistitled. Its main emphasis is the deaths of 3 million non-Jewish Poles at the hands of the Nazis in World War 2. The Holocaust says that that term refers primarily to the deaths of six million Jews. The "Ethnic Poles" section of The Holocaust nevertheless discusses the extermination of non-Jewish Poles, and the article Nazi crimes against ethnic Poles discusses the war crimes discussed in this article. The Christianity of Poles is covered in Religion in Poland. Edison (talk) 17:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 20:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I do not think there is any substantive content worth merging. The aricle consists of a discussion of who is a Pole, which is well-covered in Poles, followed by a section on the Holocuast against Poles, presumably covered in Nazi crimes against ethnic Poles. This leaves a sentrence or two about the relion of Poles, which (as Edison said) is covered in Religion in Poland. What does that leave to merge? Nothign at all. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, possibly merging relevant and factual information to appropriate articles. --Shruti14 ^{talk • sign} 18:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G-funk[edit]

This is pure unadulterated original research and should thus be deleted. JBsupreme (talk) 08:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful article that just needs a clean up. - Sorf^ane 17:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable subgenre of hip hop music. The article needs improvement in terms of sources, but that can be dealt with through regular editing. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep you've got to be joking. JuJube (talk) 02:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - not really up for debate, quite clearly a notable sub-genre of hip hop. Not even a debate. However, the article could do with being tidied up, verging on a major overhaul, but it definitely has to stay. GillsMan (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 13:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Steven Robinson[edit]

Admittedly, I know next to nothing about theater, but I can't find any evidence that this man is notable. What does everyone here think? Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this is deleted, could the closing admin also delete his photo? Thanks. Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any secondary sources apart from his own website. - Sorf^ane 17:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could find no reliable secondary sources to indicate notability. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Non-admin closure. Reyk _YO! 08:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos santelli disorder[edit]

Article content is utter nonsense. Unsourced and likely a hoax. Beemer69 ^chitchat 06:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete certainly looks like hoax, article name gives no Ghits beyond this article -Hunting dog (talk) 06:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete- Certain hoax. I googled the word "halsimetric", which appears in the article, and nothing but the article came up. Made up word. Hoax. Speedy under G3 and tagged as such. Reyk _YO! 07:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted per CSD A3 - appeared to be a family home and no claim of notability was made. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RCFG House[edit]

Does not show any notability. The PROD was removed without explanation. triwbe (talk) 05:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —triwbe (talk) 06:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Carnivàle awards and nominations[edit]

Procedural nom Although similar pages like List of Lost awards and nominations and List of awards won by The Simpsons have achieved FL quality, I don't know whether Carnivàle needs the same type of list. For one, the show ran for only 24 episodes and seems rather obscure than highly-acclaimed (despite the number of awards, mostly in well-deserved technical categories). Next, this list is slightly redundant since nearly all awards are already listed in List of Carnivàle episodes, Characters of Carnivàle, and an overview at Carnivàle#Awards. Plus, wikipedia is not IMDb (award link) and this could set an IMO bad precedent. And finally (which is my main reason for this AfD), the four (old) articles of Carnivàle form a featured topic (link), and I doubt that I can improve this list to FL level to not lose that status. – sgeureka ^t•c 05:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge As long as we're documenting this information somewhere in the article series, I wouldn't be opposed to deletion or merging/redirection. -- Ned Scott 06:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 06:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the already mentioned Lost and Simpsons awards lists that have reached FS. All the awards this show has won are notable (it just needs referencing). The awards information from the episode list page should probably be removed and put here instead. If the main reason you nominated it is to keep a topic featured, then work on getting the list featured. It shouldn't take too long at all. It's sort of like cherry picking to go AfDing pages that aren't yet up to scratch for FT inclusion. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - improve or merge. Silly reason. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rjd0060 (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Bitch, It's Free![edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Don't Bitch, It's Free!

