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

The result was merge with Savant syndrome. bibliomaniac15 20:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prodigious Savant[edit]

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

I can't see any difference between this definition and that of a "savant". The PROD was deleted by the user, so i've moved it to XfD. Ironholds 04:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL shows that the term is used to describe someone different from the run of the mill savant. Please check the Book and Scholar results especially. One says, "The term prodigious savant is reserved for those very rare persons in an already uncommon condition where the special skill or ability is so outstanding that...". Another says, "The prodigious savant represents a very high threshold group and there are probably less than 100 such known persons living worldwide at the present time." Currently the Savant article is small enough to accommodate this article, and the average user actually expects this definition when they look up "savant". (As did the nominator.) So Merge or Keep but do not delete. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Savant syndrome. It does introduce a bit of new information here and there, but I don't think it's sufficiently distinguished to warrant a separate article. - Vianello (talk) 03:09, 24 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 23:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge seems the most sensible course. It is, at most, a kind of savant. maxsch (talk) 15:47, 27 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. Mr.Z-man 23:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tamsin Warley[edit]

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

I can't find any mention of her with regards to the claims she's made. At very least, it's an embellishment of the truth, at worst, NN. Please see this link for a comprehensive study of the 'Carlsberg Young Folk Musician's Award' Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - fantastic musician, and how can you be so cruel as to delete it when she's got MS? 78.149.34.141 (talk) 01:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How good she is has no bearing on whether or not she gets an article - it's if the claims made can be proven, and that they stand up to WP:N. She may have MS, but it doesn't make her more worthy of an article. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I looked, but couldn't find anything online approaching significant coverage in a reliable source.--Kubigula (talk) 22:28, 26 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 23:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - there are no reliable sources to support the claims to notability (airing of works nationally by the BBC, etc.). A search through the BBC web site turns up no results. A search through google web and news turn up no reliable sources about her. -- Whpq (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I couldn't find non-trivial coverage by reliable sources either. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - minor non-notable musician doktorb _words^deeds 20:33, 31 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. The minor press mentions are insufficient to show notability. Kevin (talk) 00:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rxbot[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY — Byeitical (talk · contribs) 01:01, 20 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 23:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - I fail to see how this is a directory, or directory entry. There is some minor mention in press [1], [2], and a web search seems to indicate that the major anti-virus vendor databases have documented the worm so verifiability can be satisified. -- Whpq (talk) 16:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - I was using WP:NOTDIRECTORY rather literally, as in, Wikipedia itself is not a directory of all viruses/worms ever created. — Byeitical (talk · contribs) 17:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Byeitical (talk • contribs) [reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a technical database. Stifle (talk) 11:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, defaults to keep. Stifle (talk) 11:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David and the Giants[edit]

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

WP:NN band. I've been unable to find any third-party references that were not promotional. Toddst1 (talk) 00:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, they pass WP:MUSIC#C5 Their 1983 Riders in the Sky album was released on Epic Records (now part of SonyBMG), and their 1982 David and The Giants one was released on Columbia Records (also now part of SonyBMG). The Long Time Coming album was also received a 2.5 star review on Almusic.com. Not to say the article doesn't need a damn good clean up mind you.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 01:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Both albums were released on Priority Records - not a " a major label or one of the more important indie labels" as required by WP:MUSIC#C5. They became part of Columbia/SonyBMG catalogs after Priority was acquired. Toddst1 (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Have yo got a link for that info, 'cause I was just going off the Allmusic site?  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 03:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The Wikipedia articles for these 2 albums have recently been deleted. I've restored them to my userspace to answer your question: User:Toddst1/David and the Giants (album) and User:Toddst1/Riders in the Sky (album). It's what I used to make my comment above. Toddst1 (talk) 03:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: If both records were still carried in the back catalog, then the band would pass, but with a release by an independent that was later acquired (with no indication of whether the catalog was picked up at the same time), we can't tell. Allmusic listing is in its favor, but it appears that we're looking at a fairly minor act. AMG's mission is to have every band that has put out a record on a label, but that's not Wikipedia's mission. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As the article states, the band is currently under a non-notable label Giant World. Toddst1 (talk) 16:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Current label is irrelevant to past notability. Radiohead are technically currently completely label-less! Does that make them even less notable than this band? No, it does not. tomasz. 16:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm not sure what you're saying. The claim was made that they are notable because they're in the SonyBMG catalog. The point is that they weren't signed to a major Label, rather SonyBMG acquired the complete Piority catalog. Their new music is being released under a WP:NN label. Toddst1 (talk) 03:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm saying that it doesn't matter what label their new music is being released under, as the acquisition of the catalogue by SonyBMG equates to them having past material released by a major and that therefore they pass C5 comfortably. There's no retrospective restriction on C5. tomasz. 09:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It's not at all clear that acquisition of an entire label's catalog equates to a re-release of material or imparts any additional notabiility at all to any specific artists in the catalog. Can you explain? Toddst1 (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It seems pretty clear to me that such an acquisition brings the whole catalogue under the umbrella of a major label. tomasz. 17:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment; The major label requirement is to use the judgement of a major label; when that label buys a whole catalog, it may only be for a few bands, with no judgement implied about the rest of the riff-raff that comes along with the deal.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: What Prosfilaes says seems to be "common sense". Toddst1 (talk) 21:43, 28 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 23:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's at least arguable that Priority was a more important indie before the buyout by Sony BMG. Even if not, the two are now under the mantle of Sony BMG and thus pretty firmly notable. The AMG listing seals it. tomasz. 16:53, 27 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. Stifle (talk) 11:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J. J. Wright[edit]

