< February 20	February 22 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. some refs added & nom withdrawn.--PeaceNT (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lithuanian Black-Headed sheep[edit]

The article is currently unreferenced, and the breed does not appear to be even of note in its country of origin (with less than 300 individuals, according to the current article). The most comprehensive list of sheep breeds available at this time, compiled by the Oklahoma State University Dept. of Animal Science, does not list the breed. As this article cannot reasonably be expected to ever be sourced by reliable, published sources, it is inappropriate to have an article, as outlined in WP:V VanTucky 00:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC) I withdraw my nomination Now that the article has a couple reliable sources, I don't deletion is in order. VanTucky 22:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this is a worthless post.Tomic (talk) 00:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I agree, it's hard to find information, but I did find a little. According to the Google cache of this the breed may represent over 50% of the breeding stock nationally. The 300 number just refers to this scientific purebred flock. --Dhartung | Talk 01:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that first source qualifies per WP:RS. For the other one, it gives an error. I can't exactly use a Google cache as a verification tool now can I? I tried to improve this article before I initially prodded it, as you can see I've created quite a few sheep stubs myself. But I honestly don't think there's enough out there to genuinely verify this one. VanTucky 02:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The article is unencylopedic. No source. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Actually that first source at www.zum.lt is part of an FAO project. Look at the attributions at the bottom of the page. Even if it weren't I don't know why it wouldn't meet WP:RS. And any distinct breed with a national herd book is notable, particularly if recognized as distinct by the FAO.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 05:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article lacks sources, and the notability of the subject is highly questionable. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The FAO is pretty much as reliable a source you could get for a breed of sheep. It seems that the name is more often spelt without the hyphen as in these sources: [1] [2] [3] [4] Phil Bridger (talk) 14:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Added two UN references; one is the breed description from FAO and the other a development programme initiative supporting the breed. If there is a WP page discussing domestic animal breed notability criteria, pls let me know. Novickas (talk) 14:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. also seems to be known as Lithuanian Blackface. This paper seems to use the names interchangeably. Here are some more sources which use that name. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support and sources - will create redirect for alternate name if it's kept. Is it worthwhile to add Heifer International's involvement? [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Novickas (talk • contribs) 15:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if the article is about obscure subject where sources are hard to find online, it does not mean they don't exist. Renata (talk) 15:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Novickas addition of UN sources. Article is decent as a stub, and I see no reason to delete. -FrankTobia (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominator has been indef-blocked for trolling. No prejudice toward a good-faith AFD at any time. — CharlotteWebb 04:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J Stalin[edit]

J Stalin This article should be deleted because this individual is completely lacking notability. There are no sources identifying notability. The one source is an article in a local paper about an upcoming article, such article are largely about up and comers and local non-notable performers. Does not meet WP:NOTABILITY. He is not singed by a major record label, he hasn't sold a notable amount of records, no info on record sales at all. No major news sources. Does not meet, Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles Boomgaylove (talk) 01:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD was ... malformed. I've added proper formatting, and trasncluded it on today's (21^st) AfD page, since that was the first time that the wider community will know about it. seresin | wasn't he just...? 23:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and speedy close. Nominator keeps blanking article,[6] so we cannot have reasonable discussion. I don't know the subject of Hyphy, and perhaps the nominator does know enough to think this artist is minor. However, on the face of it there are quite a few reliable sources out there that give non-trivial coverage (including feature articles and interviews) with this person. There were two sources when it was nominated. I've added a few more and I think that's barely scratching the surface. He sounds like a fixture, well respected and integrated to the local hip-hop scene (which is one of the most active in the country) despite his young age. But again, I don't know the field. Wikidemo (talk) 02:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
please point those alleged several reliable sources here. "He sounds like" is not a valid argument.Boomgaylove (talk) 06:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It sure is a valid argument, conclusive in fact. If an artist is important in an important scenes, it supports notability. Wikidemo (talk) 08:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i object, was only following WP:BLP "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia article" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomgaylove (talk • contribs) 16:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A BLP objection is a different issue than nominating for AfD. The information and the source are an interview in a magazine conducted with the subject himself where he apparently talks about his own drug dealing, for which he was arrested and convicted. That is relevant to his bio as a rap musician, and hardly violates BLP. You are not defending BLP anyway by blanking the entire article while nominating it for deletion. Wikidemo (talk) 16:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable Bay Area rapper who gets 46,600 Google hits. Also, sources have now been added to the article. And I can confirm what Wikidemo has already said: this man is notable within the Bay Area hip-hop community. Bash Kash (talk) 05:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the google hit arguement is not acceptable, and even so, major databases of musicians, news articles, or music website don't show up alongside his name. Largely just myspace myspace and more myspace. It doesn't matter if he is notable in the Bay Area music community, that's not enough for any artist to merit a wikipedia article, he must be of national importance really, nothing against J Stalin himself.Boomgaylove (talk) 06:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note - the nominator appears to be bent on removing this artist from the encyclopedia, including removing sourced content and trying to delete the reference (repeatedly) from another article. If the nominator has some special reason to think this artist is not worth learning about on the encyclopedia despite lots of news references I would like to hear it. I don't have any stake in this either way. However, based purely on Wikipedia policies the artist clearly satisfies general notability criteria. Wikidemo (talk) 07:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How does he meet any WP:N? He does not meet absolutely any Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles, the burden of proof is on you to backup those claims.Boomgaylove (talk) 12:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong: He meets subcriteria #1, multiple mentions in independent reliable sources (which you keep blanking.) 76.240.230.77 (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - The nominator has repeatedly blanked this article. Not just the potential BLP concerns (none of which are convincing to me) but the whole article, including a major newspaper source. Then, he or she placed a bunch of templates including an invalid protection template, a notability template redundant with this nomination, and an "unreferenced" template after removing all the sources!??! 76.240.230.77 (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As noted above, the sources in the article prove that the article meets criterion #1 of Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. --Srleffler (talk) 23:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
published works means books not local newspapers!Boomgaylove (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. Wikipedia:Notability footnote 5: "Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc." (emphasis added) cab (talk) 00:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the SF Bay Guardian is a perfectly acceptable source. There is enough here to provide notability Gwernol 01:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just another two-bit rapper in a field full of them. Because of the DIY nature of producing rap recordings, this person's "notability" is inflated. Mentions in newspapers, even the SFBG as noted above, don't necessarily make him notable. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 02:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to disagree with you ILike2BeAnonymous, but that's exactly what WP:BAND says does make him notable: "...has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable". If you disagree with the guidelines, then by all means get consensus to change them. Until then, the purpose of AfD is to see if the article is within the scope of the current rules. Gwernol 02:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that policy (and agree with it for the most part); I guess my reply to you is that the sources mentioned may not qualify as "non-trivial published works". A passing mention in the SF Bay Guardian doesn't necessarily qualify as anything other than another data point for yet another "artist" who may or may not ever amount to anything. This one seems too small-time, local and indistinguished to have an encyclopedia article written about them. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 02:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...plus a profile / pictorial in Slash magazine. Not shabby. The multiple Bay Guardian mentions aren't passing, some of them are 1+ page feature areticles specifically about the artist. I don't think it's our place to insert our independent judgment of a musician being small time or unimpressive if the press decides he is.Wikidemo (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note. The nominator is now indefinitely banned for disruptive editing[7]. His conduct in editing the article and this nomination were part of the ban. I've already voiced my opinion that this should be speedily closed as a bad nomination above, so I won't vote twice.Wikidemo (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merged and redirected by creator. Hesperian 02:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Riding Halter[edit]

Conflict of interest, neologism, lack of notability Curtis Clark (talk) 23:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect ~~to hackamore~~. After a fairly careful review, it seems that Riding Halter refers to a non-notable commercial product invented by the author of the article. The article states that a Riding Halter is a form of bitless bridle, but the latter article, written by the same author as this one, appears to be a COI fork of hackamore, and the term bitless bridle appears to be the name of a non-notable commercial variant on the hackamore. Hesperian 00:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are many types of riding halter on the market to day. I make one of them. There is no mention of my product or POV pushing in the article. The article was completely neutral. AeronM (talk) 23:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Bitless Bridle" is a non-notable commercial product; bitless bridle is a general category, of which hackamore is a sub-category. See Talk:Bitless bridle for a small selection of verified, reliable sources concerning the term. --Una Smith (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, you know this subject matter better than me. Hesperian 01:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Better than 'I'." AeronM (talk) 23:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That depends on whether you read than as a subordinating conjunction preceding a new clause, or as a preposition. Either way, it is rude to correct the grammar of strangers. Hesperian 02:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I offended you. --AeronM (talk) 01:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted. On further investigation I'd say you are right about 'I'. Hesperian 01:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More details:
- As Hesperian states, it is a POV fork.
- The author of the article sells a product called "Riding Halter", which she sells, and for which she has applied for a patent (according to Talk:Bitless bridle).

Again, for the record: there are many types of riding halter on the market today. My product is called an Aeron Riding Halter. There are many others. My halter has a provisional patent. Several other riding halters also have patents or provisional patents. AeronM (talk) 23:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- A Google search for "Riding Halter" gives 1900 hits (arguing against neologism, perhaps), but the author's page extolling her invention is the first hit, and many of the hits that don't refer to the author's product are for the phrase in context, such as "riding halter horses".
- Although the riding halter may at some point become a notable product, there is no evidence that it has yet reached that stage. In one of the guidelines, I read an example that is almost identical, but I can't seem to find it now.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Bitless bridle per analysis by Hesperian and Una Smith. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bitless bridle. "Riding Halter" is a non-notable commercial product, one of many. Substantial portions of Hackamore are a POV fork from Bitless bridle and should be merged into Bitless bridle. --Una Smith (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with redirect to bitless bridle. However, Hackamore is not a POV fork, it was a wholly independently developed article predating the bitless bridle one. Montanabw^(talk) 00:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't think the article text suffers from COI/POV material. I think it's mainly a stylistic issue whether this information ends up in riding halter, halter#Horse halters or Bitless bridle#Halters with reins.

Sure, there aren't any good sources listed establishing notability for "Riding halter", but then again, there are no sources for the halter article, and it's obvious that we should have an article on that. There might be halters used for riding, and there might be books or trade magazine articles that use the term "riding halter" (thus establishing "notability"). However, I think freight elevator is a useful comparison. Someone could probably scrape together enough sources to make a separate article on freight elevators, but it's easier for readers to just have one or two paragraphs about freight elevators in the elevator article. If a freight elevator expert expanded that section substantially, then it might be a good idea to split it off into its own article. — Ksero (talk | contribs) 01:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with this. However, unlike freight elevator/elevator, all attempts to add a section called "riding halter" to the bitless bridle article were summarily deleted by fellow editors. I would attempt to get a section added to halter, but I am certain it would spark another edit war. Someone else will have to do it. AeronM (talk) 23:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To me, this is additional evidence of it being a POV fork. The current version of Bitless bridle has a section on riding halters, although it does not seem to include AeronM's product.

Someone else might add these sections, once the kerfuffle settles down.--Curtis Clark (talk) 00:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current version of Bitless bridle does not have a section on riding halters. It has a section called Halter with Reins, although I don't know anyone who would use this terminology or search with that phrase. AeronM (talk) 02:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There had been a link to Riding halter, which redirects back to Bitless bridle. With some trepidation, I've added some material to address the lack.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus?[edit]

Are we ready to redirect Riding Halter to Bitless bridle? --Una Smith (talk) 05:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean a dedicated "Riding Halter" section in Bitless Bridle, per the freight elevator example? --AeronM (talk) 05:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. It only means that we agree "Riding Halter", like "riding halter", refers to some form of "bitless bridle". --Una Smith (talk) 05:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine with the redirection. I would need to be convinced that all the different devices called riding halters have more in common with each other than they do with other devices not called riding halters in order to support a separate section, but to the extent that we can describe their construction in Bitless bridle, they could be included.--Curtis Clark (talk) 06:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm obviously fine with it. That said, I still think the things are an accident waiting to happen, but I'm just too damn tired to keep fighting over all the issues here. Montanabw^(talk) 07:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is your POV and you are welcome to it. --AeronM (talk) 02:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this merits further discussion. If other editors write the article, the issue of COI is moot. Again, I think the overall article is within NPOV guidelines. --AeronM (talk) 02:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aeron, there remain issues of notability and POV forking. As discussed on Bitless bridle, if all the various forms of bitless bridle are to be classified then it should be by construction type, not by name. The name "riding halter" is problematic in that products described as riding halters are not one construction type, but several. Some akin to jaquimas, others akin to cavessons and sidepulls. I am inclined to classify your halter under "jaquima" or (you'll love this!) under "riding halter", a set which would not include cross-unders nor anything having a stabilized noseband. --Una Smith (talk) 04:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And if any section of Bitless bridle becomes overly large, it can be split out as a separate article.--Curtis Clark (talk) 06:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying, and if the consensus is still to delete, then so be it... but for the record, it's not 'my halter' you are re-classifying.... the page discusses many types of riding halters, and mine isn't even mentioned. It is now so "neutral, " it's to the point of including everyone else's riding halter, except mine! I still don't see anything wrong with the article. But I'm fine with whatever you decide. --AeronM (talk) 23:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've said my piece, I suggest that we ask the AfD folks to come in with a completely neutral viewpoint and review. The four of us are not real likely to come to a meeting of the minds on this topic, but I will defer to the wisdom of wholly neutral reviewers. Montanabw^(talk) 02:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I've written all I want to write on this subject.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Bitless bridle as a subheading (per the "freight elevator" example). As a standalone item, riding halters do not appear sufficiently notable or distinct from bitless bridles to justify a separate article. However, their widespread use and range of features make them sufficiently notable to appear as a subheading on the "Bitless bridle" page. This subheading could possibly replace "Halter with reins" which is a term I've never heard anyone use. I can't see much justification for the list of commercial products in the second paragraph - especially as some of the links are to advertising sites. But that's an editiong question to be considered only if/when a merge occurs. Euryalus (talk) 03:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do the honors?[edit]

Aeron, all opinions here (comments aside) are to delete/merge into Bitless bridle. As you created the article, would you like to do the honors? Else, we will wait for an admin to come along and close this AfD. See Help:Merging and moving pages. --Una Smith (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is done. --AeronM (talk) 01:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. - Philippe | Talk 03:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Randolph Hunt[edit]

subject of questionable notability, a memorial filled with original research whose only potential claim to notability is of fathering Lorraine Hunt Lieberson. fails WP:BIO with lack of published secondary source material. Zedla (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He sounds like a very worthy man, but none of the achievements listed in the article, even if they were to be verified, seems to amount to notability in Wikipedia terms. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks like the subject fails WP:BIO. -FrankTobia (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Union High School (Camas, Washington). --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Union High School (Washington)[edit]

Non-notable recently established high school with no page content aside from an infobox. Red Zion^X 23:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- No content and no information given as to why this school is notable. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 23:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (along with the latest improvements) to Union High School (Camas, Washington). This school went to AfD 1 minute after creation. Aparently the nominator did not search before nominating. This nomination is not a proper use of the AfD process. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Union High School (Camas, Washington) – Zedla (talk) 00:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with the existing article, obviously. Bearian (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect is fine, too. Bearian (talk) 15:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that this article should be deleted because union high school is brand new in the Evergreen School District and the rest of the district wants to know what we are about. It also gives information about the school and valuable links to new students. I didn't create the article to be a nuisance or because I was bored. I created it because I thought it would be good for other students. --Diatommy554 (talk) 04:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Union High School (Camas, Washington). I would add that 'delete' would preclude the merge, for GFDL reasons, which would be a pity. Trout slapping for nominator for not carrying out adequate research before nominating. TerriersFan (talk) 04:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Don't kick the nominator too much for nominating this so quickly, this article was speedily deleted 3 times as obvious vandalism created by User:TheDancingDill. Keep an eye on this one. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Non admin close Happy Editing, Dusti^{talk to me} 17:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Washington International University[edit]

Yet another ~~diploma mill~~ non-traditional learning institution. Very few sources exist about this institution, and what sources do exist are not exactly complimentary. A couple of directory-style listings of sub-standard schools, a news story from a few years back, and not much else - and needless to say the subject institution vigorously asserts that it is a legitimate institution of learning, per OTRS ticket 2008022110018923. Overall, probably not worth the trouble. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Bear's shows two institutions by this name, Hawaii discusses another which may or may not be related; it's not easy to see whether the few sources we have are actually about the same place. Guy (Help!) 23:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The institution actually has attracted some attention. According to the New York Times (August 2, 1998, Section 4A; Page 17; Column 1; Education Life Supplement), it was originally called Washington University until the real Washington University sued. (That story does explicitly state that the Hawaii and Pennsylvania universities were the same.) The same episode was in the Philadelphia Inquirer of MARCH 31, 1998 (SF EDITION, Pg. A01). Since the standard is multiple independent sources, these and what is already in the article seem more than enough. (I don't think that 'not worth the trouble' is a deletion criterion.) Bucketsofg 00:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But can you prove tat those sources refer to this subject? I think there are at least two and possibly up to four mills with this name, and I can't be sure which is which, especially since the OTRS complaint states that they have never operated in Philadelphia. Guy (Help!) 08:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both the NYT and the Philadelphia Inquirer article seem pretty clear: they both say that it was incorporated in Hawaii and the British Virgin Islands. It also says that the 'school' operated in Bryn Mawr, not Philadelphia. Bucketsofg 17:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bryn Mawr is a Welsh name look you isn't it? (That doesn't work unless you say it with a Welsh accent, mind). Guy (Help!) 17:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania is a suburb of Philadelphia. The Philadelphia newspaper would name the specific town where it was located, but an out-of-state source might just call it "Philadelphia." Over on Talk:Washington International University I've compiled a partial history of the archive.org versions of the WIU website. At one point, they listed a Bryn Mawr address, later their address was Sioux Falls, South Dakota, then they changed to King of Prussia, Pennsylvania (another Philly suburb), which is the last address shown in the web archive (it was still in use during 2007). The Wilmington, Delaware address seems to be very recent. --Orlady (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bryn Mawr College is a prestigious school with that very distinctive "Bryn Mawr" name. A bit like locating your school in Oxford or Cambridge or Princeton. Noroton (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 00:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. It's not notable as a university, but it's plenty notable for the attention it has received as an alleged scam -- in the altercation with Washington University, in being closed down in Hawaii for deceptive marketing practices, and in becoming a source of controversy in a Canadian election due to a candidate's claiming a degree from this school. (Not to mention that an African head of state is a graduate.) I certainly hope that Wikipedia does not plan to delete every article about about scams whose perpetrators whine or make legal threats on OTRS. --Orlady (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and per WP:CORP with years and years of WP:RS coverage. Article sources seem okay and even higher quality ones available to back them up. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*I see reliable sources, recommend keep. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if our reliable source mainly discusses the fact that they were sued by Washington University, I'm not really sure what's notable about that. Folks get sued over trademark infringement every day. I truly don't see any reason to keep this particular article. - Philippe | Talk 02:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - multiple sources that meet WP:N. I would add that there is a good reason for having a page on unaccredited universities that are widely publicised in that we provide encyclopaedic information about the nature of the institution. TerriersFan (talk) 04:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sufficient coverage in reliable sources. CJCurrie (talk) 05:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See Guy's note above: how do we know that the sources are even talking about this university? The University denies that they even operated in Philadelphia. Let's not just look at the number of links, let's look at what they actually say, yes? - Philippe | Talk 13:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that denial that they even operated in Philadelphia from the OTRS? (Those of us who can't see the OTRS allegations are not in a good position to help respond to those allegations. Would it be possible to summarize what they are saying? Are there other allegations that need to be refuted?) For what it's worth, the archive.org website history (see Talk:Washington International University) clearly indicates that the owners of this domain were located in two different Philadelphia suburbs at various times up until some time in the last year. --Orlady (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep this article is useful for people considering using the service of this "University" to learn from a neutral source what it is. --Walter (talk) 09:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete I'm not sure how this article meets our notability guidelines. NonvocalScream (talk) 13:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can confirm that on February 19, 2008, the lawyers for the school specifically deny that the school operates in Pennsylvania (not just Philadelphia) (For those with OTRS access, see 2008022110018923). Also, Being sued is not sufficient criteria for notability; neither is issuing diplomas of any sort. -- Avi (talk) 19:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It likely is true that they are no longer operating in Pennsylvania. Their website does not actually say where they are now, but it gives a Delaware mailing address along with the BVI incorporation. The article does not say they are currently in Pennsylvania, but it does say The Oregon Office of Degree Authorization stated that [WIU is] operating illegally in Pennsylvania according to PA Department of Education. The source citation for that statement lists an access date of September 21, 2007, but the quoted text is what's currently on the ODA website. If WIU can convince ODA to change its website to say that they've moved to Delaware, Wikipedia could change the quotation. --Orlady (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not that I want to log in for this, but I don't know what the lawyers for this school are claiming, but the Hawaii state page [8] says they were based in Pennsylvania. I believe that qualifies as a reliable source. The question of notability is another matter, but in the interest of avoiding censorship and coercion, I suggest it be tabled till this OTRS matter is resolved and that this discussion be closed. FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 19:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[ec] The problem is that it is not easy to link one report of a bogus "university" with another - they deliberately obscure ownership and location data in order to prevent this and to evade the inevitable reports of fraudulent use of credentials. Even if this were a legitimate school, which is unlikely given the lack of accreditation and use of life experience credits, it would be hard to prove which of the one, two or more Washington International Universities it is. Guy (Help!) 19:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not easy, but it's not impossible. Look at the archive.org history of the domain. (That's original research, so it's not directly a basis for the article, but it should give confidence that this is not a case of mistaken identity.) Also, would it help you to know that Yil Karademir, the man identified as the WIU owner by the Bears' Guide and in news reports about the 1998 name issue, is selling a book from a mailing address in King of Prussia, PA? --Orlady (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aside: I've stayed in King of Prussia, PA. But no, since none of that is usable, I'm afraid. Guy (Help!) 21:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've established by now from two newspapers that the South Dakota WIU and the one that is/was in Bryn Mawr, PA is one owned by this Yil Karademir. Noroton (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update (see article for cited links) This Washington International University was founded in Bryn Mawr, PA, and had mail drop/phone answering offices or services in Sioux City, South Dakota (all this according to the Argus Leader newspaper); and according to The Philadelphia Inquirer (confirmed with other sources) there was a similar mail drop/answering service in Hawaii; the application at the school's website, as noted in our article, states that WIU has a mailing address at 1521 Concord Pike, Wilmington, Delaware (bottom of page) and was founded in "B.V.I." (British Virgin Islands). There's another school with the same name but with a different website in Encino, California (we have a website for that which gives that location), and, apparently, a third school with Delaware/Kowloon, Hong Kong connections, which the Bears' Guide has a separate article for. I think that covers every single location. As to the legal stuff, it would be useful and highly entertaining to follow the link to the Bear Guide, "Washington International University / Pennsylvania, South Dakota" article. Highly entertaining. And the Bears' Guide didn't fold to the legal threats. And did I mention it's entertaining? Noroton (talk) 03:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you are arguing there are more than one institution called Washington International University, and that somehow warrants deletion of an article?? If there's two organizations using the name, for whatever reason, even if they are unconnected, this does not preclude Wikipedia having an article on one, or both. If the WIU officials who have filed a complaint with OTRS wish the article to clarify that there is no connection between the one involved in the Hawaii issue, and themselves, that'd be fair enough, assuming that is indeed the truth. Of course, the burden of making that assertion is on them. And it seems there was some intention on developing a Washington International University in the Virginia Area. There are several Washington Post articles on it. Accordingly, I believe there does need to be some coverage at this location, and if there is some possibility of confusion, then a DAB page would be the solution, not deletion. FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 22:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This organization falls under WP:ORG whether it's a school or a business (and it's at least a business), and it seems to meet the notability requirements there. I've added information from the Sioux Falls local daily newspaper about what sort of an operation the school has in that town as of 2002 (it was a mail drop). Now that I see some of the discussion above, I might add to the article that the newspaper quoted Yil Karademir as the owner, so we can link the institution to that location (the article is behind the newsbank.com subscription wall). It seems to me that it's particularly important to identify and have articles on alleged diploma mills as long as the article identifies any possible confusion in names of separate institutions. Noroton (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- notable because there is plenty of coverage, even if it is a diploma mill. Rigby27 Talk 14:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, as the article is indeed well sourced and Viewplain1990 hasn't really given a reason for deletion —αlεx•mullεr 21:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British Caledonian in the 1980s[edit]

and again! Plaine'cruft Viewplain1990 (talk) 22:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. We have timeline articles for other subjects, why not this one. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 23:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is quite extensive and appears to be well sourced, I don't see why it can't remain; certainly, no good reason for deletion has been provided by the deletion proposer.--Aldux (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This and the following AFD nominations into one History of British Caledonian, preferably trimming its length somewhat. The article appears to be heavily based on a single book, with only occasional reference to other sources. A summary of published work is legitimate, but the length is excessive for an encyclopaedia article. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge content and redirect into British Caledonian in the 1970s —αlεx•mullεr 21:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British Caledonian in 1979[edit]

see below, we're not the history of the airline Viewplain1990 (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to British Caledonian in the 1970s, we have timeline articles for other subjects, why not this one. GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 23:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with GW Simulations, Merge to British Caledonian in the 1970s.--Aldux (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge content and redirect into British Caledonian in the 1970s —αlεx•mullεr 21:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British Caledonian in 1977[edit]