Demo albums generally aren't notable. I don't see anything that makes either of these notable. No reliable sources or anything. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 05:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 05:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, demo albums are generally not notable. No exceptions here. JBsupreme (talk) 08:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, the band itself is barely notable -- Darth Mike _(Talk _{• Contribs)} 09:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I count 0 references, and it definitely does not pass WP:N. See Ten Pound Hammer's comments. IceUnshattered (talk) 18:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rjd0060 (talk) 21:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of television shows set in Connecticut[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Overly short list,redundant to Category:Television shows set in Connecticut. Survived AfD in 2005 with result of "no consensus". Only two sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 05:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I agree with the TPH and his otters. Yet another shortish, poorly sourced list with minimal usefulness and dubious claims to notability. Reyk _YO! 05:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom I have no idea how this article lasted this long -- Darth Mike _(Talk _{• Contribs)} 09:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Short, non-useful nor notable list that's not going to get filled up any time soon. - Sorf^ane 17:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this seems more suited for a category. 23skidoo (talk) 20:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rjd0060 (talk) 21:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of television shows set in Detroit[edit]

Overly short list. We already have Category:Television shows set in Michigan, so I feel that this list is redundant and too short to stand alone. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 04:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Half of those shows are set in the Detroit suburbs and the list even contridicts itself by adding the "Detroit area" noting to prop up the list. Definitely better covered by the category. Nate • (chatter) 05:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Short, not really notable list that isn't going to get filled up any time soon. - Sorf^ane 17:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rjd0060 (talk) 21:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Psychostick's second studio album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Psychostick's second studio album

Article appears to violate WP:CRYSTAL in that it discusses an album that is untitled and unfunded. This album does not appear to meet the guidelines for notability. Recommend delete and merge what content exists into Psychostick. Clubjuggle ^T/C 03:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:HAMMER, WP:CRYSTAL & WP:MUSIC#Albums. No title, no track listing. No article. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a crystal ball. JIP | Talk 04:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER. No title, no track listing, no cover art. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 04:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a case of WP:CRYSTAL and and meets deletion criterion per Hammer's Law. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 05:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Darth Mike _(Talk _{• Contribs)} 09:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails WP:CBALL. Also no WP:V, and reliable sources reporting it. Also the article seems to be own research, see WP:NOR. --Kanonkas : Talk 13:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I find it strange that you all cite WP:HAMMER, dispite the fact that it is not offical guidelines for deletion...I am fine with a merge to Psychostick until we have enough info to make it work. GreenRunner0 20:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I agree with Green Runner 0.--FallenWings47 (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You are correct that WP:HAMMER is not a policy document in and of itself, but it is an interpretation of policy that many agree with. As a matter of convenience, it's more convenient to link to WP:HAMMER than to say "delete because the content is speculative, the article constitutes original research and too little is known about the subject to write a meaningful article." In other words, WP:HAMMER is a convenient shortcut, and the arguments cited within it are the argument for deletion. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 22:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for clarifying. Green Runner 0 02:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Blueboy 96 17:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Rosales Villalpando[edit]

Deprodded by creator. I see no assertion of notability, but wanted to give the article the benefit of the doubt and the creator the opportunity to add notability and verifiable sources. (He had listed a source that seemed to be about Roberto Rosales. ) I did not find anything helpful on Google. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 02:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tried a few variations of the name and the word "actor" on Google and found nothing about this guy. "John Casablanca career center" also gets very few hits and appears to be a minor talent agency. I can't see any sources surfacing to indicate notability. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. No assertion of notability. Rnb (talk) 03:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete would be the correct choice. JBsupreme (talk) 08:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Absolutely not notable -- Darth Mike _(Talk _{• Contribs)} 09:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This was possibly a POINTy nomination given a.) this AfD was the user's first edit, b.) the article is undoubtedly GA class, and c.) the arguments presented here don't really hold water. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 05:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voices of the Lifestream[edit]

Usual Wiki fancruft / non-consideration for inclusion in an encyclopedia / advertising. The article describes a fan-produced album provided as a digital download on OCReMix.org, which is an independent fansite that combines special interests related to music and video games. It's size and/or references really aren't a consideration here. It simply isn't worth mentioning in an encyclopedia no matter how you spin it. Shalot334 (talk) 02:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Notability concerns were brought up and subsequently addressed on the article's Talk page over 4 months ago, including coverage from five professional game industry news sites, and praise from two professional game developers, including the Guinness record holder of working on the most professional video game soundtracks. This article also received Good Article status nearly 4 months ago. It sounds like your only roundabout argument in this nomination is "it's just unencyclopedic," which is clearly regarded as not being a substantive argument. I don't feel this AfD nomination holds any water. - Liontamer (talk) 03:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Speedy Keep - The Good article status of this article is not a fluke, it has actual notability, at most you could argue for a merge somewhere, but I have to laugh at your claims of a total lack of notability. Did you look at the article before you nominated it? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, well written article, notability established. JIP | Talk 04:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted. Tawker (talk) 05:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aston Taylor[edit]