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

This biography of a living person lacks any reliable sources and reads like an advertisement. I also have questions about the subject's notability, specifically whether or not it meets point #1 on WP:ENTERTAINER. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep based solely on the length of time spent as a personality in one market, in this case a market among the top ten largest in the United States. Cleanup work, as well as references, is needed, but the subject may be notable enough for an article. --Winger84 (talk) 21:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Additional comment The point that you've referenced above would not be relevant for discussion, in this instance, since this is a radio personality, not a TV personality. To the best of my knowledge, Wikipedia does not have an established "standard" for radio personalities (but I am working on a set of criteria, which I will present for comment soon). --Winger84 (talk) 21:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, I know that there is no guideline for radio personalities, but WP:ENTERTAINER can still be used as a jumpoff point for determining notability for non-TV people. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 22:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. This is why the yellow tag was on.--Freewayguy ^{What's up?} 23:21, 25 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 23:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete he fails the general notability criteria and has not been covered in reliable 3rd party sources in a non-trivial manner in order to cover verifiability etc. Not to mention the "C.V."-ishness of the article itself and the total lack of referencing. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as subject has been the focus of significant coverage in reliable third-party sources (like this one: [3]) and has enjoyed a notable career in a major US media market. The article is now at least partially properly referenced. It could use a rewrite and a few more references but those are issues for cleanup, not AfD. - Dravecky (talk) 16:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't see how what is added is significant coverage but, I'm willing to weaken my original opinion. BTW what is "This is why the yellow tag was on" supposed to mean? Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:22, 29 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. Keeper ǀ 76 17:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Kessel[edit]

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

Biography probably written by someone at HarperCollins who publish the guy's work. Is he notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rewrite If not deleted it needs a rewrite to remove the promotional tone and wikify. Mattie^TK 12:40, 20 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 23:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not notable. Fails WP:BIO. Article also appears to be an advertisement for this person. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 03:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete at present it would seem to fail the notability and verifiability criteria for inclusion not to mention the "advertising" nature of many of these articles. Although, I can find lots of 3rd party stuff that quotes him none of the coverage appears to actually be about him in the significan non-trivial way that is required for inclusion. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I added some references, including one in the Los Angeles Times. --Eastmain (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. Although I appreciate you adding a source, it still looks to be about someone else and not about the subject of the article. Where does the article you added cover Mr. Kessel in somesort of detail (as opposed to Mills or Orcutt)? Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. As Jasynnash mentioned, the references seem to be tangential. Stifle (talk) 11:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Keeper ǀ 76 17:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Doliner[edit]

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

Biography probably written by someone at HarperCollins who publish the guy's work. Is he notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rewrite If not deleted it needs a rewrite to remove the promotional tone and wikify. Mattie^TK 12:40, 20 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 23:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete without prejudice. There may be a good article about this person, but this isn't it. Stifle (talk) 11:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence yet that this person has been the subject of non-trivial coverage by multiple, reliable, third-party published sources. — Satori Son 14:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Keeper ǀ 76 17:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

China Galland[edit]

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

Biography probably written by someone at HarperCollins who publish the woman's work. Is she notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rewrite If not deleted it needs a rewrite to remove the promotional tone and wikify. Mattie^TK 12:40, 20 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 23:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't think she's notable enough. Google turns up a few hits, all for her books. But the books aren't notable... Lady Galaxy 23:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice. There may be a good article about this person, but this isn't it. Stifle (talk) 11:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was The result was delete per notability rationales. seicer | talk | contribs 13:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GNIM[edit]

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

Article is written in total promotional tone. No significant instance of notability for being an encyclopedic entry. Twice erased as per CSD(Under two different title). Hitro 09:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editor has removed one section, but Article still seems to be promotional.

Hitro 20:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Hitrohit2001[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 05:15, 20 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 23:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - the institute looks to be the MBA/business school division of Guru Nadak College which does not have an article. What would make more sense would be to have an article on the college with this article as a section. -- Whpq (talk) 16:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Are you sure this isn't a hoax? Maybe it should be speedied. It does not make sense whatsoever and does not meet notability... Lady Galaxy 23:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question - What makes you beleive this is a hoax?

It just looks really cluttered and disorganized... and the website isn't designed too well... Lady Galaxy 18:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per lack of reliable sources. Author may want to consider writing an article on the college and list the MBA there. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, article makes no claim of notability for whatever this is. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 09:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nothing to indicate that this particular school is notable, and no secondary sources either as far as I can find. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Kevin (talk) 00:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bayou Chef Menteur[edit]

Bayou Chef Menteur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable story; nothing eye-catching on Google. Leonard^(Bloom) 05:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, sort of - This is a rather badly written article about a named geographic feature. However, as far as I can determine though, the name of the feature is just "Chef Menteur". There is already an article at Chef Menteur which should be converted to a disambiguation page. This article shoudl be renamed to Chef Mentuer (bayou) with a liberal sprinkling of copyeditting to clean it up. -- Whpq (talk) 18:23, 21 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 23:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - needs at least a reference that gives verification that this place exists. As it stands, all we know is that it may be mentioned in a book (or not). --Alvestrand (talk) 22:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice. There may be a good article about this place, but this isn't it. Stifle (talk) 11:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Verifiability. — Satori Son 14:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Closed by nom` (non-admin closure) Esteffect's comments. Thanks again. Leonard^(Bloom) 02:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bleak (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable band, non-notable label. Fails WP:MUSIC and Google doesn't return much besides an unencyclopedic album review. Leonard^(Bloom) 05:50, 20 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 23:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the article states a single made it to #2 on the Finnish singles chart - In fact, two did (Source). Clearly therefore meet WP:MUSIC. Furthermore, your Google search was also for a weird search string - another search searching for their name and a song by them returns 177,000 results which I think is conclusive. Esteffect (talk) 23:32, 26 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 Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure). MrKIA11 (talk) 12:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

't Is OK[edit]

't Is OK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC#Songs -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 10:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn, following the addition of chart information. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 09:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Competing in a major international song competition would seem to confer notability to me, but as the article's creator (as well as someone who hasn't been working closely on the song notability guidelines, which are very different now to the way they appeared last time I looked) I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:MUSIC#Songs says that songs must have "been ranked on national or significant music charts", "won significant awards or honours" or "been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups" to be considered notable. Coming 13 out of 20 in a contest doesn't meet any of those requirements -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 12:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no need to cite the same guideline twice, as I'm perfectly capable of reading it the first time. I would, however, be interested to see what would happen if a guideline like this were applied to the range of Olympic athletes who are simply "proud to take part". They might come 13th out of 20 in their event, but I'm pretty sure people would claim that as evidence of notability. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Apples and Oranges: athletes finishing 13th out of 20 at the Olympics generally don't make an appearance only at the Olympics. If this song has been documented reliable sources to appear in multiple contests, then the analogy might be more apt. -- Whpq (talk) 18:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • A fair point. I do take some level of exception to the fact that the guidelines for song articles came down on one side when the article in question was created and have since been radically altered, requiring (presumably) a vast number of song articles to be rewritten in situations where notability per the new standards can be proven and deletion where it can't be. It just seems rather ex post facto to me. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge lock stock & barrel into the Harmony (dutch band) article. That needs a little filling out. This song by itself though fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Keep in light of the charting information.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 14:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge' - the song has no independent notability and makes more sense as part of the band article -- Whpq (talk) 18:12, 21 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 23:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Contrary to the original listing's reason "'t Is Ok" does meet WP:MUSIC#Songs, as it did chart on a "national or significant music chart" - The song made #29 in the Dutch charts in 1978. Might not seem like a big deal today, but #29 is in the charts and we certainly list songs that chart lower than that. (Source: Top performing singles of 1978, third column is peak position). Esteffect (talk) 23:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment When I nominated the article, there was no mention of the song having charted anywhere. As this information has now been added to the article, and the song has proved notable, I guess this nomination should be withdrawn. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 09:15, 27 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 and redirect to Ibeji. --MCB (talk) 06:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yoruba twins[edit]