See below, no need for a year by year Viewplain1990 (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to British Caledonian in the 1970s, we have timeline articles for other subjects, why not this one. GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 23:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to British Caledonian in the 1970s; seems a good idea, while year per year is excessive, I don't see why we can't have a well sourced timeline on a decade of activity.--Aldux (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge content and redirect into British Caledonian in the 1970s —αlεx•mullεr 21:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British Caledonian in 1978[edit]

Wikipedia is not a directory and doesn't need a year by year account of every year in the airline's history Viewplain1990 (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – Agree merge relevant information into the British Caledonian article and delete this piece. To the author, appreciate the time and effort put in to this article, but better served in the British Caledonian main piece. Thanks for contributing. Shoessss | Chat 23:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to British Caledonian in the 1970s, we have timeline articles for other subjects, why not this one. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 23:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with GW Simulations, merge with a yet to build British Caledonian in the 1970s. I don't see any rule against expanding the history of an organization, to a point that seperate articles are needed.--Aldux (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – As I stated above, I agree that the piece should be Merged into the main article British Caledonian. However, I cannot see a new piece listed as British Caledonian in the 1970s. The main articles length is not that long. By introducing additional links, we are making it harder, not easier, for an individual to find a Primary source of information for this company, at this time. ((And to be honest, from a personal point of view, show me all the information in one place.)) If the additional information, grows over time, where it becomes cumbersome or confusing to the main piece, than yes, I would agree to breaking out. However, at this time I see no need. Shoessss | Chat 22:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The problem is that we can't insert it all in the main article; we would obviously have to cut down and remove mercilessly most of the text, and since it seems well sourced material, I'm quite reluctant to agree to such a thing. Certainly the main article needs a history section, but I don't see why we can't also maintain more in depth treatment articles, exactly like we have both Belgium with a history section and a more detailed History of Belgium, that is then splitted even further.--Aldux (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as blatant advertising. Even the "Fox news" link provided is a press release. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collabera[edit]

does not meet wp:corp, there are no real sources only press release. This article has been created before by the same user at Global Consultants Inc. and speedied first as a copyvio then as spam. Jon513 (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not proved. Alberon (talk) 09:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Jon513. The company was earlier called Global Consultants Inc. or GCI and now we have rebranded as Collabera. The company is factual and details provided so far as factual. In my initial creation of Global Consultant Inc. I was just trying to prove to someone how easy it was to create on wikipedia. The content i used was part of a company's marketing content and thus could be tagged as self promotion. When i tried to change the content, wikipedia had already locked me out. But this is a fresh attempt now since the company has changed from GCI to Collabera. (please visit www.collabera.com) If content is not to the standards, do suggest improvement, you will find the references to press releases are all factual as well. I shall find references from reliable secondary sources to be added to this instead. Also i am going through the Notability Wikipedia:Corp criteria and will do the needful to make the company note worthy. Thanks for your understanding. Rafialikhan (talk) 09:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Rafi[reply]

Are you saying you created the article to prove a point? That's only legitimate if you create an acceptable article, which means that notability and article content should be verifiable to reliable sources. Although press releases are adequate, if you can't find it anywhere else, to establish some very basic information such as who the CEO is, where the offices are located, the year the company was founded, and so on, any material that is likely to be challenged at all should be sourced and cited to reliable third party sources such as a newspaper.Wikidemo (talk) 14:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Gavin Collins (talk) 10:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to all. Some renowned web references where Collabera (formerly Global Consultants Inc or GCI) or its people's contributions, services, papers etc. have been mentioned or published: [9] [10] [11] [12] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafialikhan (talk • contribs) 11:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (unless sourced). I do think the information, if true, makes the company notable. A worldwide software / IT consultancy and solutions provider with 4,000 employees is almost guaranteed to be notable due to the nature of their work. But after googling this for 5 minutes (which is about my limit of patience) I couldn't find a source, so I'm a little dubious as to accuracy. As a note, collabera is claimed to be a 4,000 employee company yet has only +/- 4,000 google hits, mostly press releases it seems. By contrast, collabora, a company in a similar field, supposedly has 15 employees yet 9 million google hits (perhaps that one should be up for deletion too, it's not sourced). They seem to be different companies though, but the whole thing confuses me. If nothing else that's a good demonstration of the unreliability of counting google hits, and a good advertisement for trademark law. Anyway, the article creator is here in this discussion so I think it's fair to hold his feet to the fire and say that the article will be deleted in a few days unless he can find and insert some source citations. Of the four he mentioned here, three are clearly inadequate - they are merely pieces written by authors purporting to be Colabera employees. The attribution of authorship of a document to an employee of a company hardly makes the company notable. The fourth I don't want to open because it's got a certificate, but it seems to be a Microsoft page listing a piece of software from Colabera. The fact that a company has produced software, and that Microsoft is endorsing or selling that software, doesn't make the company notable. We need some reliable newspaper articles about the company, not a passing mention, that would support the claims of the article. Wikidemo (talk) 14:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all. Firstly I would like to thank you all for guiding me to the wiki notability policy and also for pursuant in following up and ensuring that without credibility being established, a company cannot get into the good books of Wikipedia. No contention here as many companies in the software outsourcing domain from Bangalore India cannot be categorically considered notable on a global platform other that the likes of Wipro, Infosys, TCS, Satyam etc.

And Wikidemo has done an excellent job of using google hits of tracking out the companies’ noteworthiness and am also surprised he got hold of Collabora from UK (which ofcourse is not related to Collabera). But what about companies that may not be at the forefront of Internet News but still manage to have a notable reputation in the market whether in India or Globally.

I totally respect the feedbacks and accept the challenge to present my case. [[13]] - again a press release but note worthy. ‘Note:’ Collabera, which has 90-100 active clients, recorded $300 million in sales in 2007. So it is big enough that way and we are funded by Oak Investment Partners - [[14]]

Also to list out a few other clients for whom a large chunk of Application Management and online backbone is outsourced to Collabera are – Move.com (owners of Move.com and Realtor.com), Intermec & JC Whitney . In Europe: CMP Information, Daily Telegraph & Puma AG (Germany). So we are in many ways the brand behind the operation of some of these brands.

Collabera is a new entity (rebranded) from earlier [GCI] and therefore may not avail as many Google hits as satisfactorily required. But if you look at the companies that have been acquired, Planetasia, IVL, Blue Hammock has been at the forefront of their business in India but serving global clients. We are also listed as 118 in the top 2000 H1 B employer in the world

I am looking forward to more discussions on this till we are satisfied on the notability of the new brand - Collabera.

203.92.58.190 (talk) 15:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC) Rafi Ali Khan[reply]

And as for WikiDemo's comments on fair to hold my feet in the fire, it was more like i peeped into Wikipedia Article creation and someone yelled Snake and the sticks came down on my head. :-)

Rafialikhan (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC) That was my reply above had not signed-in (Sorry)[reply]

An identity is important to everything in the universe, we as humans have accepted this as the cosmological certainty. This identity that symbolizes uniqueness, respect and esteem is the right of each and every entity that is a part of the universe. Two entities cannot exist with the same name, we all can respect that, but the way they sound when spoken of by various people can be the same. herein, Collabera versus Collabora, are not just two names that can sound different, they are made up of different set of characters. Both entities being different in what they do and in what they stand for and what they will do for years to come. So comparing Collabera with another existing entity is not entirely right and should not be the reason for an AFD win. As for the true existence / notability of Collabera...i think patrons should do more careful research before ruling out the truth....Collabera with an 'e' means it stands for collaboration in all aspects in the electronic world....e for electronic.....there is no such meaning in the other Collabora that patrons have cited....all due respect to every individual...all due respect expected.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vondino (talk • contribs) 02:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we now take a new direction and look at taking Collabera our of the AFD. We can only assure everyone here that all content placed here are factual we shall monitor it to ensure that the article and content lives up to all Wikipedia standards.

203.92.58.190 (talk) 19:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. - Philippe | Talk 03:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muzikbrowzer[edit]

Does not appear to be WP:Notable; I can't find anything more than commercial blog mention of this software product. Was already deleted once via CSD as WP:Spam I believe (if my memory serves me); use of subheaders as marketing points in this re-creation seem to suggest as much.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page you deleted yesterday was my first attempt at creating a wiki page. It was incomplete and I hadn't read enough before I had posted it. I later learned to use the sandbox or personal space for writing pages. So I did that, got the page up to muster (IMHO) and then reposted to the public space.

Now I have a question. I've read through all the wiki rules and guidelines. I see plainly that the rules state that wikipedia can't be used to create "advertising" pages and I respect and appreciate that. Yet, I see all sorts of wikipedia pages for commercial products. So I don't quite follow what the rules are versus what I see on wikipedia.

When does a commercial product become "notable" by wikipedia standards? When is it ok for a commercial product page to be on wikipedia? Is this spelled out somewhere, specifically? If not then I must object to deleting this page.

Thanks Mikem8 (talk) 03:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Mikem8[reply]

Comment Mike, have you carefully read WP:Spam, WP:Notability, and WP:Not? --Pgagnon999 (talk) 05:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable advert. Alberon (talk) 09:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are no reliable sources to establish notability. Search results are primarliy download links. No articles to be found about the product. -- Whpq (talk) 17:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I understand. :Thanks Mikem8 (talk) 03:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Mikem8[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 20:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hypnotist bernie[edit]

Non-notable local public access television program Corvus cornix_talk 22:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely non notable. Paste (talk) 13:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - community access cable show with no reliable sources to demonstrate notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN Public access show. Never asserts notability Doc Strange (talk) 23:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons listed above. Deb (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. - Philippe | Talk 03:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Global Relay Communications[edit]

One of a number of providers of IM and email archiving. Already included in Telecommunications Relay Service. Lots of ghits from "partners", no press coverage that I could find. One of article's links (Reuters) seems irrelevant, the other two are from the company itself. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Web-based services businesses need to be carefully scrutinized to make sure they meet the business notability guidelines. This inadequately referenced article fails to make such a showing. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Why is this relisted when there is no opposition? We need to streamline the process and not extend it. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) Darkspots (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Webley[edit]

Fails WP:RS (only references are own website and record company's website). Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:A. Cloudz679 (talk) 22:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Many references from reliable sources available:[15] dissolve ^talk 10:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - quite clearly, there are many reliable sources as demonstrated with a cursory google news search. It might have been better to tag the article with ((refimprove)) before taking it to AFD as per WP:AFD#Before nominating an AfD. -- Whpq (talk) 17:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, refs from reliable sources have been added. Murderbike (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Has many reliable sources. He seems very prominent in the Seattle music scene. Rigby27 Talk 17:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, is it snowing yet? Murderbike (talk) 17:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Administrative division henrik•talk 18:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statoid[edit]

Dicdef (already on Wiktionary)+unsourceable OR. Travellingcari (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Administrative division - they're basically the same thing. --Tphcm (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Herostratus (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to administrative division, which already mentions the term. Don't merge the unsourced statistics. Now what about Statoids and List of statoid name changes? Jfire (talk) 07:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statoids is pure spam for the nn website, and the other is OR. I think it's too late to bundle here, however so I'm going to bundle them together in a separate AfD. I'd agree with the re-direct here without a merge. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 14:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done! TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 14:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep as a result of moonriddengirl's edits. Wizardman 20:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the Point of No Return[edit]

Fails Wikipedia:Music#Albums_and_songs: Unreleased albums are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, obviously. Dgf32 (talk) 00:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is press on the release (some I've just added), and the first single is already out. I'm looking to see if I can find more. I'm all for deleting non-notable unreleased albums, but this one is in queue to be released and does seem to have been noted. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Moonriddengirl and her contributions to this article. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe | Talk 03:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pero Pero[edit]

Oddly created disambig in December originally for PeroPero, a dog occasionally seen in the manga series Kare Kano. The only other match is pop group, while the other two are Pero disambigs, but not PeroPero ones. Doesn't seem to be a needed disambig. Collectonian (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Above is just trying to delete artciles I have created, and revert additions to artciles I have made. Pero Pero disambig is a page to link a Character in an anime, a pop group, coffee substitute , and a Greek Goddess. There is no mention of a candy company. This page should not be deleted. This user is only trying to attack me, although I am unsure why :( -Prede (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pero does not equal Pero Pero. There is already a page for Pero disamibigs, namely Pero (disambiguation). This page has no purpose. Collectonian (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see how this page serves any purpose not served by pero (disambiguation). Deli nk (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the ~~candy~~ pop disambig confused me for a moment... --Thin boy 00 @008, i.e. 23:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC) page or Delete per nom. Thin boy 00 @993, i.e. 22:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. нмŵוτн τ 19:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sherman Mills[edit]

It's a hard search to filter out the other Sherman Mills but it appears to come down to one article, that doesn't assert any notability. A web search isn't much better. It's a community that's a part of East Falls, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (which doesn't appear to find it worthy of mention), not a standalone geographical place. Travellingcari (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sherman Mills is at Dobson Mills, a red link at List of Registered Historic Places in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (NRHP ref #88001214 at 4041 Ridge Ave). If 3502 Scotts Lane isn't the same exact place, Sherman Mills is at least a part of it. I'll double check. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN redevelopment of part of a historic property. If we had an article for the latter, we could mention this, but it does not have individual notability. --Dhartung | Talk 04:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Canley (talk) 11:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shyanne Melendez[edit]

Not that imdb is a reliable source but it's the only evidence apart from forum discussions about her role in apparently, one episode. Ghits (goes down to a total of 39) are forum posts and other non reliable sources. I'd stub it but there is no evidence of notability. Travellingcari (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Without evidence of anything more than the one role mentioned in the article, the subject does not meet WP:BIO Deli nk (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete possibly speedy as nonnotable, but definite delete. Thin boy 00 @995, i.e. 22:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I didn't speedy because I figured the 'actress' and 'model' claims asserted some notability. I may have been wrong on that Travellingcari (talk) 03:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - career as an actor at this point does not show significant roles, and there are no reliable sources to build an article -- Whpq (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep; the book is clearly a reliable source. Non-admin close. Jfire (talk) 05:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Man Who Stepped into Yesterday[edit]

Fails Wikipedia:Music#Albums_and_songs: Unreleased albums are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Phish are a well-known band so it is very likely that there are sources available for this article. Catchpole (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Very likely that there are sources" is very different from "Substantial coverage in reliable sources" cited. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just because Phish is notable doesn't mean that all their albums are. This one was not released; therefore, there probably aren't going to be any sources about it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While this was never released, it has seen a circulation on par with their label-released albums, albeit as band-sanctioned bootlegs. The album figures prominently in the development of the band, and, were this article deleted, would be a glaring omission in their discography. It has been covered in reliable sources, though I think "substantial" is a little subjective. The coverage won't be as substantial as with other unreleased albums, simply because Phish never enjoyed that type of exposure. However, the album is quite notable and the article should be kept. — MusicMaker 5376 22:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MusicMaker5376. Also, here are two references, one of them from Rolling Stone. This should be sufficient to establish notability I think.
- Aronson,Anne, "Phish Set Off Fireworks in Camden", Rolling Stone, July 6, 2000
- "Tom Marshall Amfibian 6-16-07 Philadelphia", Go Kids NJ, June 18, 2007 — Mudwater 00:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think those sources are up to the standard of "substantial". No matter, I added the one I found to the article. Blast Ulna (talk) 00:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for updating the article. Re substantial or not, I really think that a clear reference in Rolling Stone to the subject of an article related to rock music does count as substantial. — Mudwater 00:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Anyway, I've added the Rolling Stone reference to the article. — Mudwater 00:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, received detailed analysis in a book, Go Phish. Blast Ulna (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 21:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to E.O. Green School shooting. Canley (talk) 11:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon McInerney[edit]

WP:BLP1E. Does not compare with Oswald, Chapman or Cho. -- Y not be working? 20:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to E.O. Green School shooting. --Dhartung | Talk 20:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect event is notable but the person is not. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per User:Gtstricky --On the other side ^Contribs|@ 23:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to E.O. Green School shooting per Gtstricky. y'american (wtf?) 00:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to E.O. Green School shooting. Per WP:BLP#1E, there's no need to have an article on this individual since there's already an article on the only event for which he is notable. --SSBohio 04:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is major crime like Gwen Araujo and Matthew Shepard he will be known for years to come.Icamepica (talk) 06:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notice - the preceding comment was made by a likely sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Boomgaylove‎. Wikidemo (talk) 03:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- The two individuals you name were victims of hate crimes; This person is the alleged perpetrator of a hate crime, as well as being a minor. I'm very liberal when it comes to keeping articles, but this one would make more sense integrated into the article on the shooting, since he is a person notable for only one event. --SSBohio 21:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Note that I've gone ahead and performed the redirect already, on the theory that this will continue to be the consensus of this discussion and we're better off doing it sooner rather than later. Avruch^T 00:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Refs are trivial mentions that don't verify notability. --PeaceNT (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Wagner (prison officer)[edit]

Was speedy-deleted db-bio, despite a ((hangon)), but looks worth an AfD discussion. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, some media attention as a result of her job, but not a significant enough position for notability by itself. Ever so slightly verges on WP:COATRACK for including the investigation. --Dhartung | Talk 20:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely no hint of notability for her. The investigation, which found nothing isn't notable either. Nothing more to see here. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but don't snowball since the point of this is to have a discussion. As for the delete, per all. Thin boy 00 @000, i.e. 22:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the references are enough to establish notability. Barbara Wagner is regarded as an expert by the CNN television program Lou Dobbs Tonight, and has been the subject of coverage in the Albuquerque Journal and Gallup Independent. --Eastmain (talk) 01:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All may do what they wish. My wish is not to cause controversy.--Steve (talk) 02:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appearing on TV a few times as part of stories on a different topic doesn't constitute the kind of coverage needed to meet WP:N --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Information: More information has been added to page Barbara Wagner (prison officer). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete having been mentioned in a handful of stories does not meet WP:BIO. If we had more sources that we're directly about her I'd be more tempted to change my mind. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus, defaulting to keep. Fram (talk) 09:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of current communist states[edit]

Completely unsourced and completely pro-western POV. Furthermore, all of the countries listed refer to themselves as "socialist republics" in their own constitutions, and true communism (if we go by Marx and Engels) has never existed in any country on earth. The name of the political party that is in power doesn't designate the nature of the system. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. POV alone, of the non-fork variety, is, in my experience, virtually never sufficient to delete anything. Please articulate a deletion rationale couched in normative policy terms. -- Y not be working? 20:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your experience is apparently mistaken. All articles on Wikipedia must adhere to WP:NPOV. For additional rationales, how about "The article provides no WP:RSes whatsoever", and "The article is patent nonsense?" Nobody of Consequence (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My experience is what it is, thank you. To stave off deletion, Wikipedia requires verifiability, not the presence of RS references at present. If you had some of my mistaken experience, you would have known that. -- Y not? 19:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quoted from Wikipedia:V#Reliable_sources - Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. In addition to WP:V, the policies of WP:N and WP:NPOV must be fulfilled. Also see WP:OR, which is basically what this article is made up of. - Nobody of Consequence (talk) 21:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to List of socialist countries which presents the same information in a more historical and wider context. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having studied List of socialist countries, I am proposing this for deletion too. The lack of sources for this contentious material is a fatal flaw per WP:V and the matter is too serious to be left as is. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect sounds good. This article is unsourced and makes POV assumptions about governments, including its own private definition of what "communist state" even means. The List of socialist countries article contains the exact same information, and with wider context. (Though it could honestly use references, too.) --Ig8887 (talk) 12:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and oppose redirect. Socialism and communism are not the same thing. The states listed in the article-- China, Cuba, North Korea, Laos and Vietnam-- were all established with the aid of the U.S.S.R. and its particular brand of socialism, which included one-party rule, "communal" ownership of assets and a planned economy, among other things. Some may argue that all communists are socialists, but most socialists are not communists. Mandsford (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of socialist countries, since that article has a section to list the same countries as Marxist-Leninist. It is a flaw that this article says that the countries are considered communist states by the west, but provides no source. Perhaps the British or US government has such a list. Perhaps the New York Times or other reliable sources writes from time to time about the fate of communist countries. What they call themselves is not very compelling, because Hitler's "National Socialism" was not socialist and many "Democratic Republics" are extremely undemocratic dictatorships. I do not agree with the nominator's claim that the list is "pro western." Edison (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess my point about the "patent nonsense" portion of my previous statement is that if we go by the ultimate resource (Marx, who invented communism), then none of these countries have ascended to communism. Most of them are variations of state capitalism with a one-party dictatorship. According to Marx, the dictatorship is just one of the steps on the road to reaching communism. So none of them can be called communist since none of them have attained communism yet. I'd agree with a redirect to the list of socialist countries, since that one is actually capable of being saved (although it does need a lot of work). Nobody of Consequence (talk) 03:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI agree. Communism and Socialism definitely are not the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topclaw (talk • contribs) 09:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They're not but that doesn't really have anything to do with this article... why should it be kept when it doesn't satisfy the requirements laid out in three core policies/guidelines? Nobody of Consequence (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect & Merge since a small bit could be added to the List of socialist countries & then any looking for the article is redirected. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. - Philippe | Talk 03:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Longshore Sailing School[edit]

Does not assert notability, issues unaddressed since April Moosato Cowabata (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Camaron | Chris (talk) 09:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN as currently written. Of the two references, the first is simply a captioned picture of the founder and the second 404's. --Daddy.twins (talk) 12:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that notability is dependent upon topic, not presentation. Nevertheless, the current version (with Noroton's great improvements) should assuage your concerns. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I wasn't so much concerned about presentation as with the lack of any reliable, verifiable sources that helped to establish notability. Even as currently written, the only statement in the article that might convey notability is that it "has the largest sailing program for children in the country" from a 2006 article in a local community newspaper with a circulation of 10,000. Additionally, I cannot access the source article, so I'm not confident that this meets reliable or verifiable sources. A search on the newspaper's website for any article about the school results in zero hits. If the claim "the largest sailing program for children in the country" is verified in reliable sources and the cites/refs are strengthened, then it would make a better article. As it stands, it still hasn't proved notability. Regards. -Daddy.twins (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You cite policy but don't follow it. Local newspapers meet the definition of reliable sources used in WP:N. I withdrew the lines about it being the largest sailing school in the country because it came from local newspapers and, as I think about it, local newspapers aren't the best sources for that. They are, however, absolutely adequate to establish notability. You can certainly confirm that. I've offered to email copies of each article to whoever asks for them. Can you refer me to the section at WP:N that requires the school to be the largest in the country in order to be notable? Can you refer me to the section at WP:N that requires it to be nationally notable? Can you refer me to the section of WP:RS that requires a circulation level for a reliable source? Can you refer me to any policy anywhere that requires online sources? Noroton (talk) 02:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Follow up comments are on the talk page. -Regards. --Daddy.twins (talk) 02:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, the article was a ~~travesty~~ stump. I've added multiple, independent, reliable sources that give nontrivial coverage to the school so that it now meets WP:N / WP:ORG standards for notability. The sources, a local daily and a local weekly, state that the school has the largest sailing program for kids in the United States and is one of the largest schools of its type in the country (it also teaches adults, so maybe that's the distinction). Noroton (talk) 05:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor change in wording. I think I was inaccurate and uncivil. Sorry. Noroton (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - from the talk page. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on how notability applies in this case. My reading of WP:N includes received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources; and, Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. I still see nothing in any of the cites that are more than incidental coverage - either mentioning classes and rates, or mentioning that some other sailing school employs the founder of this school. We agreed that the claim of being the largest sailing program for children in the country was not verifiable, and you chose to remove it. To me, the remainder of the article doesn't rise to significant, non-trivial coverage. --Regards. Daddy.twins (talk) 15:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a very popular sailing school with great regional reach. The sources that Noroton has included do prove this. I am affiliated with the school, however and so am biased. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a review of the added cites/refs has been added to the article talk page. --Daddy.twins (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this teaching program also claims to be the largest. No reliable independent third party references to support notbility Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 21:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep After reading the articles found by Noroton in full, I'd say that this sailing school is most likely notable. Though one of the articles covers the school only secondarily (the primary coverage is of a recently-hired instructor), the other does provide substantial coverage of the school's Greenwich branch. I'll unqualify the keep if other sources are found. Given that the school has been around for over 44 years, I think there's a good chance they exist. Jfire (talk) 03:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was already speedied - Philippe | Talk 03:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Euros de Estonia[edit]

This article claims it is a translation of another article and really should be on its own region's Wikipedia. Andreworkney (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 18:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC) (AfD tag removed on 15 Feb by author, relisting for debate and translation)[reply]

Delete. Serves no purpose when we have the English version Estonian euro coins.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, basically just a mistake. --Dhartung | Talk 21:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge & redirect to Akira (manga). henrik•talk 18:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Akira (2009 film)[edit]

The notability guidelines for future films stipulate that a stand-alone article for a film should not be created until a project enters production. This is for very good, practical reasons. Many factors such as budget issues, scripting issues, and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. This film is merely in development; indeed, it was only announced today that development would be proceeding, and so this is more premature than most. In accordance with the guideline, the article can be recreated when principal photography is confirmed to have begun. Steve ^{T • C} 18:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions.