This is part of an apparent nest of articles created by user User:Aston Taylor. I believe that the facial claims of notability are grossly exaggerated, but since they are there, this can't be speedied. A "musician" with no released music hardly passes WP:MUSIC, and the martial arts achievements are not well specified. Co-nominations for the rest of this stuff forthcoming. deranged bulbasaur 02:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:

deranged bulbasaur 02:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with 'Deranged bulbasaur' this article is not consistent with the general guidelines set inWP:MUSIC. The apparent notability is exaggerated and there is little mention of achievements with this artist. I would also nominate:

Added. deranged bulbasaur 03:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we talk about the major WP:COI issues here? It's complete self promotion and blatent advertisement for somebody who can't even meet one of the requirements of [WP:N]]. Also, in regards to Year Of The New Gentlmen...Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Seascic ^T/_C 03:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While we're at it, can we talk about the manifestly false claim in the Aston Taylor article (in the table) that Cool On You reached position 1 on the UK charts even though according to that song's article, it "released" September, 2008? Also, while I don't want to seem prejudiced against 14 year old boys (I was one myself) they are not generally known for amazing feats of notability. I offer this useful heuristic in good faith and not as a determinative rationale. deranged bulbasaur 03:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about we add WP:HOAX while we're at it then? --Seascic ^T/_C 03:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The user is helpfully creating his copy-paste duplicate articles with the deletion template already present, it appears. deranged bulbasaur 03:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete with extreme prejudice. There are so many reasons to delete these. Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:NOT#CBALL, WP:HOAX, and maybe more. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 04:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the everything test. JuJube (talk) 04:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the lot. Dear lord, where do you start, WP:HOAX, WP:MUSIC, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:RS....I think we all get the picture. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G3 all. Blatant hoaxes, every one. No proof that this even exists, which is suspicious. The dream articles meet A3 as they're just empty infoboxes and nothing else, though. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 04:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If some admin bites, perhaps someone should tag the user page too. I'm pretty sure there's consensus that you can't maintain bogus articles that can't survive in mainspace in userspace. deranged bulbasaur 05:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted. Tawker (talk) 05:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Twisted Adventures of the Soir Sisters[edit]

Alleged children's book. Pure hoax - Google knows nothing about it. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- non-notable books that haven't even been published yet. Even if any notability can be established for the author, the article still fails WP:CRYSTAL. Vquex (talk) 01:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I fixed the formatting on the above !votes since they used the ((delvote)) template which is apparently MIA. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 05:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per RHaworth's search as unverifiable, probable hoax. I can't even confirm the existence of the author.--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 04:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 04:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G3 Clear hoax. Why is everyone so afraid of G3 anyway? So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 05:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per WP:SNOW . Tiptoety ^talk 17:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Full Circle (Miley Cyrus song)[edit]

Not notable song, it is just rumors CloversMallRat (talk) 00:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete Agreed, article is a vague couple of paragraphs that makes it clear that the entire premise is a rumor. PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence yet that the song is notable. JJL (talk) 02:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously fails WP:CBALL Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 04:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. No proof that she'll release this song. Nothing but rumors. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 04:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a rumor mill. JBsupreme (talk) 08:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL -- Darth Mike _(Talk _{• Contribs)} 09:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Government[edit]