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

This is exactly the same as Ibeji, except without the picture. Nominate it to be deleted, with a redirect towards Ibeji. Zeppomedio (talk) 09:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment don't know enough about this to take a side, but I'll note that the articles were rather different until a few days ago when an anon IP dumped the content of Ibeji into Yoruba twins. Have reverted back to the pre-existing version of the article. Gr1st (talk) 11:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. The articles seem to have different foci; Yoruba twins is about twin births in Yoruba society, while Ibeji covers some of the religious aspects and the veneration of a deity of twins. But the two subjects are very similar, in my impression. My preference would be to keep Ibeji as the head article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, and can we speedy close this debate? This isn't exactly the right place to (essentially) propose a M&R. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:38, 21 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 23:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - An article that could easily merged. In an effort of full disclosure, I have long been actively pursuing a cleanup of Wikipedia's oldest articles marked for cleanup, and this article is one of the last three left for the month of June 2006. I am willing to merge this article if no one else wants the task. Barkeep ^{Chat | $} 04:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Close, not an AFD issue. (The pages only looked identical because of a text dump.) In any case, the page looks fine for a merge alongside a cleanup - the Yoruba twins article is the exact same subject as [[Ibeji], and there doesn't appear to be any remaining information on that page that doesn't exist on the other one. --Sigma 7 (talk) 19:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, I don't see the point in it's removal. It's containing some decent information so I think a merge would be the best choice. businessman332211 (talk) 02:15, 30 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, seeing as nobody has seen fit to contribute to this AFD after its relisting. Stifle (talk) 11:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dhalla Mahamatra[edit]

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

Notability and existence of alleged person. I can find no evidence and there has been a "cite please" since 2007. ناهد^𒀭(^dAnāhita) ^𒅴 07:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- As per Dhalla Mahamatra, I find it very hard to say whether it is vandalism or not, but having a good knowledge of sanskrit,I can say that the poem Matulchandra is not nonsense and I have seen it before. Eliza Dolots (talk) 15:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eliza, can you provide a translation for Matulchandra? I listed it for translation, although really it would be a replacement given the present state. I am also concerned that you were implicated as a sockpuppet in re: Kampfer Schnozz and your contribution depth is five edits despite a demonstrable use of advanced wikipedia skills... ناهد^𒀭(^dAnāhita) ^𒅴 15:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could only translate a small portion of it as the words are written very carelessly in English, and I cannot make out where I should split the Sandhis due to this. And sometimes, if the sandhis are split at the wrong place, a totally different meaning emerges from it. I request the creator of the article to rewrite it using Devanagari. And as per my supposed sock - puppet vandalism, it is my little brother who vandalises wikipedia. Eliza Dolots (talk) 05:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any evidence of this person either, or the children listed in the article, or the poem mentioned, Matulchandra. Suggest we also delete Matulchandra as fruit of the poisonous tree. Mr. Vernon (talk) 08:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm frankly rather reluctant to delete an article about an alleged 2d century BC Sanskrit poet on the grounds of a minimal presence on Google. "Mahamatra" is not nonsense; it means "great in height", and was used of both officials and elephant drivers. Has anyone attempted a search in Devanagari or some other appropriate non-Latin alphabet? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, you might have missed out on the edit I did removing uncited claims he was a magical psychic who foretold the end of the world in agreement with Nostradamus & al. - it was after doing that that I thought, why is this person with no wikipresence, no cites for ages, and no apparent record anywhere even on Wikipedia? My thought is that it is New Age invented foolishness. ناهد^𒀭(^dAnāhita) ^𒅴 15:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't look at the history that extensively. It looks to me mostly like an article that has gotten very little attention or traffic, that various vandals have added nonsense to. Whether the entire article is nonsense is hard for me to say - only noting that Google, for various reasons, may not know about him. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The only notable Dhalla found on a quick gsearch is a Dr. Dhall who is a zoroastrian. I failed to find any mention of him in my personal Buddhist collection, FWIW.Pectore^talk 19:49, 21 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 23:15, 26 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. Stifle (talk) 11:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matulchandra[edit]

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

The page contains nothing but badly romanised Sanskrit. (I think, I can't even tell!) The author is also up for deletion as non-notable and potentially non-existent. ناهد^𒀭(^dAnāhita) ^𒅴 07:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - has this been up for the requisite two weeks on pages needing translation? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, because it is in a highly variable and insufficient romanisation, without regard for vowel length or the many sounds present in Sanskrit, plus it's, you know, romanised. There is no translation or cite offered. I don't think it is worthy of being posted there, it's a waste of someone's time if we can't find the name of the poem anywhere in the first place... Should I post it there anyway? ناهد^𒀭(^dAnāhita) ^𒅴 15:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This article is about a poem, and the part that says so is in plain English. This said, there is no notability assertion to be found either on Wikipedia or on Google. The part in a foreign language should go to Wikiquote if the article should be kept. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:56, 22 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 23:15, 26 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. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 19:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Northwest Tibetan Cultural Association[edit]