Merge to Akira (manga), since there are sources to indicate that the film/films is/are in the works. A brief mention is not unreasonable, but I agree that the article is premature. Note, also, that this should not be merged to Akira (film), as it is apparently a new adaptation of the original manga, not the 1988 anime film. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 18:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge per Ultra. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Ultra. This film seems to be a long way from entering production, and as such explicitly fails WP:NFF. PC78 (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This got over a thousand diggs! Xeysz ☼ 00:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF... this was just announced today, and it was too much of a knee-jerk reaction to create it. We just got out of the writers' strike, which was a tougher time for the film industry than usual! We're not going to be back to "normal". The article can be recreated if production begins. Even film adaptation developments of high-profile franchises like these suffer fates like those outlined by the nominator. In the meantime, mention can go on the original manga article as opposed to the existing anime film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as attempting to see into the future until such a time as: (1) The cast and major crew... ie director, producer, etc... are all locked into the job, (2) Principal photography is underway, (3) A release date narrowed down to at least a month is made known, and (4) all of these can facts can be verified by reliable sources independant of the cast, crew, and production company. No objection to a redirect to the main Akira article per Ultra. -- saberwyn 21:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not redirect. A 2009 film which isn't even in production or have a cast is not the same thing as the manga. Corvus cornix_talk 22:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it should perhaps be noted that the original creator of the article has graciously accepted the article's deletion. He has also transferred over his own text to Akira (manga). Steve ^{T • C} 00:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge not notable mainstream yet. No mainstream WP:RS listed as on this article. - 6etonyourfeet ^(talk?) 21:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Ultra. --Dymaxion (talk) 02:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that any useful information has already been duplicated at the Akira (manga) article by the film article's original creator. Thus, a delete would be more appropriate than a merge. Steve ^{T • C} 08:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete all three. No prejudice against redirecting the titles, I don't see what would be merged that isn't already in the articles mentioned here. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The History Behind Electronic Personal health Recods[edit]

Contested prod, removed by author. Article reads like a personal essay. Actually, the prod was removed and a title and signature was placed by the author. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding the following articles because ~~it's~~ they're very similar to the first page and have been added by the same editor.

An Introduction to Electronic Personal Health Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Implementation and Efficienty of Electronic Personal Health Records Within IHS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any useful information into Personal health record. I agree that this is mostly an essay, so there may be nothing significant to merge. Mandsford (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An Introduction to Electronic Personal Health Records is also a substantial copy of this article (as far as I can tell from a quick glance). --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So added to the AfD. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't really think that essay has anything substantial to contribute to the other articles... — Nova Dog — (contribs) 14:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think Personal health record and Electronic Medical Record address the points made in the essay. Also, lacking in-line citations, I'm not sure if all the statements are actually factual. I left a note at WikiProject Medicine regarding opportunity to comment on the AfD nom here. Coffee4me (talk) 00:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. No good faith contribution should be discarded. --Una Smith (talk) 05:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge only suitable content into electronic medical record. JFW | T@lk 13:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - Philippe | Talk 03:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barackula[edit]

I don't think this is notable, despite a single article in the Chicago Tribune -- lucasbfr ^talk 18:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete, This spoof has made national news. It's being talked about on all of the major TV Networks. Important to popular culture. Jccort (talk) 18:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the Chicago Tribune article was not a review. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion. --Pixelface (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Received lots of attention by the media check out this quote: The film's Web site, www.barackula.com, received much media attention, with MTV Networks first previewing the film on Super Tuesday. The video was also mentioned in the MSNBC program "Hardball with Chris Mathews." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jccort (talk • contribs) 19:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Barrack Obama. Minor footnote. The producer is a nobody, who's "greatest" work is this mini-film. I don't see a need to write articles about every popular YouTube video, even if they do get mentioned in national press, nor to create articles on the producers of those videos. Gavin Barsky should be deleted. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this. Bring up on talk:Barack Obama, where they will certainly decline to insert any mention of this. Speedy delete Gavin Barsky. -- Y not be working? 20:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Barely a blip on the cultural radar. Flunks WP:WEB, too. y'amer'can (wtf?) 20:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Verifiable, but WP:NOT#NEWS and there's no evidence that it has any encyclopedic notability outside a few news reports.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ~~Barack Obama until it can be shown that this is a topic that goes beyond a news report~~ a new article that presents notable portrayals of Obama and his campaign. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, a merge won't work -- it is simply not relevant in an article about the person named Barack Obama since he has no personal connection to the spoof. Unlike Ted Stevens and his series of tubes (with accompanying uber meme), Obama didn't create this video or otherwise do anything to cause it to be created: it might as well have been about Hillary Clinton or any other politician. Thus, it is rather irrelevant to an encyclopedia article about Obama. I would also point to WP:HTRIV#Recommendations for handling trivia and argue that this topic is not one that "can be integrated into a relevant discussion of a specific aspect of an encyclopedia subject [Obama]." · jersyko talk 21:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about an article covering the different media portrayals of Obama? The Obama Girl, Yes We Can, Barackula, and whatever else is out there? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, don't merge it to Barack Obama. It has no place there. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Erik. We should follow his advice. Jccort (talk) 02:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His idea is not a bad one.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and oppose merge to Barack Obama. This is simply not notable, and is also not relevant in the Obama article. It's essentially trivia. -- Whpq (talk) 17:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for simple notability reasons. Would it stand up on its own if it were not parodying someone notable? Unlikely. Is it notable enough to include in the Barack Obama article? Not at all. So why should its notability come from association with Obama? Erik's idea for a "Media Portrayal" article might work, given the usual due diligence about trivia articles and POV forks (although it's a stretch to call YouTube and the blogs that link to it "the media"). --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a page with other portrayals of Sen. Obama and clean-up per Erik. DodgerOfZion (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It sounds like a fun video. However, the standards for notability of a film are very high on WP. Nor is it an important event in Obama's life story. It might find a place next to "The Obama Girl" in the article on his 2008 campaign if it takes off a little in popularity. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThis discussion settled. A new article will be created portraying all of Obama's media portrayals.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I really sat and thought about this one, and here's what I came up with. For now, I'm going to assume good faith and hope that the list is trimmed and referenced, since it is huge at this point and causes the look of "indiscriminate". If nothing if done with the list in the next couple months, then by all means create another AfD and we will try another course of action. I disagree with any merge solely because of the size of this article and the size of like articles. Work together to make this a good list, then we'll be able to see if the salvaged list is worthy. Wizardman 19:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity and notable guest appearances in Doctor Who[edit]

This seems to violate Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information, as well as just being a very trivial list. The word "notable guest appearance" can't just be easily defined in my view. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep Seems like a reasonable topic for a list. Whether a list is indiscriminate is subjective and I'd be inclined to see a list of notable guests on one of the longest-running television shows ever as not indiscriminate. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A man of honour (talk) 19:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I think this is not so indiscriminate as, say, listing ALL guest appearances over the show's multi-decade run(s), I suspect this is the type of material that is best placed at Wikia Tardis. --Dhartung | Talk 21:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to some suitable article such as List of Doctor Who episodes. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 23:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Therre are specialist DW Wikis -- sublet this to one of them and get/keep the cruft off the main Wiki -- Simon Cursitor (talk) 12:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the page, as I see irt, is just the whole cast list for the 190 odd stories DW has had. In my mind, notable guest appearances should cover people like (from Tenth Doctor only, there's more going back) Kylie, Freema, Mark Gattiss Will ^(talk) 13:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fancruft without clearly-defined specifications, as nominated. - 52 Pickup (deal) 15:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Exterminate~~ Delete a list of everyone who was in a 26-year show, whether for one scene (John Cleese) or 6 different serials spanning 20 years (Peter Halliday). And it says "most of the celebrities listed are famous primarily as actors" - what's notable about having actors in a TV drama? Totnesmartin (talk) 10:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but improve - I think this list has its place on Wikipedia, but it needs work. I spent a long time on it a while back - introducing tables etc. to clean it up. However, it lacks citations, so they'd be a priority if it survives. Notability is a somewhat subjective concept so I can see why difficulties arise with this article. I think a collective effort could vastly improve this article. I'm almost always in favour of trying to improve an article before deleting it. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 03:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with strings - the article should have references, etc, added, to show notability... particularly for season four guest appearances, of which we now know a few. If it's not much better in three months, nominate again. --Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 07:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the list needs cutting down, as I don't think all the people in that list should be in it (most of them are actors, ans actors tend to appear in shows), but the list overall is good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StuartDD (talk • contribs) 08:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but trim. Right now, it lists every guest star that ever appeared in Doctor Who. The list should defenitely be trimmed to include only the special guest stars. As for the "merge with List of Doctor Who serials" suggestion above: not a good idea, as that list is huge already. — Edokter • Talk • 11:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - if it was deleted, the likelihood is that it would be created again in order that such information doesn't overwhelm other articles (over the course of 40+ years there have certainly been enough notable guest appearances to justify an article/list); agree that it needs trimming, though (and I've suggested something else on its talk page, some time ago, too) Stephenb (Talk) 17:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close (A7). Non admin AFD closure.. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 21:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Rushton[edit]

Article is about non notable actress, and is short. External links given linke to a youtube and myspace like website. Runnynose47 (talk) 17:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Should be ((db-bio)). No assertion of notability. Editor's only other contrib is similar vandalism on Bebo [16]. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CSD A7.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete nn. JJL (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Non Admin Close Dusti^{talk to me} 18:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're with me, leather[edit]

Content not suitable for an encyclopedia DiggyG (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a pick-up line supposedly used once, and even then it's debatable whether it was really used or not. Not even close to an encyclopedic topic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep There appear to be reliable sources discussing the incident and phrase. I'd rather no one pay attention to this sort of idiocy but that isn't an argument against having an article. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Nominator has not given an acceptable reason for deletion. I don't like it doesn't cut it. faithless (^speak) 19:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's gossip, it belongs on a fanpage or a anti-Berman page, but it is not something that is the least bit encyclopedic. It's trivia of the lowest order: unconfirmed, and probably unprovable. DiggyG (talk) 05:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No substantive reason for deletion is provided. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Content not suitable" is not a reason to delete (WP is not censored). Article is referenced and satisfies WP:V and WP:N. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 20:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing but cruft. Jmlk17 20:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you expand on that? It appears to be well-sourced. Simply labeling something cruft isn't a reason to delete. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:Cruft is defined as something indiscriminate or trivial. This single incident certainly qualifies as trivial. Yes it's well-sourced, but its still trivia. Does every sordid moment in the personal lives of individual sportscasters rate an encyclopedia entry? StudierMalMarburg (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it satisfies guidelines for inclusion, why not? Nobody of Consequence (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sexist and reeking of the patriarchy, but it's a notable pop culture article. Articles with lots of reliable, real world sources are not cruft. Bearian (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well sourced trivia is still trivia. btw a question for those in the know: do I vote? or have I already voted by nominating the article in the first place?DiggyG (talk) 05:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, your nomination constitutes voting (some people use the term !vote because it isn't a vote but a discussion but I find that term pretentious). As for saying that well-sourced trivia is "still trivia"- everything is trivia to someone. One person might consider 19th century US Congressmen to be unintersting (certainly some of them didnt have much of any influence on history). Others might consider any articles about pop culture to be uninteresting. This is why the core content policies focus not on the nature of the content but whether it meets WP:V. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep regardless if it was used by Berman or not, the meme has legs of its own, and the article is well-sourced in that regard. Neier (talk) 11:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The content is informative and well sourced, and if combined with an anti-Berman or Deadspin article, would overwhelm the article. Phyrkrakr (talk) 21:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can understand the arguments for deletion - the incident isn't verifiable, and it is trivial and gossippy. If the phrase remained just a blog post item and an inside joke among Deadspin readers, I'd agree, delete it. But it passes the notability test given the traction it's gained in mainstream media. --Mosmof (talk) 22:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the guidelines at WP:NOTE popularity is not the same thing as notability; furthermore
  "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail
  I encourage you to check the sourcing on this article before you vote; half the links are dead, and the other half point to articles that do not meet the significant coverage criteria.DiggyG (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - My point had nothing to do with popularity, and I don't think I implied it. The phrase *has* received not insignificant amount of mainstream coverage (there should be more coverage with Leitch's new book coming out) - I don't have the time to go digging right now, but I'd be happy to help if the lack of independent sourcing is your beef. Mosmof (talk) 21:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If we are going to keep this (I'm leaning towards keep but not that strongly), it will be because it's a meme. The story behind it may or may not be true, but that's kind of irrelevant. Ultimately it has little to do with Berman and what makes it noteable is not Berman but the fact that it's a widespread meme. Nil Einne (talk) 11:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC) Edit: I've tried to improve the introduction to reflect the reason this is noteable. 11:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC) Edit2: Or to put it a different way, the article is about an internet phenomenon, 'You're with me, leather' not a pick-up-line alledly used by Chris Berman 12:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well put. faithless (^speak) 09:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Non Admin Close Dusti^{talk to me} 18:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marika Michalowska[edit]

insufficient or questionable notability; mention in media seems passing and has no corroborating opinions in notable media - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator. "Second best DJ in Poland" is a strong assertion of notability - passes WP:V quite easily. We should avoid WP:BIAS against non-Anglosphere subjects. These look like some reliable sources are there, and was mentioned in a newspaper. It's different for a DJ than for a band to meet WP:MUSIC as they may not necessarily release albums. Has been the subject of multiple press releases beyond what is already cited in the article. [17] [18] [19]. I don't understand Polish, but we shouldn't dismiss these sources because they're in another language.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other Google search terms show up good results - including 'marika dj wroclaw'.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another source.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So should pass WP:MUSIC criterion 1.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Marika Michalowska was voted the "second best DJ in Poland" in Laif Magazine, the notability can be proved from this. A google search shows 31 ghits [20], and many of them are reliable source. These sources [21], [22] prove notability. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've notified WikiProject Poland to see if anyone involved there could get their say on the issue, and possibly assess the Polish language sources. Personally I think that being voted the second best DJ in any country with a large population should establish notability. If a person was voted second best DJ in the UK in any widely distributed magazine, there wouldn't be any doubt about notability.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am not convinced of notability. Laif Magazine has no article, for all we know it could be a zine with 10 issues. soundrevolt.com is an average website, hardly a very reliable source. Same applies to this website; neither does this one look better. PS. I found two bios in Polish ([23], [24]) but neither looks very reliable. Yes, she exists, but I don't see what makes her notable (that said, I don't see what makes any DJ notable... could somebody clarify that per WP:MUSIC?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Laif is a notable magazine, fairy widely published.--Molobo (talk) 00:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Whilst you have made valid points, in the case of Laif Magazine, just as Inclusion is not an indicator of notability, non-inclusion (of that magazine) is not an indicator of non-notability.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. Nonetheless the magazine does not appear very notable (I cannot even google its homepage in the top 10 hits), and I still don't see what makes her notable. She does not appear to have attracted attention of any mainstream media, only a few specialized fansites (as far as I can tell).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The homepage [25]--Molobo (talk) 00:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You did, however, state that you believed that you don't see what makes any DJ notable. So would you support the deletion of Paul Oakenfold? I've sent a notice to the reliable sources noticeboard over this AfD.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it might be more prominent in Google without the quotation marks, maybe just "laif"? "Laif Magazine" may not turn up relevant information, because it is likely not to include "magazine".-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Through this is going off-topic, I don't think Paul Oakenfold has any reliable sources; on the other hand he is a musician too and that seems to estabilish his notability. I am sure there are notable DJs; I am not sure if more than a few that have been the focus of reliable and long term mass media classify for notability just for being a dj, but it is not my area of specialization (and it is rather off-topic here). Going back on topic, I don't see that Marika's article is 1) supported by reliable sources and 2) asserts notability.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although the links may not load at the moment, some of them are from the UK newspaper The Independent (like The Guardian, it's a good left-inclined paper). That is certainly a reliable source. It's definitely not a tabloid newspaper. --h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to be broken, unfortunately.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the case, be sure to avoid WP:WAX when debating the notability of a subject in AfD debates.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it wasn't me who brought Paul Oakenfold into the discussion, now, was it? :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I need to do for my verbal blunder. No, but seriously, I feel that other editors' reasons suggesting this article's notability need to be taken into account.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable Polish DJ.--Molobo (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Barely meets the Ghit test (c. 139 hits), which is no big deal one way or another. From WP:MUSIC, she appears to meet these criteria: she (a) ... has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. This criterion includes published works in all forms.... (accepted) (b) Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country. (claimed but no proof yet) (c) Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. (claimed and proven) (d) Has won or placed in a major music competition (placed). Can anyone translate those Polish cites/sites? I like to see more WP:RS in a WP:BLP. Bearian (talk) 01:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above comments. DJs never been notable persons in Poland due to the so called - Dulska syndrome see Dulska morality. Can't find even one example of DJ in Polish Wikipedia. But if English editors found her then I go with them. Besides where would be the Rolling Stones these days if not for DJs? greg park avenue (talk) 17:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Claim of notability/importance is dependant upon a ranking by Laif Magazine. Why, then, is Laif not the source for this statement? We can't just take the word of the provided sources, which are questionable, at best. The current sources are 1) SoundRevolt.com (no known "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" required per WP:V), 2) a "mention" in New Warsaw Express (WP:N requires "Significant coverage", meaning "that sources address the subject directly in detail") and puredjs.com (apparently a talent agency, which raises WP:NPOV issues). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 01:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. нмŵוτн τ 19:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Willis Schalliol[edit]

He's a vet and an author, but apparently a non-notable one. There's no evidence of he or his book' notability, and ghits are book listings. The publisher is a small press with a dead URL. Travellingcari (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN per WP:BIO. - IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Tikiwont (talk) 11:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DByDx[edit]

Article is written on a non-notable business. The article seems to be an attempt at advertising. There are a couple of business terms defined towards the end (which seem to have nothing to do with the article) and are covered elsewhere. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertising. • Anakin ^(talk) 17:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under CSD G11 or A7, obviously.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete advert, cruft, probably a conflict of interest, etc. Thin boy 00 @005, i.e. 23:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Staring contest. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stare down[edit]

Unencyclopedic, non-notable. ukexpat (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Staring contest, a much better treatment of the topic (though it itself is far from perfect). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect per Starblind. JuJube (talk) 17:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
redirect per Starblind. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. To be quite honest I'm surprised we even have a staring contest article. It seems like total OR at the moment in itself, and is completely inadequately sourced. Maybe we should consider that for deletion too.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, the staring contest is a bit poo, but amazingly there are potentially reliable sources (like this one and this one). A Google Books search finds real books discussing staring contests as a kids' game, a psychological phenomena, an interview/interrogation technique, and an aspect of Sumo westling... and that was only the first page of results! Thus, that article at least has potential. This doesn't. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) Darkspots (talk) 00:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Qualified Zone Academy Bonds[edit]

Ad-like, Confusing, Spam? CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 16:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a notable topic. It is an unusual financial instrument used in financing of United States public education. (I am somewhat familiar with it because I live in a community that borrowed $8 million through this program, as documented in a referenced sentence that I added to the article.) Unfortunately, the article has received much editing attention from two competing companies in the business of selling QZABs, which is why it seems ad-like. One reason why it is confusing is that the whole arrangement is very confusing. Since first seeing QZAB articles on new pages patrol, I have made several relatively half-hearted efforts to improve the article and combat the addition of advertising, but the bond vendors have more energy (and knowledge) than I have... The article could be improved with information from the U.S. Treasury, information on other school districts that have used these bonds, and ideally also information on the political background of the program (I'm sure there's an interesting story). -- Orlady (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Confusing, perhaps, but it hardly sounds ad-like. matt91486 (talk) 17:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Matt.Keep with some cleaning up and rewriting. A man of honour (talk) 19:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, these only affect a small number of school districts (due to intentional limitations) but they are notable. Could use a rewrite, and needs to be moved to Qualified Zone Academy Bond per WP:MOS. --Dhartung | Talk 21:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Chetblong^{T C} 01:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dance Monkeyboy[edit]

Delete: Not a notable article. Wikipedia is not for fun. It's a serious project.Mugunth^{(ping me!!!,contribs)} 16:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. JohnCD (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn web content, one of a zillion "funny" online videos. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - definitely not notable. Might be worth a mention on his page but not deserving of it's own page. Davetibbs (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Steve Ballmer. Not notable to have own article. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 13:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands, possibly merge and redirect if reliable sources about this are found.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. LightSpeed3 (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Giles (South Australian Company Colonial Manager)[edit]

This is the biography of a corporate person that doesn't assert any notability other than he eventually became a colonial manager. No mention is made of what he did at the company, only a brief history of his life before then. Prod removed by author with a link to another biography. JuJube (talk) 16:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable Grafen (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if this was a present or recently-deceased person it would be a no-brainer speedy delete, and just being dead for quite awhile doesn't confer any additional notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, keep. This is sourced to the Australian Dictionary of Biography. He wasn't just manager of some company, but of the South Australian Company -- the British-chartered quasi-public enterprise that was charged with the settlement of South Australia (comparable to the Honourable East India Company). He probably had as much, or more, power than the Crown-appointed Governor at the time. --Dhartung | Talk 19:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But the article doesn't mention any of that. It is only a brief biography of his life before that, and nothing of his life as the manager of said company. JuJube (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If he acted as governer or had other notable activities during his time with the company, the article completely misses that, instead saying more or less that he had a bunch of kids. There do appear to be reliable sources (such as this), so perhaps cleanup is possible, but I think having no article at all is preferable to the current one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:SOFIXIT surely applies (but the information is in the article, even if its importance is not highlighted). It also turns out he was a member of the first Legislative Council of South Australia (while it remained a separate colony). That inherently passes WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 20:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Giles was appointed as the third colonial manager of the South Australian Company in January 1841. That's it. "Its importance is not highlighted" would be a severe understatement. JuJube (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, we're not really required to explain the importance of the South Australian Company in this article. It's notable, it has an article, and that's what wikilinks are for. --Dhartung | Talk 09:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep first, we have always accepted a full article in the Aust NB as evidence of notability, just as for the UK equivalent. second, as he was a member of the legislature, he also qualifies as notable. The AUNB links were there from the first, so this should never have been nominated. DGG (talk) 05:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, the article mentions none of that, simply saying he had some kids, then became president, then nothing. JuJube (talk) 06:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - (It does say more now.) --Dhartung | Talk 09:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whatever the merits of the nomination, the article as it stands now certainly demonstrates notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (talk) 10:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep thanks to improvements. Notability clearly demonstrated in several manners, including the primary criterion of multiple reliable sources, listing in the Australian Dictionary of Biography and being a member of a legislature. Perhaps the intial nominator may wish to withdraw? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep As per current version. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 10:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being a member of a state legislature is VERY notable. Not to forget the various RS'. Twenty Years 11:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep was a parlimentarian for the district of Yatala (not Yalata as listed in the article) defeating the well-known George Alexander Anstey - well noted in newspapers of the time and books after - clearly notable - Peripitus (Talk) 12:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just being a member of the Legislative Council is sufficent notability (even if the article as currently written doesn't make his significance clear) and with the ADB reference it has sufficient references.--Grahame (talk) 04:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Fram (talk) 09:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cachaça, Um Amor Brasileiro[edit]