Delete Fails WP:CORP/WP:ORG. Not notable. Ave Caesar (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Laudable aims aren't enough. Come back when you have some achievements. Filceolaire (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I deprodded it when I found a couple refs, which are cited in the article now. One about the director, who still hasn't taken over, as this organization is very new. But the other is an article in The Times, entirely about the institute, which is enough to support and expand the article.John Z (talk) 23:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentThe director hasn't taken over and the org is new by your own admission. Wiki is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL and notability can not be established solely based on what an org might do or accomplish or its leadership. --Ave Caesar (talk) 00:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. But reliable sources can be. If this is speculation about anticipated events - and it is not entirely - then it is verifiable speculation, which the policy takes pains to not rule out. What is to be avoided is "original research" speculation. The length of the Times article about the institute is certainly one piece of significant coverage; I maintain that the other various sources, e.g. the one Nsk92 just brought up are, in sum, additional sufficient coverage to make it pass.John Z (talk) 02:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the Times article. It's rare that something of this nature can make the bar right at the start, but the way it is referred to in the article is sufficient. DGG (talk) 04:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A single article on the subject is not enough to merit notability. WP:ORG states that notability is derived from "significant coverage" - this is clearly not established by only one article.--Ave Caesar (talk) 00:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would have thought think tanks were generally notable, especially ones with notable staff. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep. There is a bit of a WP:CRYSTAL element here (the institute is not yet up and running); there is not a lot of coverage but some of it is fairly detailed and specific. Apart from the Times article cited above and the references given in the article, there is, also, for example, this article in Financial Times from March 2008[55]. Seems to be just enough here to pass WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 01:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Financial Times article is not about the Institute so much as it is about the act of educating leaders. This does not contribute toward significant coverage. --Ave Caesar (talk) 02:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Independent, reliable sources exist and provide enough information to determine that this org is notable. There is enough information for a short article now, although the present version needs some work. DickClarkMises (talk) 02:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Jordan sydow[edit]

The result was DELETE (speedied as G3). Alexf⁴² 00:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single hint of this person even existing outside of this article. PROD-NN was (profanely) contested by page author. Vianello (talk) 00:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G3 No hits outside of Wikipedia for a supposed Olympian. Yeah, it's a hoax. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 00:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reponse. Sounds fair to me! I probably should've addressed it that boldly myself. - Vianello (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above. Vquex (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lenticel ^(talk) 03:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paige Bell[edit]

Not notable. Claimed to have been in a movie, no mention on IMDB or Google. No other notable claims except being friends with famous people. PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Western astrology. I cannot in good conscience merge uncited and difficult to verify content, but it remains in the history for anyone else to do so, assuming reliable sources are provided. Chick Bowen 20:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Critical degree (astrology)[edit]

Uncited article on something which may or may not be of some minor significance, but the article does not say why. Wikipedia appears to be leading the world in documenting this. Guy (Help!) 23:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep google search churns up many results directly related to the idea of critical degree's in astrology and related to zodiacal signs as discussed in the article. Some Examples: [56][57][58]. These are simply a handful when doing a search with the term "Critical degree astrology". Seddσn ^talk ^{Editor Review} 00:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm glad that someone can add sources, but this is still a long way from an encyclopedia article, which is to explain this to persons who didn't get an astrology degree from an online college. When I see phrases like "the cusp of the 13 degree house sub-division", it sounds like a power outage in a Siberian neighborhood. Mandsford (talk) 23:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —— nix eagle 13:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with astrology. I have some expertise in astrology. Critical degrees are an important concept in determining the relative strength of placements, but there's no reason why it would warrant a separate article from astrology. Aletheon (talk) 14:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge verifiable content to Western astrology or Astrological sign. - Eldereft (cont.) 16:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 15:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Children of Mini-Japan[edit]

This won an "encouragement" prize from one festival and an award from another, redlinked festival, but it has never had any sources or inbound links. Guy (Help!) 22:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 03:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? It's a Tamil film. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it has the word "Japan" in it? -- Taku (talk) 14:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm unsure. Aren't films usually considered notable? (maybe not made-to-TV films but theatrically released ones.) We have a lot of articles about commercially or critically failed movies. Winning award is not necessary for the establishing notability. -- Taku (talk) 03:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if the nominator had linked to the relevant film notability guidelines. It looks to me like it passes, barely, based on criteria 2c, so keep, but I'd be a lot happier if there was better sourcing for verification purposes -- particularly that claim of wide critical aclaim. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, given the large holes in Wikipedia's coverage in cultural events outside the English-speaking world, noting that a festival is redlinked is a very weak argument indeed for its non-notability. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —— nix eagle 13:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep just notable enough. Tovian (talk) 15:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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