Northwest Tibetan Cultural Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails notability guidelines as represented in WP:CORP. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator: The one independent "source" provides only incidental coverage, as in the article is about Tibetan culture in the Pacific Northwest. Only 875 Google hits, and the first page of hits comes up with zero WP:RS that provide significant coverage of the organization. Article was previously tagged for notability and only the one source was added. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This organization helped bring the Dalai Lama to Portland, which resulted in the movie Dalai Lama Renaissance (narrated by Harrison Ford). An article published in The Oregonian, and then republished in Seattle Times, writes, "Sunday school classes, dinners and picnics offered by the Northwest Tibetan Cultural Association based in Portland also play a crucial role. They teach kids how to write and understand the Tibetan alphabet, perform traditional dances and sing Tibetan songs. They also allow them to see their countrymen," and, "About 400 Tibetans live in the Pacific Northwest, making it one of America's biggest Tibetan communities. In the 40 years since the first immigrants arrived, they've established an impressive framework to teach youth about the homeland." (Tibet's future goes to camp) It has received coverage in Pulitzer Prize winning newspaper Willamette Week [4], as well as many other sites and newspapers [5], [6], [7], [8]. Note that the Seattle Times/Oregonian article says that the Northwest has one of the biggest Tibetan populations in the world; this organization is already important and it is going to be even more important and influential in the genre in the future. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 07:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Portland could be the center of Tibet culture, but that does not make this organization notable. The Oregonian and Seattle Times article is the source in the article and as discussed above (and the small portion concerning this group is reproduced above) is not significant coverage. The WW article is an editorial (plus less than significant coverage) and the Asian Reporter story provides trivial coverage of this group. Save Tibet link, trivial coverage. Dalalamamatter lnk, trivial coverage. As to future, see WP:CRYSTAL, we need it to be notable now, and the sources provided do not allow it to pass the threshold. Coverage about the organization itself is needed from reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and the coverage needs to be substantial, not a phonebook listing. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This organization is unique, rare, one of a kind, linked to the Dalai Lama -- a major figure in the world -- and has received coverage in notable newspapers The Oregonian, Seattle Times, both of which are independent of the organization. Dtsf (talk) 09:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC) — Dtsf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete I smell a Conflict of interest here --Numyht (talk) 20:27, 20 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 23:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can find lots of mentions of the organisation, but there's no coverage about the organisation. -- Whpq (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• So let me get this straight. We can have an article about the butt plug but not about the Northwest Tibetan Cultural Association. That's gross! The butt plug? Come on, people. Delete the but plug and keep the Northwest Tibetan Cultural Association. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtsf (talk • contribs) 10:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Please read, ahem, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Katr67 (talk) 13:50, 31 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. Mr.Z-man 23:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cornell Computational Synthesis Lab[edit]

Cornell Computational Synthesis Lab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Individual laboratories within a university are non-notable Madcoverboy (talk) 06:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 06:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 06:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 06:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it's possible for a college/university lab to be notable (such as Stagg Field, the location of the first controlled nuclear reaction), but no reason is given why this particular lab is different from any other.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:33, 20 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 23:16, 26 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 redirected to Excel Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. for now. Feel free to recreate as separate article when more information from good sources becomes available. --Reinoutr (talk) 08:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kismat Talkies[edit]

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

Appears to fail future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that filming has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NFF. Stifle (talk) 14:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Redirect to Farhan Akhtar or Excel Entertainment. Perhaps recreate when notability is established. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

changed vote to merge. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• merge until we find a valid source.--Freewayguy ^{What's up?} 23:07, 25 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 23:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge: I would rather support a merger with Excel Entertainment instead of deleting this entry. Cheers. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 12:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- I have added the reference to the movie, it does assert notability. This link does have info about this movie. Google search may give more information about this one. Hitro 17:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Hitrohit2001[reply]
  • Notability? The "cast & crew" source you found says "under production". Based upon your source, I corrected the date in the article's infobox, but have you found anything that says it is actually begun principle filming? It still seems to fail WP:NF and WP:NFF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 23:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YMCA Hamman Ranch[edit]

YMCA Hamman Ranch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article fails WP's verifiability policy and policy on no original research. I have been able to find no reliable sources indicating anything other than that this place exists, and wikipedia is not a directory. I've asked the article creator to help find sources and he has not done so. This is a disputed prod. Karanacs (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While I see that notability is an issue here, where do you draw the line to the other camps listed at the bottom of the page like YMCA Camp Pine Tree, Texas Lions Camp or even one of the more elaborate articles like Camp Olympia? Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 14:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I draw the line with reliable sources. If no independent reliable sources have been written about these places, then the wiki articles are not verifiable and are essentially original research, both violations of WP policy. If you are asking why I only nominated this article and not the rest, that is because I ran across this one by chance and was not actively looking for other, similar articles. Karanacs (talk) 18:04, 15 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, Wizardman 15:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:GNG. Regards, HaeB (talk) 15:40, 20 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 23:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NOTDIR. Article asserts nothing that would be notable about the subject. We do not need a separate article about every summer camp in existence. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I dont think this deserves an article, but a redirect to the YMCA site (where a subsection on camps could be made might be appropriate) benjicharlton (talk) 07:54, 29 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 and merge it is then! Fram (talk) 09:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Earthsong[edit]

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

This webcomic does not appear to meet the notability criteria listed at WP:WEB. Specifically, evidence does not appear to presented within the article that "the content itself has been the subject of 'multiple' non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" (emphasis mine). Whether the publishing of this webcomic by Seven Seas Entertainment qualifies it as being "distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators" is unclear. Robin S (talk) 12:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 15:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the author's article for deletion, because she is not notable except for the webcomic:

Lady Yates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Keep and merge per WP:N and WP:V. Merge the author's article into the publication's article. The webcomic is also a book, published by a mainstream publisher: Seven Seas is an imprint of Macmillan, acquired as part of their expansion into graphic novels as noted in Publisher's Weekly. The book has been reviewed by at least a couple independent sites. The author though is not notable other than for this book and webcomic, therefore the author's article should be merged and redirected to the book's article. For accomplishing the merge, there is very little content in the author's article, it could be placed directly into the book's article as a section, or placed on the talk page of the book's article for editors to integrate whatever of it is not duplicated info. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:23, 20 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, Wizardman 15:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and merge per above. JulesH (talk) 21:44, 24 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, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and merge per above. Hiding T 09:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 09:16, 28 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 to delete; whether to merge or not can be worked out on talk. Stifle (talk) 13:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Phoenix Requiem[edit]