Fails Notability (books) and reads like advertising. If the article is deleted, the book cover image, Image:8506048133.jpg should also be deleted (note than an IP seems to have improperly tagged it GFDL). • Anakin ^(talk) 16:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sometimes, people mistakes Afd for clean-up. If the article is not good, wikify it. I'm brazilian and the book has notability in my country (one of best books about cachaça, the most popular alcoholic drink of Brazil). This article lacks resources and need more quality, but deletion is very extreme. Zerokitsune (talk) 01:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't read Portuguese but there seemed to be plenty of references to this book in Brazilian media, I've done a bit of a cleanup of the grammar and promotional tone. --Canley (talk) 03:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Canley (talk) 11:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let there be a massacre[edit]

Renominating because of confusion with its previous listing. DeadEyeArrow nominated it on non-notability. The one-man band that made the album was just deleted in AfD. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sól (band) for previous listing. — Tivedshambo _(t|c) 16:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - album with no evidence of notability from non-notable band. — Tivedshambo _(t|c) 16:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if the "band" is non-notable by consensus, so is the album. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as in the other afd, fails WP:MUSIC. It was clear in the other afd, we didn't need to nominate it again. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 18:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep and moved to A. J. O'Brien. Fram (talk) 09:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A.J.O'Brian[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/A.J.O'Brian

Contested prod; removed by author. Fails notability for military officers. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. JuJube (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to Mr. O'Brian, Delete per nomination and Wikipedia:Notability (people). • Anakin ^(talk) 19:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of significance. --Dhartung | Talk 19:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Maybe not notable as a military officer, but he acted as Deputy Commissioner of a district with an area of over 2000 square miles and a present-day population of over a million. That would make him roughly equivalent to a Governor of Delaware or Rhode Island. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Perhaps, but I'm questioning the sources on this one. Only 170 ghits. If this person is truly notable, you'd think we'd at least know what the "A.J." stands for; as it's shown now, it's just written as "Mr. O'Brian." — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You say you're questioning the sources, so does that mean that you have checked them in a library? If not then you are failing to assume good faith. You seem not to realise that the Internet didn't exist 100 years ago, so Google hits are not the best way to judge this person's notability, which certainly doesn't depend on what his first names were. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm assuming good faith as best as I can; all I'm questioning is that, in those two references given, at least one of them should have said what either the A or the J stands for. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Phil Bridger. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/A.J.O%27Brian&action=editEdward321 (talk) 15:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Phi. I would be very surprised if there were not more dead tree sources about him. This is the sort of article where it will naturally be hard to find sources online. That's a reason for people to go look for them, not a reason to delete. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article was created on Feb 19th; it's almost a week later, and the original editor hasn't touched the page since then. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think the surname may be mis-spelled: I've put two articles written by an 'A. J. O'Brien' who fits his description into the page. Is he Major Aubrey O'Brien? Dsp13 (talk) 13:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC) - Yes, I'm inclined to think Aubrey John O'Brien (1870-1930), who as well as 'The Mohammadan Saints of the Western Punjab,' Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, Vol. XLI also co-authored Cupud and Cartridges and The Man Who Paid with a Reginald Bolster. See Who was Who 1929-40. But I don't know my Punjab from my Mianwali, so I'm unsure. Dsp13 (talk) 13:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wow, that changes everything; nicely done. Is there anywhere else we can ask for help/verification on this sort of thing? Any of the Wikiprojects? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Your Mianwali is in your Punjab (up in the top left corner), so I reckon you're on to something there. Great work! Phil Bridger (talk) 14:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. You're definitely on to something - this confirms that we're talking about the same guy, unless there was a Capt. A. J. O'Brian and a Capt. A. J. O'Brien who were both deputy commissioners in the Punjab at the same time. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Triple, double[edit]

Delete fails WP:V, WP:N and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. In addition to what's noted above, this article is also gazing heavily into the crystal ball. —C.Fred (talk) 15:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nomination. No claim of notability. • Anakin ^(talk) 15:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete completely non-notable. Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in double, no triple, time. The article actually says "there is no plot right now, but it's coming", in so many words, and "the protagonist is the leading character" (but never names him/her). Just that, the protagonist is the leading character. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability because it is not notable and they didn't want to lie, I guess. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Anakin101. JuJube (talk) 16:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per everyone. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except that no valid criterion for speedy deletion has been given so far. —C.Fred (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be inclined to delete under G11, Blatant Advertising, as a previous version of the article cited "Jonathan Reid" as one of the film's directors, and the author of the page is And-the-Jonathan-Reid (talk · contribs). The fact that the advertising is poorly executed at best hurts this argument, though... UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 18:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G11/blatant advertising. Just because it doesn't say "TREMENDOUS SAVINGS!! MAKE MONEY FAST!! CLICK HERE!!" doesn't mean it isn't spam. As an aside, I'd bet half a donut that if this ever comes out (assuming it even does) it'll be on youtube, thus making it A7/speediable web content. Something tells me this isn't exactly destined for IMAX or anything. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this does not meet any speedy deletion criteria. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 21:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What was the previous version deleted for? - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was a copy/paste of the Old School (film) article and was deleted as vandalism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - violates WP:Crystal and is not notable. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 21:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 04:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jenni Potts[edit]

fails notability per WP:MUSIC, only has one album and has participated on one album with more musics from the same recording company. Other references on the page are filler that don't advance notability. Article was already speedy deleted once by an admin (you can see the 11 February warning on the talk page of the article's creator User_talk:Ibestefyo, and the article was created on 13 February), and was recreated by the same user with no reasons given about why it should be recreated Enric Naval (talk) 15:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on more reasons for deletion I later found there is strong proof to believe that the musician herself is the author and re-creator of the article, since there is a profile on stumbleupon using her user name with similar biografic data [26]. The photo matches closely with the one uploaded by user Image:JenniPotts.jpg. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I don't really care too much either way, but I would've thought that collaborating with the guys from Idiot Pilot, and being on a notable label would've satisfied WP:MUSIC. Murderbike (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Simply collaborating with someone (marginally) notable isn't enough to pass WP:MUSIC, else we'd have an article on every session musician ever. See also WP:NOTINHERITED. Besides, the level of collaboration isn't even enough to get Potts mentioned on Idiot Pilot's article. Secondly, Clickpop Records certainly isn't a "major label or one of the more important indie labels" specified under WP:MUSIC, and even if it were the requisite 2 full albums have not been met. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Cool. Murderbike (talk) 18:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. SingCal 01:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Canley (talk) 03:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Declaration (2nd nomination)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Fails Wikipedia:Music#Albums_and_songs: Unreleased albums are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I feel that since a video for the single "The Way That I Love You" has been released, that this does make the album that it will be on notable. ≈Alessandro ♫^{T • C} 06:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Per WP:MUSIC: Unreleased albums are not notable without significant coverage in reliable sources. The existance of a video does not make the album that the single may or may not be on if/when the album is released does not establish notability for that album now. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - An album with a scheduled future release date is not the same as an unreleased album. "Unreleased albums" in the context of WP:MUSIC refers to notable scrapped albums, such as Smile (Beach Boys album). This has a confirmed date and a source for that date. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 20:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, as I find those arguments to be stronger. Plus, since it's under arbcom sanction at this time, nothing could be done anyway. Feel free to merge or relist at afd after the case is done. Wizardman 21:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor characters of the Powerpuff Girls[edit]

Predominantly non-notable one-off characters that have appeared in the television series. Fails on WP:N. treelo _talk 14:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable set of characters, possibly trim down and merge. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Sox!} 14:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable by themselves, should be merged into some other power puff girls page --Enric Naval (talk) 15:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep HELLO, it was merged OUT of the main PPG page after a recommendation to do just that. Now AfD wants to move it back... SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Comment That's because the author forgot to specify on the talk page "Hey, this article was unmerged from the main article [[Main Article]] as discused on its talk page. Please don't delete it on the basis that it needs to be on the main article" . Next time you unmerge for that reason, or notice an article unmerged like that, please add a similar notice to prevent this from happening. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"# (cur) (last) 13:28, 17 April 2007 SchmuckyTheCat (Talk | contribs) (create sub-page, cut from main article for size.)" Suddenly edit summaries aren't good enough. Is there next going to be an Wikipedia:Approved article noticeboard I have to post new articles to? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Some people will just look at the discussion page for that information. Also, history can become very long, and that page has 250+ edits. Editors who stumble upon the article might not think of looking at the edit summary of the article creation. Or, like I myself did, I saw nothing on talk page, then I entered the history, pressed "older 50" two or three times and then gave up --Enric Naval (talk) 03:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The history page has a "500" button. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Yeah, but I thought (incorrectly) that after so many edits someone would have dragged any notability concerns into the talk page so it wouldn't get lost on edit history. Don't worry, from now on I'll look at the page creation edit summary when I look for that stuff, but you should really consider adding a notice on the talk page to save yourself later trouble --Enric Naval (talk) 03:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which brings up the the larger issue of changing WP:SS to ask that editors do this, as that guideline only mentions the edit summary. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Looks like a valid summary-style spinoff of List of characters in The Powerpuff Girls. Merge it back in, and the whole would be too large. Navigation in the suite of articles is a bit wonky, though -- not everything is interlinked. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not very important things to have a page of their own. Please merge it back. Raffethefirst (talk) 18:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep as legitimately split off material from a long page. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a legitimate spinoff from an article about the TV series; ultimately, it would be great to have all the other character articles merged into one article called Major characters of the Powerpuff Girls Mandsford (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That already happened, see List of characters in The Powerpuff Girls (and it's looking good). – sgeureka ^t•c 20:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even though the characters on their own would fail WP:N, this article is not inherently non-notable (though it could really use some copy-editing and references). • Anakin ^(talk) 22:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no merge. Even tho it's under ArbCom, I'm going to cast my opinion here. These characters are both non-notable in-universe and out-of-universe. While the policy may not be clear on what is considered "minor characters", these are basically throw-aways used once for plot advancement. The cartoon may be non-contiguous, but these characters really add no depth to the fictional universe. This is like trying to establish notability for prop devices like mailboxes or trees. Yng varr 01:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They show guest voices, and while the show is non-contiguous several/most of them did advance the background story (making them notable in-universe). Trying to represent this information in the main article suddenly makes all the same words appear to explain it, but not as a character list. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Comment I understand the spinout element of this article but the fact it's to do with an article being overlong which allows the parent article to define notability is foolish as it doesn't take the content of article forks like this one into account. One-time characters which don't affect any storyline or characters outside of the episode in question don't require a list. Having lists for everything and everyone in a television show regardless of WP:N is beyond the purpose of Wikipedia even if it is a content fork. --treelo _talk 00:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this article were to be edited for style, I'd be willing to bet at least 75% of the size could be trimmed down. These are highly verbose descriptions of minor characters. Give them one or two sentences, as would fit minor characters, and you might be able to fit this back in to the main article, tho I am not endorsing such a merge. Yng varr 22:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a split off from a long page per User:JoshuaZ et al. Bearian (talk) 02:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a sub-article created per WP:SPINOUT; as such it must be evaluated as though it were part of the "parent" article. Since the parent article is just fine, this article is just fine. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 03:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:SPINOUT is a guideline, not policy. There is no enforcement behind WP:SPINOUT, as you state above. Yng varr 21:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it comes to that, WP:N is also a guideline. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But WP:V is not a guideline, and the material here isn't verifiable using guidelines of that policy. Yng varr 19:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The verifiable sources are, of course, the chapters themselves :D Seriously, I don't think that we need third party sources for the actual contents of an episode, unless it cites production issues or other stuff not actually happening on the episode itself --Enric Naval (talk) 21:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:FICT, yes, a work of fiction is a valid source for events of the story, so long as no interpretation is involved. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up, per Yng. This articles adds (though admittedly not much, it does add) to the body of information on the main article. Tonywalton ^Talk 22:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Canley (talk) 11:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Verado Outboards[edit]

Page was speedy deleted 3 times, however was allowed to stay this time because it didnt have any external links. However, in 5 days, it has not been touched other than by a bot and someone adding an external spam link. It doesnt have any hope of becoming larger, and I still believe it is advertising. Queerbubbles (talk) 14:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable product, already had been speedied, and also ssems WP:ADVERT. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Sox!} 14:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete clearly falls under WP:ADVERT. Article was created by a single-shot user who's only contribution to Wikipedia has been "Verado Outboards." StudierMalMarburg (talk) 15:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he created other articles which were speedily deleted. Queerbubbles (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by East718 per CSD G7, author requested deletion. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AbsolutelyAsians[edit]

Absolutely no notability RT | Talk 14:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is it no notability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woogyman (talk • contribs) 14:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: please read our Web content notiblity guidelines. RT | Talk 14:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find it hard to accept a Youtube video to be notable. Λua∫Wi se ^{(Operibus anteire)} 14:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, according to the creater he said, he's using YouTube as a host because he wanted to appeal to younger youtube users/audiences using comedy to address issues such as friendship in future episodes! Woogyman (talk) 14:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Web content notability wants it to be referenced (in a newspaper article, etc), there are no such references in the article RT | Talk 14:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Just another YouTube video. Completly fails WP:WEB. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Sox!} 15:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Added this AFD's tag to List of AbsolutelyAsians Episodes. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Notability outside of YouTube not established. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, i agree with you. Its a YouTube video and theres no notability! You can delete it! Woogyman (talk) 15:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change to speedy per author's comment above! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete both per author request and as completely non-notable web content (A7) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per discussion above. The show is non-notable and the article lacks reliable sources as references. Majoreditor (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, advert. JJL (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete both. Non-notable. I tagged the list article with a speedy, but a well-meaning editor took it down as falling under the curent ArbCom issue over articles about television show episodes. I don't think that applies, since these "shows" are on YouTube and not broadcast or cable television. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per author's comments above+YouTube videos are very rarely notable, and this is not. _contribs STYROFOAM☭1994^TALK 21:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: author requested. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 19:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) Darkspots (talk) 00:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rude Tube[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Rude Tube

One off programme not notable under wikipedia guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordy Why Have You Foresaken Me (talk • contribs) 20:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed the formatting of this nomination. No opinion on deletion. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject; there are 5 independent sources to back this up. Plus, this is your only contrib. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{that one guy who buried stuff} 16:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WBOSITG. ^anemone│_projectors 16:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable per Wikipedia guidelines. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Notability asserted, rewritten --Step hen 00:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miriam Dudley[edit]

original edit was substantial copy of http://www.jsbni.com/Pen%20Pics/JSB_PenPics.htm however, now copyedited and changed, but still carrys substantial copyright violation in the history, unsure on wheather to delete or keep. RT | Talk 14:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: - I believe I have addressed the above editor's concerns and I also believe the subject is sufficiently notable. Thanks. Kahluawithrum (talk) 14:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now edited, history doesn't really matter. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{that one guy who buried stuff} 20:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. нмŵוτн τ 20:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Truth (Cherish album)[edit]

Fails Wikipedia:Music#Albums_and_songs: Unreleased albums ("not yet released" = "unreleased") are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:RS, amongst others. Cloudz679 (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Lloyd-Weston[edit]

Another contested prod for a non-notable footballer. Fails WP:BIO#Athletes as he has never played in a fully-professional league. Possible WP:COI from the writer too. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE as well as the disputed WP:FOOTY guidelines. Sources included in article are all primary and not sepcifically about the subject so he fails WP:N too ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Chris. John Hayes^talk 14:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Chris, particularly as he fails WP:Footy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redfiona99 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has not made an appearance in a fully professional league, so fails WP:ATHLETE. robwingfield ^«T•C» 09:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BanRay 16:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Non-notable, neologism. A word someone made up in porn school one day. --Step hen 00:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HaXXXor[edit]

Delete fails WP:N, WP:RS and WP:V. Google books shows only 2 ghits [27], Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, information technology mixed with pornography now there's an interesting combo, and there I was years ago, learning it out of a textbook! But seriously, delete per notability guidelines. The Dominator (talk) 05:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted per WP:CSD#G12 as WP:COPYVIO of [28]. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 15:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Landell (software)[edit]

Delete explicitly fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The content of the page is a direct copy of the 'reference' - which fails WP:RS as a self-published source. Cloudz679 (talk) 14:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily delete as a copyright violation, in that case. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the appropriate tag to the article as above. Cloudz679 (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete —αlεx•mullεr 23:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetune[edit]

Delete fails WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced article about a commercial website or software, makes no case for notability. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Finetune Desktop Kingpomba (talk) 11:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no assertion of notability. Finetune Desktop has the same problem. Jfire (talk) 07:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 09:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Easy to Assemble[edit]

Fails Wikipedia:Music#Albums_and_songs: Unreleased albums are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. Some prior discussion: Talk:Easy_to_Assemble#Proposed_Deletion_2008-02-15. Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:Music as an unreleased album without reliable sources or indication of the subject's notability. Cloudz679 (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 13:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 04:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bosna 92[edit]

Delete fails WP:N and WP:RS. No hint is google news search [29]. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Here's the Danish article on the team. There might be worthwhile information there, to at least establish notability, if anyone can read Danish. matt91486 (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And confusingly, here seems to be the official website, with a Swedish domain address? I think it's possible that the club could be notable, but it'll require someone with knowledge of Norsk languages to put this together adequately to see. matt91486 (talk) 17:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I also tracked down the official league standings page here. I'm not sure if any of this means anything, it's hard to tell what exactly level of Danish football there is. Maybe looking in the Danish press from around the club establishment would note if it was worth having an article on or not. But without knowing the language, that's the best I can do. matt91486 (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm slightly confused. There seems to be some Swedish Bosna 92 from Örebro, playing in the 6th Swedish division, hence the domain name. I can't find anything about the Copenhagen side, if one exists. BanRay 06:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I'm equally so. Because the main site has the Swedish domain name, but a team shows up in the Copenhagen standings, and the Danish article asserts they play at a Danish ground. And there's no Swedish article about them. So, yeah, I'm not sure what to make of all of this. matt91486 (talk) 06:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The site you posted is the official website of Bosna 92 Örebro (Swedish club), they also have the results and standings of the Swedish 6th division there (link). So either the article is a hoax or there are two clubs named Bosna 92, something I personally doubt. Delete as either a hoax or nn, whatever it is. BanRay 09:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As posted above, this seems to confirm that a team with this name does exist in Copenhagen, but it looks like the team plays in a very lowly league..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After a quick look at Football in Denmark it would seem that the league this team plays in is the 8th level of Danish football. That seems far too low level for WP, hence delete ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness, don't we have clubs in England that go down to like level 11? I don't remember the exact level off the top of my head, but I believe it's lower than 8. I'm not necessarily voting keep based on that, I just wonder if sometimes we're very Anglo-centric. matt91486 (talk) 16:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Domestic Danish football is much much poorer than in England though, level 8 is probably about equivalent to English Sunday league football...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do wonder if perhaps the Swedish Bosna team would be notable then. It's at a higher tier; perhaps the article could be converted to cover that squad if it's determined to be. matt91486 (talk) 05:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The nominated (Danish) club was founded in 1992 by Bosnian refugees from the war on Balkan, as was the Swedish club with the same name. Swedish Division 6 is the 8th tier and fully amateur and certainly not notable, I assure you. Denmark has half the population of Sweden, so I think it's safe to say that 8th tier Danish football is at most equally non-notable. Sebisthlm (talk) 16:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I'm not trying to argue that the players should be notable. I just don't know offhand the specific crtieria for club notability; I know it's a lot less strict than for players. matt91486 (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't assert notability. John Hayes^talk 13:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, although the article does need cleanup including in text citations. Marked as such. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Nelson's Barbecue[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Andy Nelson's Barbecue

Delete fails WP:CORP and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. It appears the actual name of the establishment is Andy Nelson's "Southern Pit Barbecue." I agree much of the news coverage regarding this establishment is local or incidental. But there some examples from the Baltimore Sun that could be used to better support this article. Such as an article written shortly after the Baltimore Ravens superbowl win in 2001.[30]On the counter of his barbecue restaurant in Hunt Valley yesterday, Andy Nelson displayed the best of both eras: a replica of a winged raven perched atop a Colts helmet."It seemed appropriate," said Nelson, an All-Pro defensive back on the Colts' title teams of the '50s. A brief review in the John Hopkins newsletter. [31] "...My most recent restaurant love is Andy Nelson's BBQ in Cockeysville. The founder, Mr. Nelson himself, played for the Baltimore Colts from '57 to '63 as a safety. Luckily for us, Nelson had more talents than just football. A southerner by origin, he had learned how to make delicious and tender barbecued meats in all sorts of styles. As a stalwart Northerner, I was only vaguely aware that so many defined styles existed in the world of BBQ. Andy Nelson's offers a little of each, while perfecting every dish..."More incidental and passing mentions such as a story on Hurricane Isabel [32]"The biggest disappointment, though, is the loss of her favorite caterer - Andy Nelson's Southern Pit Barbecue."It is so good," Molly said, "Their motto is, 'If you haven't had Andy's, you haven't had barbecue.' And they are right ... I so much wanted Andy's." AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 14:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep a relatively minor local institution in a major city, and the sourcing is there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have moved the page to Andy Nelson's "Southern Pit Barbecue.". BonesBrigade 02:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It is notable based on the owner. Notability is not inherited. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So do you consider it notable or not? Your statement seems to say, "It is notable, though notability is not inherited." AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 14:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --Step hen 00:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Boyd[edit]

Non-notable film maker. An article that looks like a cross between a vanity piece and a resume with no references/sources for verifiability. WebHamster 13:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The page was originally about a wrestler and was nominated for speedy deletion due to it being patent nonsense. Then the page was suddenly changed to this non-nontable film maker by a user whose only contribution to Wikipedia has been the "Daniel Boyd" page. It seems an obvious vanity piece and should be put to rest. StudierMalMarburg (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In reading article, claims of notability seem to be "West Virginia Country Music Hall of Fame" and "Filmmaker of the Year". Gsearch reveals that the "West Virginia Country Music Hall of Fame" is a room in a bar where they put people's pictures up. Gsearch for "Filmmaker of the Year" + "Daniel Boyd" gives 21 ghits, most of which are either very short press releases by the WV Film Board or Daniel Boyd's own web site -- none of the ghits are showing notability. Other possibilities for notability would be professorship, but I'm not finding evidence this person meets Wikipedia:Notability (academics), and professional wrestling career -- gsearch for wrestling + "Daniel Boyd" isn't turning up much other than the State Journal article, which I've added to a references section in the article.--Fabrictramp (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. as per Fabrictramp. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 13:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Evident from conversation, the article may need to be retitled and/or merged, a decision which might take place at Talk:'And' theory of conservatism. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'And' theory of conservatism[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/'And' theory of conservatism

Delete non-notable neologism. Most of the sources given in the article are blogs. Google search gives 23 ghits [33], but do not provide reliable source by which notability can be established. Google books gives one ghit [34]. Fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Neutral for now. You wonder what an actual conservative's reaction would be to someone's labelling their beliefs "holistic". The Oklahoma Gazette article might give some evidence of currency, but the link is dead for me. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Financial Times is an excellent source. The article might be merged somewhere else as the title is clumsy. See Compassionate conservatism which mentions it. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do I gather correctly that this phrase is a UK coinage? Merger with Compassionate conservatism may be the best option here, with a specific indication that this is a UK variant. FWIW, search engines are going to struggle to bring forth relevant material here, since the style of the title is subject to vagaries of both punctuation and ASCII rendering, while the naked phrase "and theory of conservatism" will call forth mostly irrelevant stuff. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, satisfies notability requirements, although perhaps a better title is Politics of and. There's overlap with compassionate conservatism but I don't think they're explicitly the same thing. --Dhartung | Talk 19:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Colonel Warden and Dhartung, possibly merge somewhere if people think it appropriate. Passes WP:V and WP:RS as a concept but could use some cleanup.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per improvements to article. No prejudice against relisting as this is a small consensus. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An Awhesyth[edit]

Delete fails WP:N. Google search shows no reliable source to establish notability [35]. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, weakly, not much of a stub thus far, but it seems to be a verifiable folksong. This page seems to contain avenues for further research, and I may try to amend the stub when I have time. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)][reply]

Comment - I have expanded the page and added references. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 20:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Tobey[edit]