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

This webcomic does not appear to meet the notability criteria listed at WP:WEB. While it has been nominated for several awards, it has apparently not received any. Robin S (talk) 11:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 16:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:WEB, footnote six - part of the bit that talks about awards - mentions that repeated nominations also indicate notability. Now, it does specify awards on multiple years, but 11 award nominations in the single year that this has been eligible is insane, so I feel that a keep is justified here. (Letter of the law be damned - the core principles are goals, the rules are tools.) --Kizor 19:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge this with Inverloch (webcomic) or this and Inverloch to Sarah Ellerton, cut all the unsourced original research, and let's see if we can make an encyclopedia article. --Dragonfiend (talk) 18:47, 16 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, Wizardman 14:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge I agree with the merge thing. Sarah Ellerton is quite a talented and prevailant artist. It would probably make sence to create an article for her and state both comics there (Inverloch and The Phoenix Requiem). On another thought, this would probly violate her privacy too much, so maybe it would be better to create an article about the Seraph-Inn (seraph-inn.com), which is the entry for both webcomics and just merge both articles there. - Seth Kriticos

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I'm with Kizor, eleven nominations in one year is too impressive to delete it. Tualha (Talk) 18:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though it occurs to me that so little discussion here probably implies that not many people are reading the article. Still, I'm inclusionist; keeping the article does no harm. Tualha (Talk) 09:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. At present, there seems to be an acknowledgment that the article is on the fringe of notability or less. bibliomaniac15 23:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meaburn Staniland[edit]

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

unimportant author. Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:BIO both. Ironholds 12:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete although "unimportant author" seems weird and he is mentioned in at least one 3rd party source here he does at present seem to fail the general notability and verifiability criteria. Plus, there is the weird thing with the name change from the edit history and such. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong person; the link you gave is a different Meaburn Staniland, a Member of Parliament for the British House of Commons. The name change is actually easy to explain; the users previous edits were to the page for Preston Nicholls, and since he had little experience in creating new articles he probably copied it for use as a template and took out all the bits he didn't need/like. Ironholds 13:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I must not have read far enough (I saw the names and the Boston mention and thought they were the same person. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, cleanup and rewrite with references: although the article in it's current state does not read like an article in an encyclopedia, it could be rewritten with references to make it better. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 13:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you give reasons? AfD is a discussion, not a vote; unless you're contributing to the discussion your edits are moot. Ironholds 13:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I tried looking for references on the Internet, though I could not find much references, execpt two for his books - http://www.antiqbook.co.uk/boox/bookso/102953.shtml and http://www.booklovers.co.uk/Dealer_search_results.asp?ID=509873&Locator=Dealer%20Books%20-%20books-on Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 13:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read the notability guidelines on authors and similars at WP:CREATIVE. The existence of books does not make the author notable. Ironholds 14:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep as even after I've cleaned it up a bit and added sources (only one of which goes to notability, the other two are for verifiability only) it's just on the hairy edge of notable. A few more sources would make me happier as would having the full text of that Matrix article for review and data-mining. I'd also be happier if WP:BEFORE had been followed more closely but that's water under the bridge. - Dravecky (talk) 21:55, 20 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 23:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 09:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 14:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete As per WP:CREATIVE, though I would be glad to switch to Keep if someone can offer evidence to justify the claim of notability. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:09, 27 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. Kevin (talk) 00:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Front Line (documentary)[edit]

The Front Line (documentary) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. This is an episode of the PBS series Frontline, called "Crossfire in El Salvador". I looked on Google and Yahoo and, besides WP, the only sources that mentioned it were PBS itself and a few movie databases. No reviews. Borock (talk) 04:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Aside from general incoherence, there's little demonstration of notability for this, a single episode of a non-fiction television series. --Dhartung | Talk 05:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 08:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge to Frontline (U.S. TV series). Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is also List of Frontline (PBS) episodes. Borock (talk) 11:22, 20 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 22:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Dhartung. Stifle (talk) 13:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 23:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Akira Lane[edit]

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

Non-notable pornographic model. See WP:PORNBIO. No sources. The article seems like all original research and may even just be promotional advertising for her site. Did a search for RS and couldn't find anything beyond a recitation of her name. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No Independent Reliable sources. Tosqueira (talk) 07:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is merely and advertisement dressed up like a (bad) WP article. No sources. No notability. WP:SNOW. David in DC (talk) 20:43, 27 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Model Driven Offshore[edit]

Model Driven Offshore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

• Delete nn neologism per WP:NEO only two GHITS Mayalld (talk) 10:05, 13 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, Wizardman 16:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's probably a valid concept, but with topics like this there *must* be google hits if it has any notability. --Amalthea^Talk 13:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:04, 21 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 22:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Proto/neo-logism. It is a variation on Model Driven Architecture (as stated in the article), which is a registered trademark [9] of OMG. ~ Ningauble (talk) 23:34, 26 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, will protect due to persistent recreation. Esteffect (talk) 23:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of players with 22 goals and 17 assists in one month (NHL)[edit]

List of players with 22 goals and 17 assists in one month (NHL) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not really a list, but rather more of an article about the player in question. Also, the concept of this list seems to fail notability, as I don't see the benchmark mentioned anywhere. RJaguar3 | u | t 22:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC) EDIT: Change opinion to speedy delete as result of information below.[reply]

• Speedy delete. Utter trivia. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 22:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, as it has been twice or more already. Ros0709 (talk) 22:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete a nonsense page. Needs a lock on re-creation. Libs (talk) 23:07, 26 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 AKB48. Kevin (talk) 01:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tomomi Itano[edit]

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

I doubt simply being a member of a theater troupe is sufficient to establish notability; indeed, there is no significant assertion of notability in the article and it reads more like a fanboy scorecard than an encyclopedia article. — Coren ^(talk) 23:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Actually, it's more of a idol/singer group than a "theater troupe". I just had no time in adding more information to the article by far.. she has appeared, having important roles in dramas and films, commercials and radio programs, in which you may search while I get some time in few hours to add, or simply view the article on ja. What's needed to be notable than having important roles in filmography? (I'll re-edit the "Topics" section if that's what you meant by "reading a fanboy scorecard") --staka (T ・C) 00:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  You might want to check WP:BIO, or WP:BAND which might apply more for notability guidelines. And yes, the "topics" section is what I meant. All that's missing is "Turn on: walks on the beach" for otaku perfection.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 01:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay so I added more filmography and removed topics section. I've checked WP:BIO and it does meet the "significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions" criteria. And with WP:BAND, the group has been a topic multiple times in the Japanese media, and has been placed on a major music competition, or rather an major annual music event on television in 2007 (Kōhaku Uta Gassen). She is notable. --staka (T ・C) 03:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 11:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to AKB48. As far as I can tell [10] [11] the topic did not have "significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances". I think one can apply WP:BAND "members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band" here. I can't find significant coverage anywhere to make her notable by WP:BIO, but of course I can't speak Japanese.
  I might be wrong though: ja:板野友美 has a section on her TV appearances. I can't judge if those are significant appearances in notable TV performances though. --Amalthea^Talk 11:46, 20 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 22:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per Amalthea. Stifle (talk) 13:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Staka. --Bolonium (talk) 14:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.-Wafulz (talk) 18:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Stable[edit]

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

Athletic training group. Is this more notable than dozens of similar local groups? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete Does not assert notability. Otherwise a fine article. Wronkiew (talk) 00:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A more careful reading of the article revealed that this organization is mentioned in reliable sources, and they do claim several prominent members. Wronkiew (talk) 00:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete no significant coverage in multiple reliable 3rd party sources of the subject itself. Article also reads like an advert for their "major developments scheduled for Fall 2008." (which means the article could fall under the blatant advertising section of CSD). Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Reads like promotional copy. Unless otherwise demonstrably notable in itself, association with a few notable persons does not make the organization an encyclopedic topic. Ningauble (talk) 20:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I personally think that if this were not a notable article, than the sources would have proved otherwise. They seem legit to me, after reading the sources. jamievanss (talk) 00:19, 21 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 22:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Ningauble. Stifle (talk) 13:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Keeper ǀ 76 19:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Dragons[edit]

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

The subject of this article appears to lack sufficient notability for inclusion: the subject does not seem to have received non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable sources. No such sources are given in the article and an online search for sources (including a standard web search and Google News and Books searches) yields only about 30 non-duplicate non-mirror websites, which are mostly blogs, discussion forms, and the like, and provide only directory-level coverage or passing mentions of the group. The article was previously deleted per PROD and restored (deletion log), so I am bringing it to AfD. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The article clearly deals with a group of interest and note to a very small subset. By the look of the article there are only a handful of people involved. it does not seem to meet the criteria for notability any more than my mother's bridge club does, and there are nearly 16 of them! --Brideshead (talk) 19:42, 14 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, Wizardman 16:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:ILIKEIT, but I'm afraid that the group isn't notable enough for an encyclopaedic entry. I could only find trivial coverage about them in (halfway) reliable sources, like [12]. The group has won a number of contests, including two at Pilgrimage (demo party), but I don't think that this is enough to establish notability.
  Weak Delete. I find much more ghits than the the nominator though, "Northern Dragons" assembly alone gets over 100. Amalthea^Talk 14:23, 20 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 22:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to lack of sources. Stifle (talk) 13:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 23:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perry Ray Robinson[edit]

Perry Ray Robinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article alleges he's a civil rights worker, a fact mentioned in the two sources I found, but he doesn't appear to be a notable civil rights worker. From what I found, he entered indian property and disappeared. They now think he's dead. It seems a BLP thing, except he's probably dead. Doesn't appear notable apart from having died TravellingCari 22:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There's no coverage about him and his civil rights activities. What little there is consists of brief information about him having disappeared and suspected to be one of those killed at Wounded Knee. Insufficient material to establish notability or build an article -- Whpq (talk) 18:08, 27 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. Mr.Z-man 23:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miasma (band)[edit]

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

Entirely self-sourced article on a band of no obvious significance. Listing demos to pad out an article is also a red flag for me. Google is not much help since miasma is a common word and often bandied about in the death metal scene, by the looks of it. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, does not appear to satisfy WP:MUSIC criteria. No independent sources (record label link is a 404, apart from that there's just links to the band's MySpace pages); no assertion of notability. --Stormie (talk) 00:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. There are several bands that go by this name, but the German band doesn't seem to want to come up when I go hunting for them. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:28, 28 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) 18:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MST Batch Converter[edit]

MST Batch Converter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article about a software product that doesn't assert the notability of the subject. I know that in general, Ghits shouldn't be used as a reliable indicator of notability, but the 88 hits are formed mostly from mirrors of the company's press releases, etc., practically nothing that's an independent, non-trivial source of coverage. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 22:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This software is used in IBM's DB2 which is a major business solution. Therefore it should not be deleted. And just because it got 8 hits in about 2 weeks, should not make it a factor. (Johnkmetha (talk) 22:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Not that I have any reason not to believe this, but do you have any sources that verify the inclusion in IBM's product that aren't directly from MST? The release note that's cited in the article doesn't mention this at all, and I can't find anything via Google. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 22:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • We at IBM cannot officially disclose what products we use from our vendors. I can say that we do use this product in our DB2 Content Manager 8.x solution. (Katiem222 (talk) 00:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
      • If we have no reliable source, then this is not a verifiable fact, I'm afraid. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 18:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no coverage about the product in reliable sources. Its use in DB2 Content Manager is irrelevant as notability is no inherited. -- Whpq (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Since there is over 1.5 million users worldwide of DB2 Content Manager, i think it is relevant and removing this information will be disenfranchising your users of Wikipedia.(76.181.253.80 (talk) 03:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Comment - Big numbers don't constitute a very good argument for having an article. If you believe that that the big number indicates notability, then you will need to demonstrate that through reliable sources covering the product. -- Whpq (talk) 12:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to lack of reliable sources. The claims here, and in the article, if verified, would merit keeping. Stifle (talk) 13:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 18:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Organizational Integrated Quality[edit]

Organizational Integrated Quality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

One aspect of management theory. Despite the claims on the talk page, the minute number of Google hits suggest that this is original research. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOR. Stifle (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The OIQ is not original research. the approach was adopted by few organization as an integrated alternative approach to traditionally applying ISO 9001:2000 standard —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergiofarkas (talk • contribs) 16:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There seem to be several other entries from this school created in the same way. Just republishing a white paper and linking to all the subjects it mentions doesn't create a phrase or make the article notable. There is no significant (or any) news coverage of this subject, and the few mentions of it in a search are mostly related to the Wikpiedia article. Flowanda | Talk 18:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 23:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Hobbie and Friends: Christmas Wishes[edit]

Holly Hobbie and Friends: Christmas Wishes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any reliable sources that shows the movie's notability. Schuym1 (talk) 21:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Well, here's two reasons to keep it - LeAnn Rimes does a song in it, and there's a NY Times review online here. I share your feelings about Holly Hobbie, but... Brianyoumans (talk) 21:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles have to have reliable sources that show the subject's notability. The NYT link does not make it notable because every movie has a page and it only has a plot summary. Schuym1 (talk)