Delete Fails WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BIO. No significant coverage, no reliable source addresses the person in detail. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep minimal achievements and coverage [36], [37], [38]. JJL (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. This article opens a whole round of notability problems. I didn't see anything in her article which shows her notability until I looked at the Abe Froman article, which says that it toured with a bunch of other bands, so I'm thinking, okay, if she was in a notable band, then she should be kept. But then I look at all of those other bands at the Abe Froman article, and I don't see any notability claimed about any of them. This could lead to a whole mess of AfDs, if they aren't notabilitized. (I like that word. :) ) As of right now, Delete, there are no claims of notability in the article, and no reliable sources, and a gimlet eye needs to be applied to the other articles. And the links JJL provided don't make any claims of notability, either. One release and a couple of appearances in Richmond? Where are the independent multiple reliable sources in which she's the main focus of the article? And what's "DIY"? Does that mean they self-release their albums? That's a clear failure of WP:BAND. Corvus cornix_talk 22:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 14:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 10:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abe Froman (band)[edit]

Delete Fails WP:V and WP:MUSIC. No significant coverage, no third party reliable source addresses the band directly in detail. Google news search gives no hint[39]. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no claims of notability, "DIY" sounds like it means they release their own albums. And keep an eye on the bands that are linked from that page. Corvus cornix_talk 22:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 14:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete This band has released music on Harlan_Records and Plan_It_X_Records... Both labels seem to fit within WP:MUSIC guidelines and have their own Wikipedia articles. The problem here is that only one of those releases appears to be a full album. Not quite enough for me but if someone could dig up a couple articles, witch I could not find in a Google search, I’d be willing to change my vote. Ky Music Nerd (talk) 08:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can find more references. Doesn't seem notable to me. Izzy007 Talk 02:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Canley (talk) 08:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ECONorthwest[edit]

Encountered this using random page - Non notable, References are to organisations own web-pages (1&3), a dead link (2) and an article written by the companies managing director(4). Article is also promotional in nature User A1 (talk) 13:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it does not meet notability standards for companies, and was abandoned long ago. Lack of interest by any author indicates that it was probably created as a promotion. BowChickaNeowNeow (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:CORP. Aboutmovies (talk) 17:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if no one cares enough to update and maintain the article. The article could be made acceptable if someone cared. A Google search of ECONorthwest gave 36,000 hits.Silverchemist (talk) 03:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine TV Ratings[edit]

Delete due to lack of sources and redundancy to List of Philippine television ratings for 2008 Lenticel ^(talk) 12:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with extreme prejudice =D †Bloodpack† 12:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Single source of reference via a single agency. Same thing with List of Philippine television ratings for 2008. TJ Reyes 13:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TJ Reyes (talk • contribs)
Delete. It's nothing more than a list. It lacks references and context. Majoreditor (talk) 13:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The source is merely a webpage of the AGB, and not any proof of such ratings. It smacks of WP:OR, which I hope the author User:Ladysoseono would shed light on (which I doubt, since most showbiz-oriented Pinoy Wikipedians do not even bother to participate in such discussions). Starczamora (talk) 13:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 14:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Jojit (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 14:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Whats with ratings? --Efe (talk) 09:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 19:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gina DeVivo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The original author of this article, User:RingPOPmom, has asked that it be deleted. Her rationale is on User talk:Orangemike Λua∫Wi se ^{(Operibus anteire)} 12:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quoted from User talk:Orangemike so AFD log has the full rationale:

Didn't think I had to give reasons why I deleted my own input. Thought it was only for other people's comments that I had to justify. I just want to delete the damn article. Has given me nothing but problems since I started it. RingPOPmom (talk) 00:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete - a review of her parts indicate that she has bit parts as "Teenager At Wedding" etc. Her most significant role is 3 appearances as a minor character in a series which isn't sufficient for me to say she meets the requirement of "significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions." Also, there is no press coverage or any reviews of her works. This is the same rationale as from the previous AFD, and there has not been a change in the sources for the article that has changed my opinion. -- Whpq (talk) 13:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE I started the article but now wish to delete it. I have not been able to prove notability to the other editors since the first speedy deletion, and 1st deletion was tagged onto her article. According to the other editors, IMDB is not considered reliable. I also cannot provide any reviews of her work. I would rather have the article deleted. So PLEASE delete. Thanks RingPOPmom (talk) 10:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SocialPicks[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

This article was orginaly given a speedy deletion not notable tag, however - it's author told that it is a clearly significant company, as shown from the references. However, most of these references are just passing uses of the company's name (as pointed out in the talk page) RT | Talk 11:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I am not convinced that the company is not notable. Λua∫Wi se ^{(Operibus anteire)} 12:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a classic case of, "We're gonna be big someday; just wait and see! Look at the big guys who've put money into this! So-and-so mentioned our name once! We're gonna be so big!" This might become notable; this might end up as an embarassed footnote in somebody's annual report, when they write off the investment. At this time, despite the bloated "cites" given (read the refutation on the talk page), it simply isn't notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you commented on the fact that SocialPicks powers the Social Buzz project of Reuters. Have you heard of them? Dimension31 (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not contagious. A company does not "catch" notability by providing services to a notable customer, any more than I acquired notability by selling books to Tony Bennett or William Rehnquist. (Or by having a Reuters wirephoto of me shaking hands with Barack Obama appear on Yahoo! this week.) --Orange Mike | Talk 23:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I said at all. SocialPicks isn't just "shaking hands" with Reuters, they're providing a substantial service for them. For example, back when Microsoft was picked by IBM to provide their OS, I think that would have been enough to establish Microsoft's notability. Dimension31 (talk) 00:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the many cites rises above the "directory level" of information about the company. They all prove that the company exists, and that is all that they prove. Per WP:N and WP:CORP, there needs to be non-trivial coverage, and I just don't see ANY. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As it is currently written, this article doesn't substantiate notability. I think there is a big difference between being "featured" and being mentioned. --Daddy.twins (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The company has been covered in many mainstream news sources and seems to have already generated a reputation. Dimension31 (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I just sent out several friendly notices. Dimension31 (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As mentioned on the article talk page, the references need a bit of work. While it is true that the company has been 'covered' or at least mentioned in several places, what is at issue, is the scope and nature of the coverage. Currently, there are eleven references on the page, nine of which are unique and two are duplicates.

1. reuters - basically a mention that Reuters Stock buzz is powered by Social Picks, which could be notable, but the page is more or less an advert for SocialPicks with the option of getting a free account.
2. o'reilly - simply mentions the founder as a scheduled speaker (among many) at a financial conference.
3. mashable - NN blogpost primarily about UpDown. Trivial mention of SocialPicks in a single sentence.
4. yahoo finance - actually a crossposting from paidcontent.org. Reads more like an intro ad.
5. techcrunch - short blog post noting that SocialPicks is out of beta and a short description.
6. forbes.com - Trivial mention of SocialPicks in a single sentence.
7. moneysmartz.com - a copy of a list of websites posted in a Oct 2006 issue of Forbes, one of which is SocialPicks
8. wsj.com - Trivial mention of SocialPicks in a single sentence with a list of other new financial web sites.
9. washingtonpost.com - 2006 article mentioning that socialpicks is still being tested.
10. repeat of same cite as #6
11. repeat of same cite as #2

In my opinion, better sources are required to credibly establish the notability of this company. --Daddy.twins (talk) 22:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional and better sources are always a good thing, but I believe that this article already has many fine sources. Also, you seem to have been biased in your assessment because you did not comment on any of the positive things from some of the more substantive sources. Dimension31 (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think I succinctly described the content of each of the sources, but I'm willing to discuss more. If the unsubstantive sources are removed, leaving those that are substantive, then we can discuss how those do or do not establish the notability of the company. Keep in mind, though, that getting funding, moving out of beta, being included in a list of new websites, or a description of services does not grant notability. --Daddy.twins (talk) 00:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have already commented on the reasons I believe it is notable, but I agree that it would be a good idea for someone to weed out those few non-substantive sources. Dimension31 (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that once you weed out the non-substantive sources, you would be left with... hold on, let me do the math... carry the three... rounding up... double check on the calculator... Zero... That's the number. Zero susbtantive sources. So, if the article has zero substantive sources, by what basis should it be kept? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of the current sources are substantive. Did you read then? Dimension31 (talk) 08:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure did. Lets do the analysis. [40] is a trivial mention of the service; it simply proves that someone uses it. Big deal. [41] is a list of speakers at a conference. Being invited to speak somewhere does not confer notability on a person; much less so on the company he works for. [42] mentions the service, but it hardly does so in any significant way; its a throw-away sentance at the end of the article. [43] only shows that venture capitalists have invested in the company. Marginal, but this can't be the ONLY thing that makes it notable. Thousands of failed, short lived, and otherwise non-notable companies get cash from venture capitalists. By itself, this shows nothing. [44] only notes that the service is now open for business. It doesn't mention anything more than that. [45] is probably the closest to a real, substantive, reliable source, but even here its only a 3 sentance mention in a much larger article, and if this is ALL, it seems to be quite a small amount to pin an article on. [46] has the same problem. The article DOES extensively cover 4-5 services in depth, but THIS one is a throw-away mention at the end. It basically says "Oh, yeah, SocialPicks exists too". It doesn't even bother to review them to the depth it reviews any of the others... Again, marginal, but if this is it, then we don't have any info here to hang the article on. Can you produce ANY article with more than a 3-4 sentance mention of the company, and ANY article which says more than "It exists, its new, people can use it" that sort of stuff? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you taken a look at SocialPicks#_note-0? Dimension31 (talk) 01:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- no immediate need to delete ... yet.Andycjp (talk) 00:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Daddy.twins' astute analysis on the sources. Metros (talk) 00:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep when I de-speedied it, I gave the edit summary "makes at least a claim to notability." that's just what I think at this point, also. I think it probably will become notable--I think the odds are fairly good that the affiliation with Reuters will do it. In the real world, it is not irrelevant whom a new start-up is affiliated with, or co-sponsored by. Whether we should extrapolate to notability from that is an interesting question--we do extrapolate in this manner for such things as motion picture productions. DGG (talk) 01:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per expert analysis by Daddy.twins. The sources have been shown not to meet WP:N. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Seems to have lots of piddly sourcing, but nothing that would firmly establish notability. It probably will become notable whether as Reuters big new thing or a glorous failure. But it isn't yet. Montco (talk) 05:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will go with the Keep option. I see that it has been featured is some major media papers/magazines such as the Washington Post as well as Forbes and those elements are properly sourced as does the partnership with Reuters, a major media agency. So sounds just notable enough for me.--JForget 18:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Featured" is a lot different than "mentioned." If you take a look at the several evaluations of the sources above, you'll see that none of the sources are significant coverage of the service. Metros (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict with post above by Metros) Did you read the sources? Featured is not an accurate description, as that implies the company was one of the major focuses of those articles. Named is a better word, since the articles (see my and Daddy.twins' analysis above) only mention the company in passing, often as a short sentance in an article which is discussion something else entirely. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Daddy.twins. The articles subject, per refs, does not seem to be notable at this point. --Chetblong^{T C} 01:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Orange Mike. Ward3001 (talk) 01:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I see nothing notable about that site, it's another of a million new social websites created each month, no reason to cover that particular one. And the article has a clear history of attempts to pimp it up to create an impression of notability that isn't there. mathrick (talk) 07:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 04:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An AJOF Christmas[edit]

Unnecessary album page for deleted/non-notable artist. Since an anon removed my prod without comment or alteration we are here as a formality. tomasz. 11:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Alberon (talk) 11:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete non-notable. Λua∫Wi se ^{(Operibus anteire)} 12:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cmt. "Weak"? The artist doesn't even have a WP article. tomasz. 14:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article fails to establish notability. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 14:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Subject of this article has yet to play a professional game. As mentioned below having a squad number for a professional team and still not actually playing is not enough to pass notability. Most of the keep arguements below rely far too heavily on crystal balling. -Djsasso (talk) 22:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Delfouneso[edit]

AfDs for this article:

3rd nomination for deletion. The player fails WP:FOOTY/Notability and has been deleted twice before, he is yet to play football at professional level English peasant 12:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Correct he has been deleted twice before, when he was just a reserve team player without a professional contract. Things have changed since the last two deletions. Jonesy702 (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. English peasant 12:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unlike in the previous AFDs, Delfouneso has signed up for the top Aston Villa A-team, and must therefore be counted as a professional football player. A Google News search shows that this player has a lot of media attention, and passes the basic criteria of WP:BIO (A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[2] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[3] and independent of the subject.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment has he? Currently he fails the new WP:FOOTY/Notability criteria, and I don't see any sources in the article which cause him to pass the base criteria. John Hayes^talk 13:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment most of the comments from the previous AfDs stated something like "re-create only if and when he makes a first-team appearance for a fully-professional club". Delfouneso has yet to appear for the Aston Villa first team, simply having a squad number does not confer notability. English peasant 14:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's also important to note that the WP:Football crtieria have been essentially invalidated by deletion review discussion. But anyway, I'm going to refrain from stating any further opinion in this matter, because I'm pretty sure my being a Villa fan will taint my judgment. matt91486 (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments above. John Hayes^talk 13:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:BIO#Athletes and WP:FOOTY/Notability. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 18:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - It seems silly to delete a page which will be put back up in a matter of days. Delfouneso is part of the Aston Villa first team set-up, and will feature for the club in the near future, even, if he comes on for the last two minutes of a game, that alone will warrant the article. Deleting now seems very silly... come on guys, lets try to use a bit of common sense. Jonesy702 (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your point may seem like common sense but it ultimately relies on WP:CRYSTAL English peasant 02:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- lol, I'm sick of someone answering me with WP:CRYSTAL!, lets be honest here, you know I'm right whether I'm Mystic Meg or not! Jonesy702 (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I have no insight into whether you're right or not. I prefer to assume it's unlikely (but by no means impossible) that a 17-year old is ready to break into one of the better teams in the Premiership just yet. If he does, or if he goes on loan and gets games elsewhere, fine. He's just not really ready for an article yet. - fchd (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if he hasn't played, he isn't notable. - fchd (talk) 15:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GiantSnowman (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A lot of effort has clearly been put into creating this article. The player has a squad number and a professional contract with a top football club. How about using common sense and keeping this article up rather than doggedly following the rules. Deleting will just mean that the article will have to be remade (and possibly not as well) in a few weeks time. Patience my friends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crankycletus (talk • contribs) 10:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If the article needs to be reinstated at a later date that can be done via DRV. "It might need to be recreated later" is not a reason to keep an article..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FOOTY/Notability BanRay 20:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Struway2 (talk) 09:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mas 18 dl (talk) 12:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep for a couple of weeks to give him a chance to play and so become notable. As was said earlier, it seems daft to delete it only to put it back on. Yes, it was a bit premature putting it up, but it is here now, and I think deleting it (apart from anything else) is likely to create a bit of bad feeling. Isn't there an instruction about breaking the rules? StephenBuxton (talk) 10:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found it - Ignore the rules StephenBuxton (talk) 12:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- There is nothing to indicate that this player is likely to make his debut in the next couple of weeks ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, I just chose two weeks as an arbitary figure. Having an AFD for too long is not going to be productive, but a 5 day debate may not be long enough to see if he gets to play in a notable game, and so become noteworthy. As I mentioned before, deleting this article may be a bit premature, and a lot of work has gone into it. It stands a good chance of qualifying soon, so to delete it and then have it recreated is going to make for a lot of extra work, and might create a bit of ill-feeling towards Wikipedia. Original author User:Jonaldinho2004 hasn't been on Wikipedia that long, and is trying to be a good Wikipedian. In this instance, I think bending the rules is a good thing. StephenBuxton (talk) 12:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned elsewhere in this debate, if the article is deleted and then needs to be recreated later the most recent version can be re-instated by an admin with about two mouse clicks, hardly "a lot of extra work"..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, User:Jonaldinho2004 made their first edit nearly two years ago, although I don't see the relevance. Many well-established and respected editors have had early articles deleted, it's part of the learning process. Struway2 (talk) 13:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, my mistake about the first edit. StephenBuxton (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral While a strict interpretation of the rules say the page should go, I'm tempted to bend them in this case. It seems a bit silly to delete a page that will be valid and back up not too many weeks from now. Alberon (talk) 10:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody can guarantee that the article "will be valid and back up not too many weeks from now" - what if Mr Delfouneso suffers a career-ending injury playing for the reserve team....? ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just realised I haven't actually !voted yet. Needless to say I !vote delete ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sjakkalle. Λua∫Wi se ^{(Operibus anteire)} 12:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If there were a 7 man bench he may well have made more appearances, as it stands he has been the 'odd man out' or '12th man' on numerous occasions, just missing the cut. He is a Villa player, with a professional contract, who has a good article about a player that has achieved notoriety for England throughout the age-ranges and for Aston Villa reserves. GarethHolteDavies (talk) 13:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It appears that plenty of thought and effort went into FOOTY/Notability and the subject doesn't qualify at this time. Similarly, he doesn't appear to qualify under the basic notability criteria. I'm unpersuaded by the agruments that he will be notable in a few moments because, as others have stated:

1. We have no way of knowing what will happen in the future and

2. the article can be restored in momments by an admin, or someone can save a copy in user space, and improve the article with information that establishes notability when available. I'm actually more concerned about undermining the new project notability guidelines by declining to apply them than I am worried about the work that's gone into the article. Xymmax (talk) 13:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete already nominated and deleted twice, and nothing significant has happened since then. He fails all the related guidelines around, namely WP:BIO#Athletes and WP:FOOTY/Notability. Next time please recreate it (or ask for a restoration) only after he actually played a professional match. --Angelo (talk) 14:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep till end of season to see if he progresses with Villa, especially with the departure of Luke Moore. A quick google news search will supply notability junkies with reliable sources. Catchpole (talk) 17:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that WP:N#Notability is not temporary states that "articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future." Struway2 (talk) 08:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article is fine. The same cannot be said for a number of notability guidelines. Catchpole (talk) 11:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is the wrong place where to criticize current guidelines. If you don't like them, please propose changes in the right place. --Angelo (talk) 03:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it has been established on many previous occasions that a player with a squad number in a top tier league (I think we can all agree that the EPL is a top tier league) is notable, at the very least during the season in which he has a squad number. ugen64 (talk) 00:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was established very recently in the cases of Liverpool F.C. young players Mikel San José, Jay Spearing, Ray Putterill and Ryan Flynn that having a squad number for a big club without actually playing for them was not enough to confer notability. Struway2 (talk) 08:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment just to let note the closing admin we have a number of notability and behavioural guidelines they should be considered before taking a decision. This is not a vote, and every single user's opinion should comply with our current written rules. --Angelo (talk) 03:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has not made an appearance in a fully professional league, so fails WP:ATHLETE. The article even implies he hasn't yet been on the bench for league match. robwingfield ^«T•C» 09:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This guy has a professional contract at a PL club, has achieved notoriety for England and has had numureous articles written about him. No9shirt (talk) 08:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment User's second and currently last edit (the first being not exactly a valuable contribution [47]) --Angelo (talk) 14:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Why am I being watched Mr Romano. Wikipedia is a strange place to put stuff. No9shirt (talk) 18:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just because it's a fact more recent users usually do not have a thorough knowledge of notability guidelines (in fact, you did not refer it), and this is not a vote. --Angelo (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment. With all due respect Angelo, you should look at the argument No9shirt is making and not try to cloud it with reference to his earlier (admittedly invaluable) edit. I think No9shirt has a valid point similar to the basic criteria of WP:N. At least it's not blatant lack of "thorough knowledge of notability guidelines" as you suggest. Discussions like this should be about the issues and not the persons. Sebisthlm (talk) 00:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to have achieved as much for the English team that he can achieve at that level. He has apparently had articles written about him, so for me it's a keeper. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 12:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Black Kite 23:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Spence (race driver)[edit]

Can anybody explain why is this person notable and when has competing in a road-rally made a driver notable other than those who competed and is already notable before that. I have attempted to CSD but an editor removed the tag, so therefore I'll have o choice but to nominate this. Moosato Cowabata (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Driver and owner of a rallying team in a major NZ rallying series. He has class wins in notable races. The article should be moved to Adam Spence if this article is kept since disambiguation is not needed. Royalbroil 04:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How would that be notable, the event may be but I don't see the drivers who competes other than those who are already are notable or other seriess, not with that unsourced claim. Moosato Cowabata (talk) 23:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that drivers who have won in these series are notable because they won in that series. The win makes them inherently notable. Royalbroil 13:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cautious keep I think he probably is notable, but at the moment the article is an orphan - the only link to it is a caption on a photo elsewhere. I think it needs a bit of time to include a few more links to the page, plus a few external references to define his notability. StephenBuxton (talk) 10:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 09:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional keep per Royalbroil, provided references can be provided, agree that it needs moving. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 23:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep per Royalbroil, although class winners may count but numerous of them in various motorsport events do not have an article, although I still doubt its notability as gooling "Adam Spence" Targa, many of these ghits are blogs, forums and web message posted by himself, as for now retain the ((notability)) tag to allow for improvement until a 3rd party reliable source is evident. Willirennen (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pidgin Magazine[edit]

Don't see what is notable about this magazine Moosato Cowabata (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now: Give it time to develop and review it in a year. Jonathan Luckett (talk) 10:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's being still being published which is at least somewhat notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.11.95 (talk) 07:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing the key policy WP:V. In addition there are no sources to demonstrate compliance with WP:N. We don't keep pages in the hope that they become notable; we delete and allow recreation if notability is attained in the future. TerriersFan (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 09:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable as yet. If it becomes notable in the future then a new page can be created, but a non-notable entry shouldn't be left on the off-chance that it becomes notable in a year or so. Alberon (talk) 09:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The magazine is not notable, although surprisingly, the "Architects I'm Sick of Your..." open letter that appeared within it might be. The only sources I could find spoke about the magazine in the context of having been the vehicle for the open letter. (The letter also has been widely reprinted). Xymmax (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. Cloudz679 (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was close and relist due to interference by a sockfarm (CU). -Jéské ^{(v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing)} 07:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sabitha Kumari[edit]

Only blog references, which fail WP:RS. A google search on the name gives no non-blog hits. Soman (talk) 09:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sabitha Kumari is a Known Criminal and wanted in India —Preceding unsigned comment added by TigersRus (talk • contribs) 09:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More Refference have been provided from The News see links

Sabitha's empire has spread to one sixth of India's country's total districts it should be mentioned in the books. --99.238.6.68 (talk) 10:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can provide more . I believe that should be enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThambeEeE (talk • contribs) 11:57, 21 February 2008 UTC

Article also has actual refferences. She is Indias Most Wanted --TigersRus (talk) 09:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- i can get more i believe that should be enough. More than Half of The Refferences are from The News sources --TigersRus (talk) 09:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I noticed that two of the blog posts had links to telegraph articles. However, those articles give little backing for any of the biographical info in the wikiarticle, they just state that there is a woman by this name, from andhra or jharkhand, in her 20s and have led maoist squad operations. Notability is a concern here. Is there any WP:RS on the claim that she's on 'Indias Most Wanted'? Any reputable source on her position in CPI(Maoist)? --Soman (talk) 09:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah and she is a Top Maoist. Look how many Pages are on her. --TigersRus (talk) 09:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sabitha Kumari is a Terrorist and she Leads a Maoist Army as well.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TigersRus (talk • contribs) 10:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Article has enough Refferences about her. --Thileepanmathivanan (talk) 10:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment and admin please note: Are you also using 99.238.6.68 to edit? Because you have both modified the above comment in the same way [48][49]. Please remember to log in when editing and do not edit an AfD discussion using both a username and an IP address. Thank you, cab (talk) 11:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 10:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ATTN I WOULD LIKE THIS ARTICLE TO BE JUDGED BY THE WIKI List of India-related deletion discussions List of India-related deletion discussions --99.238.6.68 (talk) 11:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I already added it to the list of discussions 15 minutes ago. The administrator who evaluates all the arguments at the end of the debate to determine consensus may ignore arguments which do not accord with policy, but otherwise, any person who sees this debate, and not just those from the deletion sorting list, may comment on it. Finally, please add new comments in the appropriate place and not at the top, and indent them using an appropriate number of * at the beginning of the line. Thank you, cab (talk) 11:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are indefinite amount of resources too many and i garuntee 100% these articles are going to expand. User:Soman is just picking on articles i have created and nominating them for deletion and my articles are all information that are most upto date. I did nothing wrong i am just contributing like any other Wikipedian. See: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/LTTE_and_Maoist_Relations — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThambeEeE (talk • contribs) 11:57, 21 February 2008 UTC
- Sign your posts using ~~~~ and don't insert text into the middle of other user's comments. Unless of course, you are the same user as99.238.6.68, Special:Contributions/TigerRus, etc. cab (talk) 03:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~-- Sabitha Kumari is a Legend --ThambeEeE (talk) 11:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Who says she is a legend? It's your own personal opinion. Salih (talk) 13:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked as sock. utcursch | talk 06:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this is an obvious case of sockpuppeting. Four separate AfDs and disruptions of the process are discussed at ANI. --Soman (talk) 12:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject may be notable only in the Police department. Salih (talk) 13:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Non notable Taprobanus (talk) 17:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Changed vote after claen up Taprobanus (talk) 22:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, you would think that a kingpin of this nature would receive more substantial coverage. --Dhartung | Talk 19:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and edit sharply per BLP. Remove the blogs, and keep only what is supported by the actual news accounts, which is not all that much, but i think enough for notability. and is there any actual evidence that the photograph actually shows her? DGG (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ For 1 year and give it a chance to expand. --HairyMan101 (talk) 00:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and admin please note: Account created six minutes before making this comment [50], and he moves/edits User:Thileepanmathivanan's and User:ThambeEeE's comments as if he owned them [51]. cab (talk) 03:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked as sock. utcursch | talk 06:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Article seems to be popular --Raninder (talk) 04:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC) — Raninder (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- I wasn't aware that "popular" had been redefined to mean "a single person keeps creating new user accounts to comment about it [52]". cab (talk) 04:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked as sock. utcursch | talk 06:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have gatherd more refferences as well, including the ones already posted

*http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1088710

*http://www.telegraphindia.com/1061124/asp/frontpage/story_7043800.asp

Most are from The News and are indicating that Sabitha Kumari is Leading The Maoists. Sabitha is Incharge of many Operations that are being carried in Andhra Pradesh see [53] and She made it on Front Page on News cast The Telegraph see [54] and [55] indicates she was leading attacks. Woman Sabitha Kumari seems to be popular and should be notable, she is mentioned as a Legenary Comrade on Maoists Website [56] .