• Weak Keep - There is this trade magazine article which features the subject movie. There's also a bunch of other stuff behind pay walls that I could not read when searching on Google News. -- Whpq (talk) 18:19, 27 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Volée Air Flight 180[edit]

Volée Air Flight 180 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fictional plane crash from the film Final Destination styled and formatted as a real event. No evidence found of real world notability. The article is plot summary with token acknowledgments that this is fiction. • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I wouldn't be surprised if this is intended as a satire of the Wikipedian tendency to make a detailed article anytime that there's an airline incident. Or perhaps the satire is that it's an inappropriate content fork from the article about a film which some felt was a tasteless spinoff of TWA Flight 800. I don't see it as encyclopedic. Mandsford (talk) 22:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to Final Destination series. This film scene description has relevance there, but not as an independent article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Modified my vote. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article is poorly written, with several spelling and grammar inconsistencies, not to mention several misinterpreted facts from the film (such as the number of passengers boarded on the flight during the explosion). Some descriptions are overly vague. Unless somebody is willing to rewrite/revise the article and merge it with the Final Destination page, it should be deleted. 19:00, 26 August 2008
• Delete. Might go within the page about the work of fiction, but not with real crashes. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:29, 30 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 he fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liam McMenamin[edit]

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

Article has an expired PROD, but had previously been deleted by PROD, so is not eligible. Prod rationale is "No evidence of first team, fully professional appearances. Fails WP:ATHLETE". The article lacks useful sources, so I agree that it should be deleted. GRBerry 20:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - both 4thgame and Soccerbase seem to confirm that he has yet to make a first team appearance. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 09:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete young football player who fails WP:ATHLETE. Recreate if and when he makes an appearance in fully professional competition. --Jimbo^[online] 12:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 12:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If the guy was notable, there would be sources stating he has at least gotten a game. Until one is found, this article contributes nothing. GauchoDude (talk) 08:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per nom Quentin X (talk) 23:10, 28 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 23:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rutgers Community Christian Church[edit]

Rutgers Community Christian Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

While this article makes a lot of claims for notability, I don't see any evidence to back it up. The org's own website doesn't even appear to make those claims. RS coverage is about a conference held there adn two people who met there, that's it. There's no evidence this is a notable church. TravellingCari 20:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unless the article has changed significantly since nom, I don't even read where there's a prima facie claim to notability. Was it proposed for deletion? 1,000 members does not even a Megachurch make, let alone notability on those grounds. Let the sources flow, or let the article go... LaughingVulcan 02:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Wasn't PRODed because I learned people can be passionate about their churches and figured a discussion was only right. TravellingCari 03:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Understood clearly, I think in all aspects. And I can concur with that. LaughingVulcan 04:05, 28 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 and redirect to List of Tom and Jerry Tales episodes. I'll perform a very basic merge, if editors feel that something more needs to be merged for any episode, theyare free to use the article history to do so. Recreating any individual episode article without clear additional evidence of notability for that episode should not be done though, as running against the spirit of this AfD (not a literal G4 recreation, but similar to it). Fram (talk) 09:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom and Jerry Tales episodes[edit]

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

Bats What I Like About the South (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Battle of the Power Tools (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Beach Bully Bingo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Beefcake Tom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Cat Got Your Luggage? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Cat Nebula (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Catch Me Though You Can't (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

City Dump Chumps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Cry Uncle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Destruction Junction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Digital Dilemma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dino-Sores (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dog-Gone Hill Hog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Feeding Time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fire Breathing Tom Cat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fraidy Cat Scat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Freaky Tiki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, Robot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ho, Ho Horror (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I Dream Of Meanie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Itch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Jackhammered Cat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Joy Riding Jokers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kitty Kat Blues (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Little Big Mouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Martian Mice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Medieval Menace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

More Powers to You (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Northern Light Fish Fight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Octo Suave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Piranha Be Loved (by You) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Polar Peril (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Power Tom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Spaced Out Cat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Spook House Mouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Tiger Cat (Tom and Jerry Tales) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Tin Cat of Tomorrow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Tom Cat, Superstar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Tomb it May Concern (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Tomcat Jetpack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Treasure Map Scrap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Way Off Broadway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Zent Out of Shape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I know that mass nominations are frowned on, but all these articles have the exact same issues - episode articles of Tom and Jerry Tales which utterly fail WP:EPISODE and consist of mere plot summaries and trivia. The closest thing to something in these articles worth saving are the references to old T&J shorts, and those merit little more than a one-time mention in the main article itself. Otherwise, these have been here too long and it's time to clear out the dust. JuJube (talk) 20:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: A bunch of non-notable episodes. Schuym1 (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect all to Tom and Jerry Tales. Merging all would be too large and tedious of a task. MuZemike (talk) 03:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Tom and Jerry Tales. There's information in each of these articles. It might be a long and tedious task to merge, but that doesn't mean that if people are certain enough that the articles shouldn't exist, that they just delete. Nfitz (talk) 05:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Tom and Jerry Tales.Someone should volunteer for such a task. Tom and Jerry Tales have become popular than the other remakes. That is why it is special.Daxterooney5 (talk) 06:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into a new article such as "List of Tom and Jerry Tales Episodes" as this is the current standard for handling series not considered notable enough (under current Wiki notability criteria) to justify individual episode articles. 23skidoo (talk) 12:56, 27 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:CSD#G4. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anderson Biro[edit]

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

Company does not appear to be remarkable in any way - all google hits are either press release type material or pages created by the company. ThaddeusB (talk) 20:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I now see that this a actually a recreation of deleted material, so I requested a speedy deletion under those grounds--ThaddeusB (talk) 20:24, 26 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. — Scientizzle 16:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Peters[edit]

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

Second nomination for deletion. No reliable sources to verify notability according to WP:PORNBIO. Awards not well known. Score and Voluptuous Magazine "awards" are not covered in independent reliable sources similar to "Playboy Playmate" or "Penthouse Pet". Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No sources to verify she meets WP:PORNBIO. JoshuaD1991 (talk) 21:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She's notable as a big-bust model and has won a few awards, meets (barely) WP:PORNBIO--2008Olympian _chitchat^seemywork 04:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No independent reliable secondary sources proves her notability. Tosqueira (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Tosqueira. Stifle (talk) 13:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as insufficiently notable. No evidence of non-trivial coverage by reliable, third-party published sources. — Satori Son 14:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Although the synopsis has been re-written during the course of this discussion, (to no longer be a copyvio), it still does not assert notability, and fails reasonable attempts to establish notability in reliable sources. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted! The Hundred Mile an Hour Dog[edit]