However I can name you Wiki examples that are less popular than S.K.

--Jawan101 (talk) 11:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC) — Jawan101 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Blocked as sock. utcursch | talk 06:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Still no real basis for bio. The DNA link doesn't say much more than that she's a squad commander. --Soman (talk) 12:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- Right here see in the link DNA [57] it says Investigating officials are of the opinion that this new trend has evolved after 23-year old Sabita Kumari was unanimously elected as the commander-in-chief of the Maoist action squad of West Bengal" and further it says Born in Prabira village of Jharkhand and a science graduate from Dultongunj College, Kumari joined the Maoists in 2000. She is on the Chattisgarh most-wanted list and several cases are registered against her"

Theres more about her on the BlogSpot about her information when she was born etc... on Naxal websites as well. All these are from the News. so are you telling me shes not notable when she comes on the news frequently and also known as Legendary Sabita Kumar comrade a.k.a Commander of Andhra Pradesh district and west bengal etc.. i will get more Refs if you want --Jawan101 (talk) 12:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note Wiki Admins users : Soman and utcursch are both Sikh Extremist that are Racist towards Hindus becuase of past conflicts. They contribute only for Bad Faith towards us. they have multiple accounts as well. --Sikol99 (talk) 11:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also blocked as sock :). For the record, I'm not a Hindu or Sikh. utcursch | talk 13:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I ran a google search myself and failed to find many external sources or significant press coverage on the subject. At this time I do not feel the article meets the WP:BIO requirements --Ozgod (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I checked the article and now it seems to be organized with proper provided references. --Marshall 17:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)SireMarshall (talk • contribs) — SireMarshall (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment: to my count, there is currently 4 news sources; DNA, The Statesman and 2 Telegraph articles. The Statesman mentions that S.K. led a squad in West Bengal, but no bio info. [58] says that she's a woman in her 20s from Andhra Pradesh. [59] says that she's a woman in her early 20s from Jharkhand. [60] goes into more details. One can suppose that all of the info originates from the Intelligence Branch (IB) of the West Bengal police. I find that there is a real problem of verifiablity here. Also, an open question is whether being a squad commander (leading tens of soldiers) is enough notability for a bio article. Could there be any confirmation of position inside the party, I'd say that being a state committee or central committee member would be a minimum for notability of a leader inside the party. --Soman (talk) 07:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 04:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Inverted World[edit]

Non-notable white nationalist website. A Google test yields very few results. Flash94 (talk) 20:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am Ian Jobling, owner of The Inverted World. Flash94 gives as justification for the deletion of this article that there are few Google results for the search '"inverted world" jobling'. I just tried the search and got three pages that consisted uniquely of Inverted World pages or comments on them at other sites. There were more references to Inverted World after that, although they got mixed in with non-Inverted World results. Also, I only recently revealed my identity; previously, I wrote under the pseudonym "The Realist". A Google search on '"inverted world" realist' yields another three pages mostly of references to IW pages or comments on them. I would have thought any site that could garner that much presence on Google was notable. What is the criterion for notable here? By the way, I didn't write the entry on IW myself. It does need copy-editing. I will do that myself later today.

One possibility would be to combine this page with the entry on Ian Jobling.

Jobling3 (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC) — Jobling3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

STRONG KEEP. The web site is very well known in the white nationalist circles. It has been commented on or cited in the American Renaissance and just about every other white nationalist publication, online and offline. Some were critical of it (because IW is not antisemitic, unlike many White Nationalist sites), but there are very paleo-conservatives who have read the site's writing. And as mentioned, all the white nationalist sites linked to the IW at one point or another. The site is not notable the way the Time Magazine is, but within the paleo-conservative niche, it certainly is. I vote "Strong Keep" with a re-write to include that this is an online publication and other corrections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.183.44 (talk) 02:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC) — 24.185.183.44 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I merged the information for this entry with the entry on Ian Jobling and cleaned up all of the material. I placed a redirect on The Inverted World entry to the entry on Ian Jobling.

Jobling3 (talk) 16:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)jobling3[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 09:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: sorry, I'm confused – either this should be at WP:RFD, or it's the redirected article that's been nominated —αlεx•mullεr 11:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see - reverted the article to a previous version... —αlεx•mullεr 14:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks reliable sources to establish notability. --Explodicle (talk) 17:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete If it is notable among White Nationalist sites, where are the references? DGG (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- There are no independent, reliable, secondary sources, therefore is not notable. Rigby27 Talk 17:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable website by non-notable extremist. (I realize COI is not a reason for deletion, but really... ) --Orange Mike | Talk 16:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was a difficult debate to synthesise - but in the end I conclude that a Merge to Firefly_(TV_series)#Music is appropriate. I note the helpful suggestion by PC78 that a ((Tracklist)) can be used to avoid clutter in the main article. It is not my intention to complete the merge but if PC78 or another editor could do so without cluttering the main Featured Article that would be much appreciated. --VS ^talk 04:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firefly (soundtrack)[edit]

An article on the soundtrack of a minor TV series, which contains nothing other than a track listing for the excellent reason that there is essentially nothing else to say. Every TV show has a soundtrack, this one does not appear to have any independent significance at all. Guy (Help!) 07:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

merge There is very little in the article, and that could easily be placed in the main article. The comment about the "common criticism" about a missing track should be ommitted unless it is cited, though. I think the track listing should also be left off. I don't think that leaves very much, just a note about the release dates and formats. StephenBuxton (talk) 07:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Firefly... the best place would probably be the Spin-offs section, although a section describing the music/composition of the series (which would in turn include the soundtrack release) might be an option. Reviews and the interview in this article's external links may of use for the expansion of the material, although I agree with StevenBuxton that the (unsourced) criticism about something that some flans thought should have been included but wasn't and the tracklist should be dropped for the immediate future. -- saberwyn 08:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Firefly_(TV_series)#Music, which as a section already does a far better job than this separate article. The tracklisting is unnecessary. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How did I NOT see that section! *smacks head*. Merge and Redirect with anchor to the Music section of the Firefly article... by merge I mean insert the soundtrack infobox into the relevant paragraph of the section, and check the external links to see if any can be used as sources. The composer interview may have something of worth. -- saberwyn 08:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Firefly (TV series)#Music which already covers what's already said in this article Doc Strange (talk) 14:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Firefly (TV series). The Wookieepedian (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Firefly (TV series), but no reason to lose the tracklist. ((Tracklist)) can be used to avoid clutter in the main article. PC78 (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Firefly (TV series). Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 14:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —86.149.53.196 (talk) 10:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - This article is about an album, not about just music from the show. The album has independent notability, multiple published reviews, including an AMG review with star ratings. If it is merged, will the infobox be merged with it? That'd look pretty bad in the article. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 21:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If the album was an independant work based on the show, or included material not in the show, I could agree. However, the album was created by the show's composer entirely from the music used in the show, and any successes of the album (i.e. reviews, awards, etc) would at the minimum reflect positively on the show's score. The reviews I've seen talk about the show's score more than they talk about the fact its been slapped on a cd, and to use as an example, the review you linked to talks about the music in the context of the show, and talk of the album independant of the show's music is limited to "Fans of ... Firefly have been clamoring for a soundtrack..." in the first line. As an aside, I experimented with adding some of the text and the soundtrack infobox to the section a few days ago (leaving the tracklist and the unsourced text behind). As of this edit, nobody seems to have had a major problem with it yet. -- saberwyn 02:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, that's a bad precedence to set. The album is still an independent work; one does not have to know the show to hear the album and vice versa. The article passes every notability test thrown at it, and there's really no reason to force it into a larger article. There's no guideline or precedent that says just because an article might fit into a larger one, we should merge it. There may not be complaints because nothing has been deleted yet; the main article still links to the article with the tracklist (which itself needs to be updated to reflect the differences between the CD and digital releases). At least a couple links in the article talk exclusively about the CD. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 03:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point. What coverage there is, is not of the soundtrack as an independent artistic endeavour distinct from the show. There's also no evidence that anyone other than fans of the show are interested in the soundtrack. Guy (Help!) 17:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect. This review is about the CD. It may reference the show to put the CD into some context, but ultimately the article is clearly about the presentation of the music on the CD, and this review discussion information like the differences between the CD and digital releases, which has absolutely nothing to do with the show. Neither article asserts people who are not fans of the show will not like the soundtrack. The argument that the album is not an "independent artistic endeavour" is largely irrelevant. We have entire categories of articles about albums with identical relationships to the source that spawned them. That doesn't invalidate the independent notability of the plastic object called "Firefly (Original Television Soundtrack)". It's just another album subarticle; its parent article is a TV show instead of a band, but the relationship is the same, and allowing a sourced, verified, independent work exist on its own page is the correct course of action. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 13:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ——Torc. ^(Talk.) 03:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Editorial decision for editors of the article. Firefly (TV series) is rather long and whether the track listing of its soundtrack fits within scope relative to all the other content is debatable. Note the "space permitting" condition in WP:MUSIC#Albums and songs. –Pomte 18:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has independent sourcing and notability from tv series; also, Pomte's comment is persuasive. The Firefly (TV series) article is already quite long. I would think it more appropriate to split material from Firefly (TV series)#Music to the album article and let it stand as the main article for music in the series. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Something like Music of Battlestar Galactica? I could support that. -- saberwyn 01:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Moonriddengirl and Torc. Guy makes a good case, but the album appears to have independent notability enough for an article of its own. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, BLP, unsourced. Black Kite 09:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Minton[edit]

Slanderous unsourced article. I think the purpose is simply to defame this person. A google search on "Joshua Minton" & Homosexual brings no relevant results to the person in this article. Althena (talk) 07:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete per lack of notability and BLP violations. I found only one source to even confirm someone by this name is in the navy, and apparently his big accomplishment is helping sandbag a reservoir. --Dhartung | Talk 08:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BanRay 09:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom. Hopefully this can be snowball deleted as it clearly is either a bad joke or malicious. Alberon (talk) 09:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. нмŵוτн τ 20:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pushpa Vilapam[edit]

After over a year, this page provides no citations of its topic's notability, half the text seems quoted from one of the linked article, and there are POV issues obvious in the first 2 lines. The last year of this article indicates that it is unlikely to be improved. Althena (talk) 07:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 11:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. нмŵוτн τ 20:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Baden-Powell's sexual orientation[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Robert Baden-Powell's sexual orientation

The question of Baden-Powell's sexual orientation is already touched upon (without the undue weight that this article carries) in the main article about him. Whether that section needs expansion is another issue, but there is no need for a separate article. Dethme0w (talk) 06:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently my motive for AfD'ing this is being misunderstood. This is not a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, in fact I think the subject is very interesting and eye-opening. I just see that a year after a no-consensus close of the last AfD, there is still very much no consensus on the status of this article. I had hoped that re-merging its core points back to the main article would abate the contentiousness I am seeing here. However this time, it looks like we may actually achieve a consensus to Keep, and either way, the issue can be put to bed. Dethme0w (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it sounds like this nomination is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, perhaps a clarification could be made as to why, according to policy, this article should be deleted? It is sourced with references, so it's not an issue with WP:RS. There may be some WP:NPOV issues, but this is not a reason for deletion. The reason for a separate article is probably because Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell is over 40kb long already. Fosnez (talk) 07:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just moved the page, as this is the third nomination... but i fracked it up right royally... sorry about that. Fosnez (talk) 07:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The reasons why this material is not included in his main article are covered in the first deletion debate. What's changed? William Avery (talk) 08:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Intereting that all three noms have come in Feb. I guess this is an annual rite of some kind ;-) Seriously though, nothing has changed so keep the article. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We have been over this, nothing has changed. Also, the first message (by User:Calvin 1998) informing me of this deletion has an aggressive/condescending tone, styling my actions as an "attack" and threatening me with future reprisals. So there is some kind of emotional agenda at work here, as far as I can see. Haiduc (talk) 11:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That "personal attacks" notice is a standard vandalism template generated with WP:TWINKLE. This was probably not an appropriate use. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 14:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And FWIW, I didn't tag the article for speedy as an attack. Calling someone gay shouldn't be considered an attack unless the caller is homophobic and thus means insult by it (and I do tag lots of articles with G10 on that basis every day), and of course WP:BLP doesn't apply here. I nominated this article for deletion because I see that the lack of consensus on its existence, and the weight given to it, is problematic. Dethme0w (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for reference, User:Calvin 1998 is 12 years old. Corvus cornix_talk 22:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clear stuff up, I was using Twinkle to CSD that, which automatically produces that message, which is a template anyhow. It's not a vandalism notice, and it's produced automatically upon CSD-ing. Calvin 1998 ^Talk _Contribs 00:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Any point I could make here is covered in previous discussions. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 11:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A former scout.. Dont know how WP's deletion policy is, dont care.. However, its the first time that I've come across the notion that he was gay, well bi.. Point is, the sub-column on BP's main page on this matter is too brief. While I clicked this link mainly out of curiosity for controversies, the arguents are well laid out and not biased. Thus, even as a scout, I wouldn't argue for its removal. Afterall WP's job is to provide info, not decide on rights and wrongs by controlling controversial information. Happy 151th Bday Baden! -Chironjit- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.53.93.174 (talk) 15:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:UNDUE. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is not encyclopediatic material, by no means. --Soman (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep more than enough sources. The main article on Baden-Powell is already very long. WP:V/WP:RS are what matter here. (I have to say that I'm a bit surprised that there is this much well-sourced content on this topic but hey...). The previous AfDs give additional good reasons for keeping. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - What is the objection here? This is well-sourced, notable information spun off from a long article. The fact that this is already touched on in the main article is not grounds for deletion, it is standard procedure for splitting off sections of an article. If any kind of merge is to be considered, this information should be moved in its entirety, not just "key points." That smacks of some kind of censorship or diminishing of the facts, and the only motives I can think of for that are inappropriate. — TAnthony^Talk 22:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd call it innuendo rather than facts. It seems to fail WP:UNDUE, WP:POVFORK and WP:SOAP. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Shrink - As non-notable. I can understand having an article on the sexuality of Jesus Christ, but do we really need a page for this person? There really aren't grounds for having such a large article solely dedicated to this. I don't see the problem with condensing the quotes (or removing them entirely, seeing they take up 80% of the article) and fitting all of this into the main article on Baden-Powell. It also doesn't follow NPOV, which states you would have to lay out all the evidence, including evidence stating this person was straight (which seems to be the academic consensus, except for these 2 authors). Calvin 1998 ^Talk _Contribs 01:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not an encyclopaedic subject for an article. If you must, cover it in a sentence or two in the main Baden-Powell article. - fchd (talk) 10:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given that he founded the Boy Scouts, this has not unnaturally given rise to some controversy, which is much better dealt with here than the main article.DGG (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sadly this is the way wikipedia deals with this issue on beloved historical figures who were closeted. I could be wrong on that but the trend seems to be removal of any suggestion that "____ is a homo" by annexing the information to anywhere but the main article about the subject. This article seems reasonably well written, reffed and, to me, simply needs improving through regular editing. Expanding why this is a heightened issue for this person would help. Benji boi 00:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to the article about the man himself, definitely don't delete this content. Passes WP:V and WP:RS anyway, so I see no good reason for deletion. However I wouldn't stand for the existence of articles of this type if the subject is a WP:BLP.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A separate article allows a level of detail that would be inappropriately lengthy in the main article. It also makes the topic more maintainable. Queerudite (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all the reasons given above and note that the two main references (the first 2) are the two most important scholarly accounts of Baden-Powell. --Bduke (talk) 10:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Sexual orientation of Robert Baden-Powell per some MOS I can't remember the acronym for. 141.151.174.43 (talk) 07:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP Topic is notable, particularly with the politics of Boy Scout criteria for scoutmasters. From someone steeped in a family of scouting. --Moni3 (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The contention of "undue weight" by the nominator is a subjective judgment which is refuted by the fact that the information exists and has been published. Haiduc (talk) 13:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Huge Delete no real source, just an open attack against the man and "arguments" made compleatly subject to the author's personnal opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.89.46 (talk) 04:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into main article Wow, a lot of emotion in this one. Let's try to step back for a minute. The majority of the keep "votes" mention the subject's notability and the articles refs, but I don't think anyone is arguing that well referenced, npov information should be "hidden" or "covered" up through deletion. Even the original nom said "Whether [the main article] section needs expansion is another issue, but there is no need for a separate article". I think this should have been taken to wp:Proposed mergers instead of wp:AfD, but no matter. The only argument made against merging this into the main article is that that article is too long. If that's the case, perhaps something else should be removed, as this information relates directly to the man himself. Wouldn't Robert Baden-Powell's founding of the scouting movement make a far better sub-article? --jwanders^Talk 09:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourced and notable per all the above and previous AfD arguments. Previous consensus was to split due to size issues and that it's not a POV fork. Merging back would result in an overly large article. The main article summary section seems appropriate and balanced, and follows style for a summary section. I don't see any POV or attack issues here, as no one is suggesting any improper behavior. This fork article clearly points out that the issue of his sexuality is controversial and that many sources don't support it. However, not only are modern biographers saying that he had an interest in young male bodies, nude or otherwise, but his own words clearly support that interest. I question whether he can be termed homosexual or repressed homosexual, but I think it's sufficiently shown that he had an homoerotic attraction to young males, enjoyed all-male culture, and avoided women until a very late in life marriage that seemed mostly non-sexual. — Becksguy (talk) 10:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge (history keep). Merge action to be completed by others. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warped Tour 2008[edit]

Simply a list of bands that performed as well as a list of venues and cities. Perhaps a simple redirect to Warped Tour is in order, such as the Ozzfest article does. Jmlk 1 7 06:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The number of bands that play the tour each year would make the Warped Tour article entirely too long. It is not a case where there's 8 bands playing 45 cities, there are hundreds of bands each year. These calls for deletions are totally uncalled for. DX927 (talk) 08:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And furthermore, there wouldn't be anything else on that page because the tour hasn't even happened yet. DX927 (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Previous_Warped_Tour_bands, which settled on a move to List of Warped Tour lineups by year. Did everybody in that AFD just miss the existence of these, or were they hidden/orphaned in some way? --Dhartung | Talk 08:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would a merge of the band info (using the sources indicated by the headings as inline citations) to List of Warped Tour lineups by year be an option? -- saberwyn 08:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge would be ideal I believe. Jmlk 1 7 20:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That page is pointless as it has no sources. Each of the other pages has NUMEROUS sources and is far more complex. And they also aren't "previous" bands. They are current. DX927 (talk) 21:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As evidenced by Jmlk's nominating statement above people might be confused as to whether this article describes something that already happened, whereas it is about a future event. That could be exacerbated if it were to be merged. Past years are static information, while current information is fluid. WP:CRYSTAL requires extra scrutiny of sources, implieing that such information is of a special character. As such it is a valuable encyclopedic resource, synthesisizing information from various sources. Also merging would create an article of excessive length.When the tour is done it can be merged and, since a good few bands played in previous years, will be comparatively smaller. As to the question of duplication of content I think both layouts of the info have validity. One might want to research what bands played in a given year, or what years a given band played. Wwwhatsup (talk) 05:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is about an upcoming tour with a large list of bands playing at a large list of venues, I think it should be kept, at least until the tour is over (then it could be merged into the List of Warped Tour lineups by year article). This is slightly different from Ozzfest in that there are roughly 40 bands per show vs. roughly 17. TravisHarder (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is just content for the article Warped Tour. The information is covered under WP:NNC but is too large to merge with the main article. Merger to one central article might be possible, but deletion is unnecessary. The topic itself is not WP:CRYSTAL, though individual entries on the page might be. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 07:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Warped Tour lineups by year. It should be possible to create a table that captures all the information on one page. It is highly unlikely that a tour with so many bands did not generate press coverage, unlike many tours with just one band. Blast Ulna (talk) 09:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge (history keep). Merge action to be completed by others. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warped Tour 2007[edit]

Simply a list of bands that performed as well as a list of venues and cities. Perhaps a simple redirect to Warped Tour is in order, such as the Ozzfest article does. Jmlk 1 7 06:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge would be ideal I believe. Jmlk 1 7 20:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see any good reason to delete it. It's a valuable historical resource. It would take somebody a considerable amount of effort to compile the same information. Wwwhatsup (talk) 08:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Wwwhatsup. Exuberant (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is just content for the article Warped Tour. The information is covered under WP:NNC but is too large to merge with the main article. Merger to one central article might be possible, but deletion is unnecessary. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 07:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Warped Tour lineups by year. It should be possible to create a table that captures all the information on one page. It is highly unlikely that a tour with so many bands did not generate press coverage, unlike many tours with just one band. Blast Ulna (talk) 09:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge (history keep). Merge action to be completed by others. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warped Tour 2006[edit]

Simply a list of bands that performed as well as a list of venues and cities. Perhaps a simple redirect to Warped Tour is in order, such as the Ozzfest article does. Jmlk 1 7 06:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would a merge of the band info (using the sources indicated by the headings as inline citations) to List of Warped Tour lineups by year be an option? -- saberwyn 08:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge would be ideal I believe. Jmlk 1 7 20:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge* I created the article as a way of getting the past year's info off the Warped Tour page. Anyplace we could put the list of venues and cities? Might be useful to someone.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is just content for the article Warped Tour. The information is covered under WP:NNC but is too large to merge with the main article. Merger to one central article might be possible, but deletion is unnecessary. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 07:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Warped Tour lineups by year. It should be possible to create a table that captures all the information on one page. It is highly unlikely that a tour with so many bands did not generate press coverage, unlike many tours with just one band. Blast Ulna (talk) 09:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge (history keep). Merge action to be completed by others. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warped Tour 2005[edit]

Simply a list of bands that performed. Perhaps a simple redirect to Warped Tour is in order, such as the Ozzfest article does. Jmlk 1 7 06:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would a merge of the band info (using the sources indicated by the headings as inline citations) to List of Warped Tour lineups by year be an option? -- saberwyn 08:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge would be ideal I believe. Jmlk 1 7 20:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is just content for the article Warped Tour. The information is covered under WP:NNC but is too large to merge with the main article. Merger to one central article might be possible, but deletion is unnecessary. Any reason why these were all AfD'd separately? —Torc. ^(Talk.) 07:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Warped Tour lineups by year. It should be possible to create a table that captures all the information on one page. It is highly unlikely that a tour with so many bands did not generate press coverage, unlike many tours with just one band. Blast Ulna (talk) 09:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge (history keep). Merge action to be completed by others. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3 people is not enough discussion for such a HUGE move. Hundreds of bands performing thousands of shows is simply TOO LARGE for a table to be used effectively. The only reason for someone to even use the table would be to create individual articles, which has already been done. It would be foolish to redirect. Most people come across these articles in a Google search such as "Warped Tour 2000" because they want to reminisce about the bands they saw. They do not want to scroll down a five mile long table just to do that. Individual articles with a link to the list would be fine, but deleting the articles simply defies common sense. Topbookclub ✉

Warped Tour 2004[edit]

Simply a list of bands that performed. Perhaps a simple redirect to Warped Tour is in order, such as the Ozzfest article does. Jmlk 1 7 06:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would a merge of the band info (using the sources indicated by the headings as inline citations) to List of Warped Tour lineups by year be an option? -- saberwyn 08:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge would be ideal I believe. Jmlk 1 7 20:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is just content for the article Warped Tour. The information is covered under WP:NNC but is too large to merge with the main article. Merger to one central article might be possible, but deletion is unnecessary. Any reason why these were all AfD'd separately? —Torc. ^(Talk.) 07:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Warped Tour lineups by year. It should be possible to create a table that captures all the information on one page. It is highly unlikely that a tour with so many bands did not generate press coverage, unlike many tours with just one band. Blast Ulna (talk) 09:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, in absence of any deletion argument, advising the currently inactive nominator nevertheless about WP:POINT. Tikiwont (talk) 10:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Omega Phi Gamma[edit]

I have nominated Omega Phi Gamma, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omega Phi Gamma. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Cruzer8 (talk) 06:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Note - I have notified the nom that he/she failed to provide a rationale, and that this nomination could be Speedy Closed on a procedural basis in the absence of a proposed reason to delete. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep - The article isn't well-cited, but it passes the Fraternity & Sorority Wikiproject criteria of more than one chapter and has had mention in MSM (see article references). This nomination feels in bad faith as the author brought back Gamma Beta, for it to be speedy deleted, and the nomination is very similar to the one used there. Justinm1978 (talk) 14:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am the author of the this article. This article has been on Wikipedia for more than a year now, without any problems or objections. I also believe that this deletion nomination is in bad faith - any problems can be discussed on the Discussion page. (|Victor8698 —Preceding comment was added at 18:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Length of time something has been on Wikipedia is not reason enough to end an AfD. A poorly formed and bad-faith nomination is, though. Justinm1978 (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. Originally I removed the delete tag myself - my fault, but due to the above conversations of a bad-faith nomination of AfD, I motion to have the AfD removed. Victor8698 (talk)
Vandalism by user seeking deletion - Also, I would like to point out something about user Cruzer8. Apparently, he tried to change an AfD listing his article about "Gamma Beta" with this article. As pointed out by one of the users, this is not cool and is an act of vandalism. This further illustrates the "bad faith" argument listed above - there was some sort of malicious intent behind this, and for no reason at all. I hope the administrators take more action against him. User:Victor8698|Victor8698]] (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyhoozle[edit]

Contested speedy, then prod. Non-notable neologism. No legitimate citations given. Repeat after me, boys and girls: Wikipedia is not for something made up in school one day. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete an obvious violation of WP:NOT. Jmlk17 06:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, WP:NOT is not a speedy-delete criterion, which is why we're here. But thanks anyway. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no notability for this infrequent slang affectation. --Dhartung | Talk 08:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BanRay 09:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dumb, anyhoozle. JuJube (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to List of Intel Celeron microprocessors. Tikiwont (talk) 11:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intel Celeron D 365[edit]

All the information in this page is already in List of Intel Celeron microprocessors. Also, no other individual CPU models have their own pages. Imperator3733 (talk) 05:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete does not seem to pass notability guidelines or WP:RS but if the article is improved, to meet these critia, I have not qualms about changing vote. Fosnez (talk) 07:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_Intel_Celeron_microprocessors#.22Cedar_Mill-512.22_.2865_nm.29--Lenticel ^(talk) 08:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Chetblong^{T C} 01:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Longest recorded song[edit]

Smells like a hoax to me. No reliable sources are present, and I was unable to find any. Nothing checks out. Either it never happened, or it happened and nobody cared. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Smells like a hoax to me too -- not the world's longest hoax, but a hoax just the same. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 06:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:V, likely hoax. I can't find evidence that the band ever existed outside of this unsourced claim. --Dhartung | Talk 08:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems like a hoax indeed BanRay 09:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per Dhartung; a likely hoax, which fails WP:V in any case. Chrisieboy (talk) 14:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in accordance with WP:A. Cloudz679 (talk) 14:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced and likely hoax. For what it's worth, with digital recording and hard drives offering pretty-much unlimited recording space, I'd be damned suprised if the *real* longest recorded song is only 240 minutes. A 1-terabyte drive, for example, could hold roughly 4 years' worth of sound at listenable compression. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and, for what it's worth, Somnium outperforms that song by 3 hours Will ^(talk) 13:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect and merge —αlεx•mullεr 21:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simply The Gest[edit]

I simply have to read this book. Too bad it's not notable. The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 05:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to David Gest since the author is notable. A mention there may make sense. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and/or Redirect to David Gest. Makes more sense to have it on the main page rather than one of its own. Alberon (talk) 09:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into main article' Would be a good addition to the David Gest article, but yes, not notable by itself. ǝuɪuǝsɐ ^(ʞɿɐʇ) _sʇdpǝ 22:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - not notable by itself but should be mentioned in the main article of its author. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 18:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kutty Shranku[edit]

Explicitly fails WP:NFF. Additionally, has no reliable sourcing. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. --Avinesh Jose T 05:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Per WP:NFF, Films which have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced shooting should not have their own articles. According to sify movie news, the shoot of the film will take place in and around Kochi and Kollam some time in April (2008). --Avinesh Jose T 05:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added two references to the article. --Avinesh Jose T 05:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding some references. Unfortunately, however, the shooting appears not to be commencing for another six weeks at the least. Part of the reason that WP:NFF was implemented to begin with was because of the prevalence of projects which were announced and oftentimes were weeks away from shooting before being delayed or cancelled for various reasons. It's a very common phenomenon in the film industry, and is why future films are regarded as unnotable prior to shooting. Usually by the time cameras have started to roll, too much money has been spent at that point to completely shut down the film. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if that is the case, let’s think about it later. Delete now. --Avinesh Jose T 06:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until information from reliable third-party sources discussing the filming and specific release date of the movie is made available. -- saberwyn 08:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Cloudz679 (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 14:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL WP:NFF. I (page creator) acknowledge that the article violates these policy and support the removal of the page. Appoose81 (talk) 11:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) Darkspots (talk) 00:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ8[edit]

Non-notable commercial product. Wikipedia is not a Panasonic catalog. Wikipedia is not a digital camera guide. Mikeblas (talk) 04:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable commercial product for which a lot of sources exist. Nomination is a boilerplate nomination showing no consideration of the merits of the specific article. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added references to the article, known to be a very good bridge camera Fosnez (talk) 08:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Widely used model --— Typ932^{T | C} 08:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above BanRay 09:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above Λua∫Wi se ^{(Operibus anteire)} 12:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) Darkspots (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ20[edit]

Non-notable commercial product. Reads as an advertisement and is completely unreferenced. Wikipedia is not a Panasonic catalog. Wikipedia is not a digital camera guide. Mikeblas (talk) 04:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable commercial product for which a lot of sources exist. Nomination is a boilerplate nomination showing no consideration of the merits of the specific article. Article contains external links that, while not listed as references, are almost certainly sources for much of the article and show that sources could easily be found for most or all of the content. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the FZ10 and FZ20 were some of the first "non-professional" digital cameras to come with a decent lens (leica) and a 12x Optical zoom lens - something that is much more common now. Definatly notable - needs sourcing though. Fosnez (talk) 08:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added references to the article (New York Times, The Age, PC World), but it could probably do with a few more if someone has time? Fosnez (talk) 08:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable product BanRay 09:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks to be in good shape now. — brighterorange (talk) 13:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - early example of a now common trend in digital photography (consumer-grade, ultra-zoom, high-grade optics) ++Arx Fortis (talk) 04:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 19:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carlton J. Kell High School Bands[edit]

(Undecided between media/music and organizations, sorry). AFDing this article because it fails to meet WP:N, has no references, and is blatant advertisement. (If you choose to keep this article, maybe think about merging it with the school article instead?) <3 bunny 04:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent reliable sources have been provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable group; also fails WP:RS. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as NN BanRay 09:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, then delete. Make a section for the Kell High School article out of this, but do not keep this title as a redirect. —C.Fred (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Merge and delete" is not allowed because it does not satisfy Wikipedia's copyright license. If the content is merged, we have to leave a redirect. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge There might be some useful content that could go into the high school's article. But there's no way it needs a second article. Redphoenix526 (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus, which defaults to Keep. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congregation Kol Emes[edit]

The article makes no assertion that this congregation has any particular notability. --Eliyak T·C 03:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Eliyak T·C 04:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Eliyak: It is surprising that in the midst of the intense recent AFD discussions such as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adas Israel Congregation and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adath Jeshurun Congregation that you are now fanning the flames with requests for deletions of more synagogue articles. Can we request that the dust settle a little before throwing more fuel on the flames. It would be advisable to continue seeking consenus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Deletion of synagogue articles which you have chosen not to participate in but rather have just barreled on with these controversail AFDs. Please withdraw the nomination until such time as consensus is reached. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 06:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - IZAK: Since you address your personal comments to me on this AFD page instead of my talk page, I will respond here. I have not seen the Judaism WikiProject page for over a month. Perhaps this is negligent of me, but nonetheless I did not know we were in the midst of a spate of synagogue deletions, or that there was a discussion at WP:JEW. (I knew of only the Adath Jeshurun Congregation nomination.) I did in fact check into Congregation Kol Emes as far as I felt was reasonable to do (as I do with all synagogues I propose for deletion), and decided that Kol Emes is not particularly distinguished. I will continue to nominate articles of any type which do not appear to meet notability.
  - I would also dispute your assertion that "Jewish communities cannot be separated from their synagogues." At the very least, it is clear that Jewish communities often contain several synagogues. This particular synagogue was the result of a merger between other, older synagogues. These type of mergers often occur when one or both of the older synagogues can no longer sustain itself/themselves, so that fact does not seem to add to the prestige of the current congregation. It does demonstrate a continuous Jewish community in Richmond, but that is ostensibly not the subject of this article. Adding much background information about a Jewish community to a synagogue's article merely makes that page about the community, not the synagogue, and a good candidate for a page move.
  - I am still for the deletion of the Kol Emes article (or perhaps moving it to Jewish community of Richmond, Virginia). The new information, while impressive in depth and quantity, does not seem to indicate that it is a notable congregation. A large event at Kol Emes apparently consisted of 30 people. Also, a human interest piece in any newspaper is not a good demonstration of notability. In point of fact, these type of pieces regularly feature little-known personalities and organizations. The Times-Dispatch article, as quoted on the Kol Emes page, actually demonstrates that the synagogue was recently "without a Rabbi" and "struggling" to maintain any kind of prayer services. Wikipedia is not a place for human interest pieces! --Eliyak T·C 01:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Eliyak: I don't understand anything you are saying. Firstly this is about an Orthodox congregation, so would you rather prefer that the topic would be History of Orthodox Jews in Richmond, Virginia or Orthodox Judaism in Richmond, Virginia? In any case, if that got too big, it would justify a split-off and why create general topics if we are dealing with something specific? Secondly, the world Jewish population is very small. About 13 million today, with about half living in North America so that the threshold for numbers of Jews in questions of "notability" for Jewish persons, events and institutions can never be large and can never hope to match the scope of Christians/Christianity or Muslims/Islam or Hindus/Hinduism with well over a billion followers each! Thirdly, the challenge on Wikipedia is to allow Judaic topics, no matter how SEEMINGLY trivial they may seem on first sight, to be given the opportunity to be written up and stand on their own merit and not be measured up by comparison to eight hundred pound gorrillla topics or criteria that really are not helpful. We cannot write only about the big cities with Jews, that would limit us to about ten cities in the world. So that on the contrary, if in Richmond Virginia there is an Orthodox congregation, and it has a history that can be basically documented, then it can safely pass as a good article. And by the way, the struggle this synagogue faces is no different to the struggles all such synagogues face in small Jewish population centers in the USA, so rather than holding it up as "therefore it is not an article" one should say "this is an important topic" because unlike in the past, there are multiple media and other sources to record this phenomenon now. Fourthly, can you explain what makes a synagogue notable please? Some even argue that synagogues with large memberships are "not notable" so what is the standard please, and how on Earth can you assert that synagogues aren't key to Jewish life? In America especially, synagogues are the religious centers for Reform and Conservative Jews, because unlike Orthodox Jews who also have a lot of rituals they do at home, the Reform and Conservative Jews, and for many Orthodox in smaller locales, the synagogue is the ENTIRE focal point of their religious lives and lifecycle events if they desire it and many do. Finally, if you had your way, would you also eliminate "Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" as the Jewish Biblical forefathers because they are "only" three people, or should the twelve sons of Jacob be called "not notable" because they were "only" twelve shepherds? What would you think of Abrham's plea to God when he requested what if "only" ten good people lived in Sodom and Gomorrah (there weren't, and Sodom and Gomorrah were thus destroyed...and these guys have 30! So why have a stricter standard than Abraham and God?) Think about it, since when do numerical numbers of Jews matter to decide if something is notable or not in Judaism? IZAK (talk) 11:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - P.S. NOTE: The article does not give actual membership numbers of its congregants over the long history of its existence. What it does say is that recently, it was visited by 30 Satmar Hasidim, itself a very notable event, because Satmar Hasidim are not known to be active with Jewish outreach usually. IZAK (talk) 05:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG. Most individual religious congregations are non-notable, and no independent sources have been provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Metropolitan90: In Judaism, Jewish communities cannot be seperated from their synagogues and certainly where sources exist to explain and prove their notability there is no justification to delete them. Your comments were directed at a stub, and with a little research on Google as I did, there is enough written out there about this synagogue to justify the retention of this article about it. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: The article, now renamed Congregation Kol Emes (Richmond, Virginia) for more specificity, has now been updated with information from reliable sources explaining its history and present status. It is requested that the nominator withdraw his hasty and unjustified nomination. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the article is now updated with sources and explanations for its notability as a synagogue. IZAK (talk) 08:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe it is notable enough. Happy138 (talk) 09:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, historical dating back to 1789. --MPerel 11:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, wrong. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While the history of Jews and Judaism in Richmond, Virginia apparently goes back at least to 1789, this synagogue cannot claim that entire history, as it was founded much later, in 1964. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Metropolitan90: The sentence in the article says: "Congregation Kol Emes is a continuation of Orthodox synagogues in Richmond dating back to 1789" and the history of the synagogue [61] clearly indicates that it was a culmination and continaution of Orthodoxy in Richmond and sees itself as such. So you are being too harsh on User:MPerel. IZAK (talk) 11:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as the professional independent sources, like the Jewish Press and other reliable news media state, this is indeed a very important notable synagogue, we cannot censure worlds media extensive coverage and constant attention of this subject, because we in wikipedia don't decide whats out there, we can only write what others considered as notable out there, if somebody does not think this is important he should not read it. --YY (talk) 11:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep. I have great concern with the system of nominating something for deletion only to have it immediately cleaned up. If the page was able to be cleaned up even before the deletion than the nomination was too hasty, and some articles that didn't have a last minute rescue end up being deleted when they shouldn't be. What is worse is that these deleted articles are almost impossible to recreate without a deletion review. On the other hand I question the prudence of making stubs which have little or no indication of importance even when it is clear to the author that they are notable. I encourage any interested knowledgeable editor to expand stubs (even by only a sentence or two) to give an indication of importance to prevent any accidental deletion. I would also encourage editor who find stub that are too short to contact the related wikiproject first in the hopes of expanding the article and preempting a deletion discussion. Jon513 (talk) 12:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed 100% IZAK (talk) 11:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the article currently stands, there are appropriate reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. A reminder that Wikipedia:Deletion policy requires a nominator to perform research on potential notability and to make efforts to edit, improve or consider merging the article before starting an AfD. Alansohn (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't know why some are complaining about the afd nomination. Without the afd, the article wouldn't look like it did. I would suggest nominating more of these.
Delete. User:Eliyak's powerful argument above has just swayed me. Its a very nice human interest story, but at day's end it's unnotable.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Brew, see my response to his "powerful argument" above. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 11:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have worked my way through your arguments, but I'm unconvinced. Your arguments don't answer the essential question - How does this meet the WP:ORG notability standard?--brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Any organization that has a history going back to 1789 is noteworthy in and of itself. --Metzenberg (talk) 06:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was written in a way that would lead one to believe that the synagouge goes back to 1789, but it doesn't. It goes back a mere fourty years. I've corrected the ambiguity somewhat, but I'm not really interested in editing an article about a subject that believe is unnotable. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus; default to Keep - Philippe | Talk 21:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Affinity Labs[edit]

Ad. Non-notable company. Corvus cornix_talk 03:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Monster (website), the now-parent company. Plausible search term &c. --Dhartung | Talk 08:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What makes this company notable is the popularity of its subsidiaries. The largest subsidiary, for example, has over 10,000 members. "If the subsidiaries are so popular and notable, why just just write articles about them?" you ask. A description of the subsidiaries would be incomplete without the context of this larger entity, Affinity Labs. A section about PoliceLink has been added to the Affinity Labs article to farther flesh it out. The article is too short, and as a result a "stub" tag has been added so that as people search for Affinity Labs, the article can be expanded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teckdiva (talk • contribs) 18:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An applicable analogy can be Monster as the U.S. and Texas as a state. Texas needs its own article because it is independent, with its own inner workings just as much as it is ruled by a higher governing power. Affinity Labs is a state in the Union of Monster Worldwide, with its community sites being populated cities.

Delete Not only non-notable, but running a spamvertising campaign in our external links. Get them out of here. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

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

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

The result was Keep. Obviously this is a long-running debate, but the main reason I have decided on keep is that, besides there being more keep "votes" than delete (and votes are not the be-all-and-end-all of any AFD), there seems to be no majority consensus to delete. There is enough of an argument to keep the article, and as suggested, systematic bias may be the issue in terms of referencing. As a closing note, I would look to improve the article and fix its problems than re-nominate it soon; I can't see a fourth AFD attempt suddenly creating a deletion consensus. Esteffect (talk) 03:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Before we begin, let me state: Yes I know this has been nominated twice before. However I feel the last AfD wasn't closed appropriately, I've tried yet again to clean up this article and bring it in to line with policies and guidelines, however it seems impossible. In addition I don't feel the last close by a non-admin was appropriate as lots of claims were made in the AfD by the people wanting to keep the article but no one bothered to provide any evidence to support their opinions and since then no one has done anything to address the concerns with this article

Original Research The article contains excessive amounts of original research. Sure it could be rewritten without it, but there is very little here that isn't original research. Its all taken from forums and fansites. This kind of basis leads itself to original research. Drawing conclusions and putting forth subjective statements based on these observations are the very nature of original research.
Notability I can find a single piece of coverage from a reliable source, however its not significant as required by the guideline and its tainted in that it seems to use this very article as source. Its a wired gallery that contains a single paragraph about OS-Tan [62]. This hardly demonstrates a greater notability outside the fandom. The guideline very clearly lays out what is necessary to establish notability, and no one has done that in this article nor does it seem possible. In the previous AfD there were tons of claims of notability, but no evidence. Some fansites and forums don't establish that. Otherwise they'd be an accepted part of the guidelines on web notability. Please read WP:ILIKEIT for further insight.
Verifiability/Reliable Source Put simply, there are none. All these linked infoseek pages appear to be personal pages akin to a geocities page. These are never considered reliable and can't be used to source statements outside of "this page exists" and certainly can't be used to establish notability. In fact as I was going through the sources I couldn't find a single reliable source which really said anything about OS-Tan.

Simply put if people want this article kept, they need to provide the required sources and not simply make claims that an article meets wikipedia's criteria when this article very clearly doesn't. Multiple editors have attempted to clean this up (see the previous AfD) and the ones who have put the most time in to it don't see how this article belongs here. At the very best a mention should be made about this on the Futaba Channel article or in the internet memes article. But currently none of the content is suitable for merging as it really isn't source (yes there are some sources there, but most of those should be removed as they're just infoseek pages) and is mostly original research. Crossmr (talk) 03:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They may be cute (aren't most anime girls?) but unfortunately they're not covered in any reliable sources at all -- and nothing else seems to indicate that they're notable in any fashion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fandom led to 1) a commercially published anthrology, 2) a manga in Dengeki Teioh, 3) the controversy involving the magazine Netrunner (which you removed). 1) and 2) solve the sourcing problem, while all of them establish notabilities. Do not belittle doujin efforts. _dk (talk) 06:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the netrunner controversy because it didn't seem to be specific to OS-Tans, The OS-Tan card was only one of the cards created and the images downloaded weren't limited to os-tan images, there is also no evidence this "controversy" was covered by any outside reliable sources. Which doesn't make it particularly notable or reliable. Neither an anthology or manga are independent of the subject and can't be used to establish notability. As I pointed out above, please provide sources which actually comply with wikipedia's policies and guidelines which support keeping this article.--Crossmr (talk) 14:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And this [63] Was previously discussed. While it has an ISBN and is for sale, its a self-published book by that artist. At best its a primary source on how that artist feels about those characters but there is no evidence the artist is notable and that he could be used as a source. Even so as a primary source it can't be used to establish notability.--Crossmr (talk) 14:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Those" artists, thank you. Seeing your response further convinces me that you don't know enough about this topic. Of course the artists are not notable, they are meant to be unknown anonymous contributors to this internet phenomenon. (Read about doujin for some background knowledge) The anthology is considered "official" because it is not just some self-published work, it is a collaborative production by the artists involved in making the characters, and it has gone through a commercial publisher (not a vanity publisher or a self-publisher) who had deemed the anthology profitable to sell. Also, relevant mentions include this from AkibaBlog, which, before you jump to conclusions, is a news blog with as much credibility as Kotaku. (But you'll just shoot it down via the usual bureaucratic talk anyways) _dk (talk) 11:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'd need to demonstrate that it does have as much credibility as Kotaku unless someone has already done that leg work. Why point me to doujin which refers specifically to self-published works if this book is supposedly not a self-published work? An english page on this book describes it as a "fan" book, which doesn't make it sound like its commercially published. [64]. Even if you establish that akibablog is considered a reliable source that can establish notability, I don't see any evidence here of significant coverage in third parties independent of the source.--Crossmr (talk) 16:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I pointed you to doujin because that's how OS-tan started. The book, however, was a commercial publication published by a commercial publisher (look up 宙出版 if you don't believe me) about this doujin phenomenon. I'm not going to argue your other points since it's a lost cause. _dk (talk) 02:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. _dk (talk) 06:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Deadkid dk. I think the opposition to the article may be a case of systemic bias. There may not be sufficient references in English, as opposed to Japanese. --Merovingian (T, C) 07:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None of the provided japanese sources appear to be valid. They appear to come from self-published websites. That has nothing to do with what language they're in.--Crossmr (talk) 14:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've read the article, google translated the page about the book on amazon.co.jp, read the articles on Dengeki Teioh and Futaba Channel, and googled some (also for OSたん). And I'm not convinced of notability. A book displaying the pictures (that's all it does from what I see) and a manga using the characters clearly isn't enough if you read through WP:V and WP:N. We need some real third party coverage, like appearance in news or a book talking somewhere about OStans, right now this article is just WP:OR. --Minimaki (talk) 12:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why delete the article when it still provides very important information. If not an article about OS-Tans, shouldn't an article exist to explain the -tan phenomenon in general? There's -tans for EVERYTHING, and even though it's all fandom and fan created and most of it isn't endorced by the respective companies, it's still a style of artwork/character design that is becoming increasingly popular it seems with each and every new gadget that comes out. If it wasn't for this wikipedia article, and an article I read on AnimeNation I would've never knew anything about this sub-culture of artwork in Japan.--72.65.239.213 (talk) 07:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you provide a link to that article? I guess the reasons for deletion get clear from the initial statement, especially if you follow the provided links. If someone else besides Wikipedia deemed reliable enough wrote about it, or once someone does, nothing will speak against keeping the article. I also find this quite interesting - the first time I heard about the -tan suffix was when I saw Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan :) So in a way, if even the almost-mascot of Wikipedia is such a -tan girl, it can't be that non-notable. On the other hand, seeing how that wired.com article and also some other pages I saw in google clearly used this article here on Wikipedia for the definition of OS-tans, Wikipedia may have played some involuntary role in making them known.. but that's all besides the point. --Minimaki (talk) 13:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He might be talking about this, which is a small blurb about os-tan on a shopping site [65]--Crossmr (talk) 16:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's from 2004 and uses the "extensive article" on Wikipedia as reference for those OS-tans. Heh, my above suspicion just got stronger now. --Minimaki (talk) 04:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then give evidence to that effect. Show us some news articles, reliable magazine articles, etc that show some greater notability of the subject outside of the fandom.--Crossmr (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Moe anthropomorphism Will ^(talk) 13:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has the sort of web sources expected for this type of thing; for memes like this, popularity does equal a certain amount of notability, & I think it's time we recognized as much. From the sites, looks like the article could me expanded.DGG (talk) 16:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Care to actually provide those sources? All we have is a book which may or may not be self-published, and a blog which may or may not count. Do you have any evidence to support the popularity? Something that meets WP:WEB? Those are the kind of sources we expect.--Crossmr (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this just isn't notable. The complete lack of sources despite several people actively looking for them serves to indicate that. The manga mentioned above, self-published or not, might qualify as notable, though - maybe create an article for that, and merge OS-tan into the manga article. But I think unless that artist goes on to have a notable career, an early self published work is not really worth make an article about. Doceirias (talk) 02:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge sourcable content to Futaba Channel and cut out the cruft. I'm not convinced by the reliability of the sources here.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources as mentioned per above. Antonio Lopez ^(talk) 00:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Deadkid, plus, if we have articles on 3 million internet memes this is surely as notable. I've certainly heard of this before reading this article today. Xmoogle (talk) 13:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF always is problematic though. On one hand, List of Internet phenomena has lots of such articles which do cite third party coverage along WP:V and WP:N. And on the other hand, there certainly are just as many internet memes (with notability below WP:N) which we do not have an article for. --Minimaki (talk) 12:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Deadkid. We can fix left over OR and V issues without total deletion. -- Ned Scott 03:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, if you actually look at the article and try doing that, you end up blanking it :) --Minimaki (talk) 01:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see absolutely no reason to delete this. The lack of notable and credible sources is understandable because this started out as fanart/doujin, a personification of the various OS's in anime form. Personally, the fact that this internet meme is extremely popular and well known by many serves more than enough to establish notability for the OS-tans. I fully understand the problem with lack of credible sources (and what can you expect from something that started as fan work in futaba?), but deleting an article on one of the more popular internet phenomenons just because you can't find research paper on it is too much. Deadkid also makes a nice point, though I can't comment in detail since I never bought the book or frequented the blog. King Arthur6687 (talk) 07:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, lack of credible sources means, there can't be an article. That's just how Wikipedia works. --Minimaki (talk) 01:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Then I find it funny that the Japanese OS-tan page, which has absolutely no credible sources referenced from what I see, is still standing with no deletion nomination in sight (please correct me if I'm wrong). In fact, the Japanese version seems more comprehensive and detailed than ours. Moving on, you say Wikipedia works on "sources or get out", in that case I believe the Japanese article should be nominated for deletion as well. Don't get me wrong, I don't want the OS-tan pages from any of the Wikis to get deleted, on the contrary I want to help keep them for the benefit of many. However, as it stands this deletion nomination sounds much like a cultural bias against Japan and the OS-tans because it is something that most English-speakers fail to comprehend (the concept of "kawaii" is something I seldom see outside of Japan/Asia), whereas in Japan it has a strong following with or without credible sources. This can be taken the other way as well: If the Japanese OS-tan page can survive with no credible sources referenced, it has to be notable in some way or form. King Arthur6687 (talk) 06:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, we all agree that they are kawaii I think :) WP:V (read through it) really is the problem. --Minimaki (talk) 12:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oh, I know Wiki works on verifiability, I've had to cite episodes in edits of Gundam 00 articles from time to time. I know how it works. It's just that, with internet memes, the best sources you could get come mostly from blogs and/or fansites (and in this case, because OS-tan is fanart at its core, a very popular one). I've noted that the Japanese OS-tan pages reference those, but I saw no otherwise "commercial" or any such sort of sources. If the editors really, really think this should be deleted, then it sucks but I guess we'll have to live. However, I still ask why the Japanese version is standing with no references to good sources (assuming that blogs and the like are not). If that page can live, there has to be something we're missing that we can do for our version. =X —Preceding unsigned comment added by King Arthur6687 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) Darkspots (talk) 00:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Landing footprint[edit]