Wanted! The Hundred Mile an Hour Dog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article is badly written, contains little information and appears to mostly just be a word-for-word ???copy of the book in question. It Is Me Here (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I can't find any reliable sources that show it's notable. Also, it appears to be a copyvio. Schuym1 (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Id just like to point your attention towards the talk page were the articles creator has posted a comment. Salavat (talk) 11:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Pare down and merge to the author's page. He's written dozens of children's books, all of which are now redlinked. They don't all need Wikipedia articles and this page is a bad precedent. - Richfife (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is no reference to this book's real-world influence, and there are no citations. Best to just leave this as an item on a list. SunDragon34 (talk) 23:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Stifle (talk) 13:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saliwahan Sikarwar[edit]

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

I'm really not sure what this page is about. It just seems to ba ramblings about two villages in india which have nothing to do with the subject matter. This might be CSD-able as patent nonsense, but I'm bringing this here in the case that someone can de-crap-ify this article and make it understandable. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 19:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I just ran a couple of Google searches and kept coming back to this article. Obvious problems with WP:RS and WP:V. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Not sure what Saliwahan Sikarwar is (a person?) but the village of Bhagwanpur seems to exist[13][14][15]. I suggest moving the article to the title Bhagwanpur, Bihar as a start and bringing it to the attention of Wikiproject India. It is tagged for improvement. There is already an article on Chainpur, India so the text about this place in the article could be removed. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Tagged for WP India. I've seen several times in the past that articles about some of the less urban areas of India start out like this, with more emphasis on historical or legendary events that occurred at the location. I do understand that it can look like random statements to those of us who don't have prior knowledge of the tradition from which they arise. Once tagged they tend to be brought into normal standards. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The "Sikarwar" article shows that Saliwahan Sikarwar was a ruler of the district. I have added this. However I couldn't find any reliable sources. I have added a request for comments at WikiProject India. Axl (talk) 07:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Bhagwanpur: Saliwahan Sikarwar does not seem to be notable enough for a separate article, anyway he is mentioned in Sikarwar page. Also information on Chainpur should be removed. Its a different place. It seems that the guy who started this article simply by copying from here did not understand what he was doing. --GDibyendu (talk) 08:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or split -clearly this information should not be in the same article The Bald One ^{White cat} 12:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Edit and Keep : It has a place in Category-Villages_in_Bihar Villages_in_Bihar. Manoj nav (talk) 21:07, 29 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. Stifle (talk) 13:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red Star Belgrade 2008/2009 transfers[edit]

Red Star Belgrade 2008/2009 transfers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A list of transfers for a single club for a single season, which I believe fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC) пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - If this was part of Red Star Belgrade season 2008-09 then it could stay, but a separate article for one club's transfers in one season is not necessary. – PeeJay 19:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Create and Merge into a season article. matt91486 (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 12:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Quentin X talk 23:02, 27 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. Mr.Z-man 23:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor Jonas[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• delete I don't see any real claims of notability here. Brianyoumans (talk) 21:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Assuming the non notable band goes also, Delete. If by some miracle the band survives Redirect as this article offers no notability beyond the band. Nuttah (talk) 16:22, 31 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apathy (Swe)[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't see any real claims of notability here. It is possible that they meet WP:MUSIC, but you can't tell it from this article, and I'm not going to try to sort out online info for a Swedish band, especially since there is apparently another Swedish band with the same name (according to the Encyclopedia Metallicum or whatever they call it.) Brianyoumans (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless someone comes up with some evidence of notability. Nuttah (talk) 16:21, 31 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Tha Hood[edit]

In Tha Hood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable album. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, absolutly no sources. RockManQ (talk) 01:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Apparent hoax; does not show up on Billboard or Allmusic. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 17:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a notable artist fr33kman (talk) 15:57, 31 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Faye Rampton[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:PORNBIO. JoshuaD1991 (talk) 19:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I had wp:prod'd this with exactly the same rationale, but this was removed by an anonymous user with no rationale given. -- ratarsed (talk) 19:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No independent reliable secondary sources to verify notability of SportxxxBabes appearances to consider whether they are mainstream. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All reasons presented above. Tosqueira (talk) 07:17, 27 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. Not quite enough meat in the keep comments to make this a clear consensus to keep, but there's certainly no consensus to delete.--Kubigula (talk) 04:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Connors (porn star)[edit]

Carol Connors (porn star) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Potentially non-notable porn actress, and the article lacks sources. JoshuaD1991 (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Add Deep Throat to the Gong Show to being Thora Birch's mom and I think you've got notability, even if not not porn star notability alone. But of course, it all needs sourcing. David in DC (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not enough reliable secondary sources to verify notability for own article. Most coverage is due to articles about her daughter. Notability is not conferred by association. Brief mention in Thora Birch and Deep Throat article (maybe gong show too) is adequate. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Just because a stub has no current references doesn't mean it should be deleted. Notability due to association with iconic events is obvious. The parenting is a secondary item worth mention but not the reason for notability. 2005 (talk) 21:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Very notable within her genre and outside it as well. Independently notable beyond Thora Birch but still an association worth noting (and it's been widely noted in those esteemed "third party sources" too). 23skidoo (talk) 01:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Does not meet WP:PORNBIO. Lacks of reliable secondary sources. Tosqueira (talk) 07:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article needs some work, but I believe her to be notable due to the particular film she is in and the fact she has a mainstream movie actress daughter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobbomock (talk • contribs) 20:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I just wanted to elaborate on my delete vote in that there's not much biographical information from reliable sources about Mrs. Connors beyond she's married to Jack, they were in Deep Throat, and they produced Thora but I guess I can live with that stub. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. --THFFF (talk) 18:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caution - the nominator says in his personal page he is 16 year old. I am curious about the legality to engage a discussion about porn with a 16 year old in come countries. Hektor (talk) 05:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored for minors. --THFFF (talk) 18:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - She may not be as famous as she once was, but she is still a part of porn history! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.179.234.202 (talk) 20:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]