It's just a definition, without much hope of expansion. Time to give it the boot. (Addendum} In fact, Wiktionary has a Glossary of atmospheric reentry where it would fit in quite well. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are may ways I would want this article expanded - How has the size of landing footprints changed over the years, what is the effect of landing in an atmosphere vs no atmosphere, statistics regarding past estimations of landing footprints and if they have been successful etc. Being a stub is not a valid reason for deletion in this case - but it needs to be expanded by an expert with sources. Fosnez (talk) 08:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No, no, no, this is actually a very important area of study for every mission. Review of hazards, compilation of points of interest, (exo-)geological studies. The selection process is rigorous and frequently contentious. But this is more than just a technical term, it's something that can define the success of a mission. --Dhartung | Talk 08:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I created the page after watching a video from NASA on lifting bodies - this class of aircraft spawned to research landing footprints. On Earth, we've gone from a big strip of water in the ocean (Apollo) to a small runway (Shuttle) : there's plenty to write about in between, but I've had trouble finding information. Pgxd (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep expand, and add references, but definitely keep. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 14:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as a non-notable biography —αlεx•mullεr 21:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Seabrooke[edit]

This person is not notable enough to justify his having his own article. If we were to create articles for every high school coach in America, Wikipedia would be swamped. And the fact that he mentored John Irving does not make him notable in and of itself. Juansidious (talk) 02:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless it can be shown that his tenure at Philips Exeter was a notable one, e.g. championships or winning seasons, with independent coverage. Just being the coach of a guy who later becomes famous for writing about wrestling isn't enough, even if you work for a fairly prestigious school.--Dhartung | Talk 08:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN BanRay 09:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Might deserve an expanded mention on John Irving's page, but not a page of his own. Alberon (talk) 10:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, with no prejudice against merging, however merging is a "non-AfD" discussion better suited to the talkpages. In addition, merge suggestions exist here for three separate articles (making it a "no consensus to merge") - Gordon Pogoda, Hannah Montana, and Little Miss Sunshine. If you are non-admin and need access to the contents and history for a merge, please let me know on my talkpage. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Cupid Had a Heart[edit]

Written by an editor with clear POV issues. The song has been in a notable movie and TV show, but it was recorded by a non-notable artist. Bringing to the community for a decision. GlassCobra 03:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -A second opinion: I feel the entry should be included. The song was featured in an Oscar-winning film ("Little Miss Sunshine") and a popular children's TV show on Disney ("Hannah Montana"), and several other movies (a Lindsey Lohan film, "Get a Clue", in fact) and other TV shows. It may be the artist's first release, but everyone has to start somewhere. And singing in a film that won 2 Academy Awards is notable, in many people's opinions. In fact, in my opinion, it's quite a noteworthy start. Also notable, typing "If Cupid Had a Heart" (within quotes) into the google search engine reveals many, many remarks on the web discussing this very song in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdisonLite (talk • contribs)
Delete. As per WP:Notability (music)#Albums and songs No "substantial coverage from reliable sources". Hasn't charted. Non-notable artist. --NrDg 23:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite 02:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Song hasn't charted and the artist is a red link. Therefore, this song fails all criteria of WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TenPoudHammer BanRay 09:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC dissolve ^talk 09:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Hannah Montana or Little Miss Sunshine. —Qit el-Remel (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 14:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Gordon Pogoda, the songwriter. The song has evidently featured in several notable places, but WP:MUSIC notes that "Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song". --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus to do anything really, as there doesn't seem to have been any interest in this discussion. No prejudice against a renomination, but in the interest of the backlog, closing this debate. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ovi Online Magazine[edit]

NN website, no evidence that the site meets WP:N or WP:WEB. Also nominating The Ovi Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which is apparently a different website, also not meeting WP:N or WP:WEB that has the same logo but different content. Both articles have been edited largely by users with obvious conflicts of interest. Mango juice^talk 07:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~both~~ The Ovi Magazine for failing to demonstrate significance through reliable sources. No mention of awards, reviews, etc. —C.Fred (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see improvement taking place with Ovi Online Magazine; it now sports some citations. I'm willing to give a little more time to see if the article can be improved, so I'm going to change to say keep Ovi Online Magazine. —C.Fred (talk) 04:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can the warnings be removed from the page now? Butcam (talk) 07:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite 02:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was After relisting the result still shows a consensus to Delete. --VS ^talk 04:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Music Circuit[edit]

No independent source, and as written notability is questionable. Unless notability shown independently, delete. --Nlu (talk) 16:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the author has spammed many Asian-related webpages with links to this page, all of which should be removed. Rikyu (talk) 01:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (unless notability established from multiple independent reliable sources). --Lambiam 11:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Charlie Huang 【遯卋山人】 21:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Press releases and mainly trivial coverage do not establish notability; the primary criterion is that the organization has been the subject of multiple independent coverage in reliable published works such as (for example) newspaper articles, books, and television documentaries. --Lambiam 08:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite 02:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 20:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Context Free[edit]

This programming language / application does not seem to be sufficiently notable, due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Most of the article appears to consist of instructions on how to use the language. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 13:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient demonstration of notability through reliable sourcing. -FrankTobia (talk) 14:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite 02:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete all per consensus. The titles of the songs will be redirected to their respective articles for search capabilities. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Control Raging Fire[edit]

Doesn't seem to be a notable duet. First pair of duet partners recorded but did not release it; second pair of duet partners released it but it failed to chart. I would have merged this to an album, if not for the fact that two different sets of artists have recorded it. A search for sources turned up nothing notable about this song at all. (Note to closing admin: If this page is deleted, please delete Category:Dawn Sears songs as well.)

Also listing other Patty Loveless songs which aren't notable because they didn't chart, and don't seem to be the subject of any sources:

Keep Your Distance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (good song, though)
Strong Heart (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Boys Are Back in Town (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(Note: I tried redirecting these songs to their respective albums but my redirects were undone, so I'm listing them here.)

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to understand why one person's opinion should have an article deleted. Patty Loveless is a major recording artist, and the pages that he wishes to be deleted were all recordings released as singles by her and her recording company. If we are to have a complete discography, with the released singles, then we should have a complete set, as how the songs performed on the charts is really immaterial. Again, just because one person feels that they are insignficant, that does not mean that other people feel the same. Loveless has millions of fans and they should be able to resarch all of her single releases, not just those that one person believes are significant, and others not available that they feel as insigificant... Bwmoll3 (talk) 03:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going with my own personal opinion at all, but rather the general consensus of several Wikipedia editors, and of at least one official Wikipedia policy. (Also, I happen to be a big fan of Loveless' music.) Please read Wikipedia:MUSIC#Albums and songs, which states (in part): "Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article... Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists... are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; permanent stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Personally, I think that it would be fairly difficult to find any reliable, specific info on any song that was released as a single but didn't chart; most of the time, I have trouble finding such info for any song that wasn't a Top 20 on the country charts. (There are occasional exceptions; see The Bumper of My SUV as an example.) The pages on Loveless' albums and discography already contain sufficient info for most of these songs; therefore, the songs themselves mostly don't warrant separate pages. I would recommend keeping the #1's and maybe most of the Top 10 hits, and merging the rest into the pages on the albums. The songs that didn't chart at all are probably better off deleted. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that if you didn't WANT to delete them, we wouldn't be here. Saying it's because you are an editor is irrelevant. As I said before, if Wikipedia wants to be complete and be the source of information about Ms. Loveless' music, then having her songs listed at the discretion of the editor is not the way to go. Censoring information benifits no one. Also just because you can't find information, doesn't mean others can not. I have known Ms Loveless and her husband for over 20 yers and I aware of the pride she puts into each song she selects to be included on each of her albums, as well as some of the background which I included on the pages I createdd. Either be complete and accurate, or have none of them there and let that information be available elsewhere on the web as it exists with varying degrees of accuracy. Bwmoll3 (talk) 09:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete them all. Each article consists of a few sentences and they will fit on their albums' pages; no information need be lost to humanity. Blast Ulna (talk) 04:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect with/without merge to the articles on each song's respective album, as plausible search terms, and so that while "no information need be lost", it makes said information easier to find. -- saberwyn 05:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Another option for The Boys Are Back in Town (song) (as there are now at least 2 songs and a television episode by this title (Patty Loveless', Thin Lizzy's song, and an Entourage episode would be to rewikilink all the Patty Loveless links to this title, redirect to The Boys Are Back In Town, move The Boys Are Back In Town to The Boys Are Back In Town (Thin Lizzy), and restructure the unqualified page as a 3 item disambiguation pointing to the Thin Lizzy song, the album for the Loveless song, and the Entourage episode list respectively. But then again, that's a lot of legwork. -- saberwyn 05:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've already tried to redirect these song articles -- at least twice -- only to have User:Bwmoll3 undo my work. Also, I don't think that "Out of Control Raging Fire" could be directed to either Patty's album or Tracy's, since the latter was released as a single, but the former was cut first. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 06:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, if this discussion closes as a merge and redirect, you'll have a bit of consensus to back you up, and if neccesary, I'm sure an admin could lock those redirects. As for the duet, redirect to one article and put a dablink in for the other. -- saberwyn 06:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No good reason given to delete these articles. If your redirect is being disputed discuss it on the talk page, don't nominate for deletion in retaliation. Catchpole (talk) 17:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I couldn't help but notice that this does seem to be a bit of a retaliation.... Apparantley he believes that it's either his way or the highway....Bwmoll3 (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about "non-notable song" as a reason? Non-charting songs have been deleted here before. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, should these articles not end up deleted, I would suggest that the closing admin turn all of them into locked redirects. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what you said before..... "...therefore, the songs themselves mostly don't warrant separate pages. I would recommend keeping the #1's and maybe most of the Top 10 hits...."

You stated you wanted to delete songs other than ones that didn't chart. Why is it that YOU are choosing which ones the delete or not delete? Either be complete or just delete them all.. Bwmoll3 (talk) 01:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're putting words in my mouth. I said "...and merging the rest into the pages on the albums. The songs that didn't chart at all are probably better off deleted." I never said I wanted anything else deleted, just the songs that didn't chart. Andy why do you think that I'm going off my own opinion entirely? If a song didn't chart, it's most likely non-notable per WP:MUSIC. "Keep Your Distance" et al. didn't chart; therefore, it doesn't deserve its own page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at what you wrote earlier on this page, I copied and pasted a direct quote from you. Those are words you typed, not I. Bwmoll3 (talk) 02:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It implies you want to be the arbiter of what you believe should be kept or not kept.. Why is it that this is even being discussed for deletion? Because you became upset that I reversed your redirects before, so now we are here? If that is the case, then just delete it all ... I don't have time for your childish nonsense and your little power trip...Bwmoll3 (talk) 02:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see how on earth you think that I suggested deleting other song pages. All I said was "the songs that didn't chart at all" are better off deleted; NOT any other song's page. Also, I am not on a "power trip", and I have no idea why you feel that I am. I am simply trying to follow ~~the official Wikipedia policy as established at~~ WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't read your own words that you wrote earler at the top of this page, ".... I would recommend keeping the #1's and maybe most of the Top 10 hits....", I feel very sorry for you. "I would recommend..." mans that You are deciding...and it certainly sounds like a power trip... Who gives you that right?. And yes, the fact is that because I deleted your redirects and stated that these songs are not "insigificant", and clashed with your opinion, that you, in turn, selected the articles for deletion. That, my friend, is acting on a power trip and acting out of spite because you disagreed with my opinion.. which happens to be different than yours. Bwmoll3 (talk) 08:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not acting out of spite. I'm not asking for deletion because my "precious redirects" were undone; rather, I'm asking for deletion because the songs aren't freaking notable per WP:MUSIC. It's that simple. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And what gives me the right? Oh, only the fact that I'm a Wikipedia user. That's what AfD is about -- someone gives an opinion that a page should be deleted, and a discussion is held wherein others agree or disagree with that opinion. Clearly you're ticked about having your pages listed at AfD, and now you're taking it all out on me because you think I'm some sort of egomaniacal deletionist. "I would recommend" is ONLY A SUGGESTION; it's not like I said "we MUST delete all the pages for songs that aren't Top Tens". Clearly you're misunderstanding me and vice versa. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSIC is not official Wikipedia policy. Catchpole (talk) 07:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's a shot to the foot. Never edit while asleep! Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then I strongly suggest that you withdraw this entire charade and put everything back the way you found it, before going off to recommend these pages for deletion because you didn't like that I reveresed your redirects. Bwmoll3 (talk) 13:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much that you reversed my redirects, it's more because the songs aren't notable per WP:MUSIC. As I stated on your talk page, it's common for a non-notable song to be redirected to the album it's on. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutley correct.. WP:MUSIC directly states "... While it is not policy, ...." This is not trying to redefine the meaning of "is". It is simply a Guideline.... This is twice now that misstatements have been made by User:TenPoundHammer to justify his opinion...Bwmoll3 (talk) 12:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- OKAY I can see about three entries by users other than Hammers and Bwmoll on here, one keep, and two redirect/deletes. That is a consensus of sorts but it is not a very strong one. Try to keep your disputes succint by not repeating yourself, or better yet by not having them :) SGGH ^speak! 17:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I submit that there is -no- consensus here and that things be put back the way they were before all of this started Bwmoll3 (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: Per WP:MUSIC, each song is not notable and each consist of a few brief statements that have no hope of being expanded upon. It would work just as well under their respective album pages. Seicer (t | c) 17:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 12:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Peerapp. Has a few links but they seem to be press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 13:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SorryGuy Talk 02:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Google News turns up a few articles, but they all look like press releases. Their web site says that their product is used by a number of ISPs, though. Zetawoof_(ζ) 03:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Canley (talk) 12:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scouserati[edit]

Delete - disputed prod. There are no reliable sources that are about this word, rather than simply use the word. The article thus fails WP:NEO as a non-notable neologism. Otto4711 (talk) 13:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SorryGuy Talk 02:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. The vast preponderance of the usages traceable online seem to be in, or to be dependant on, the one newspaper. Deor (talk) 04:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Afterthought. This word would be more amusing if it had been modeled on Maserati and used as an ironic term for a Liverpudlian's beat-up motorcar. Deor (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It "gained usage" on January 1, 2008? Wow! It's practically Old English, then. Neologism, and promotional article. Utgard Loki (talk) 20:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Smackdown vs. Raw 2009[edit]

No such game has been announced. Article is full of unsourced info and speculation. IF such a game gets announced and enough infomation is avaiable, it can get a article in the future. TJ Spyke 02:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —TJ Spyke 02:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - violation of WP:CRYSTAL Sexy Sea Bass 02:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTAL ball. The game has not been officially announced, no reliable sources cited. --Jtalledo (talk) 03:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete now if this game was release by EA, we could be sure of a sequal, but not in this case... Fosnez (talk) 08:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 17:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per reasons stated above. Rockhound (talk) 23:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:Crystal. Nikki311 00:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per what Nikki311 said, Wikipedia is NOT a crystal ball. Ni mi Ti ze 02:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is just pure speculation and violates WP:CRYSTAL. This is an article created blindly with little-to-no real sources of information.--EclipseSSD (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. John Hayes^talk 14:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per violation of WP:CRYSTAL. In a couple months, when more information comes out legitimately, *then* create the page. DJBullfish 22:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 19:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reena Combo[edit]

Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guidelines set out in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BIO. No non-trivial media coverage. Asiansinmedia (talk) 17:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SorryGuy Talk 02:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: She has a job. Not a writer who can pass the authorship tests, nor an actress who can pass those, and a lot of "worked in" sorts of items. I'm sure she's wonderful, but I'm just as sure that a biography in an encyclopedia is not warranted. Utgard Loki (talk) 20:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merged to net-centric --Step hen 23:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Netcentric[edit]

non notable neologism RogueNinja_talk 18:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NEO. I don't see enough notability anywhere, likely better suited to Urban Dictionary Travellingcari (talk) 19:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - seems to be used in a lot of scholarly places to be a neologism scholar.google & books.google. Please, expand on your reasoning. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 07:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SorryGuy Talk 01:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nonnotable neologism. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 02:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and merge with net-centric. Well defined, widely covered in reliable sources. Needs refs, fine otherwise. The subconcept network-centric warfare is well defined and well documented. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As I stated above, plenty of sources available describing and using the term. Nom has not addressed my concerns, so isn't justifying a delete. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 05:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge netcentric with net-centric Generally well defined, especially in American Government sector work. Federal News Radio link, provided as support. [66] AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Mostlyharmless. —Qit el-Remel (talk) 17:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge MBisanz ^talk 01:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (speedy; sources introduced). Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 00:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EBay Boycott of 2008[edit]

This is a blip on the history of eBay. no need for its own article. if anything, merge into EBay ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This "blip" is rippling throughout the Internet. Millions of people have been burned, angered, and ripped off by the changes in eBay's policies. This boycott is one of the largest to have ever happened anywhere throughout the online world. The sinking of a large ship is a blip on the history of an ocean, but is still a(n) historical event, even though thousands of people were affected, whereas millions were affected by the events leading up to the boycott. --Let Us Update Special:Ancientpages. 03:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your original research/prediction is not a valid reason to keep this article. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 04:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you say that's original research. It's not my own; I can cite where they come from but I can't do it properly... Millions were affected by eBay's changes already. --Let Us Update Special:Ancientpages. 04:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - This could easily fit into the history of eBay. Not important or relevant enough to need its own, separate article. The359 (talk) 04:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until it can actually become factual. It reads like it was written by a disgruntled eBay seller. "Sellers have left in droves" yet 3 days into this boycott, listings are only down 3%. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 05:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New 3rd-party sources and news links have been added to the article. They indicate coverage and therefore notability. --Let Us Update Special:Ancientpages. 16:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I'd agree with the merge comment unless this stuff can be sourced better then it currently is, as it appears to be mostly WP:OR Q ^{T C} 05:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merege/redirect any useful material to the eBay article, until after this incident explodes into something where several screenlengths worth of verifiable, relevant, and neutral information can be written about it. -- saberwyn 06:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional: This should not be interpreted as a keep not-a-vote. -- saberwyn 16:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Though I agree in principle with Allstarecho, I'll note that 3% of millions of listings is still a substantial number of listings (and individuals). I'm interested to see if this has legs - and, if there are sources that support that, an article may be warranted in the future. At this point, though, the notability (and verifiability!) of the event is unclear. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New 3rd-party sources and news links have been added to the article. They indicate coverage and therefore notability. --Let Us Update Special:Ancientpages. 16:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Were it to be an event, it would be an attestation of a negative. It would be "this many people did not sell." Hence, all that can be positively asserted is, "This many people agreed with this protest point." Without the action, that's nothing. What would be needed is a response and an accomplishment. If "eBay, hearing of this, decided to give in," we'd have an article on the boycott or a section in eBay. Without changing the world in some measure, this is a call to action. There are, unfortunately, many more calls to action than actions in this world. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New 3rd-party sources and news links have been added to the article. They indicate coverage and therefore notability. --Let Us Update Special:Ancientpages. 16:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable event on its own. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 23:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New 3rd-party sources and news links have been added to the article. They indicate coverage and therefore notability. --Let Us Update Special:Ancientpages. 16:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Or Keep Still something to be remembered that 100s of thousands or possibly even millions participated in. --Let Us Update Special:Ancientpages. 14:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete silly page. NOT#NEWS. Will ^(talk) 15:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New 3rd-party sources and news links have been added to the article. They indicate coverage and therefore notability. --Let Us Update Special:Ancientpages. 16:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Based on the new additions of third party sources, which indicate coverage, thus notability. The sources are out there. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —αlεx•mullεr 02:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

M. Dale Newton[edit]

I can't tell for the life of me if this article is about "Red Ball" or M. Dale Newton, as the title asserts. M. Dale Newton is apparently not notable] with only 8 ghits as well so it doesn't pass WP:CORP. Red Ball sounds like it could be notable but they don't appear to have an article to merge this content to. Travellingcari (talk) 05:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Darkspots (talk) 01:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Textbook example of a WP:COATRACK article. There's next to nothing about Mr. Newton himself here. Zetawoof_(ζ) 03:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Red Ball Ltd. and rewrite as an article on the company. (I suspect Red Ball should be a disambiguation page.) Definitely an historical model manufacturer of some note. --Dhartung | Talk 08:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article as an apparent WP:COATRACK. If the company and/or person are notable, give them their own seperate pages. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 11:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing here. The company probably isn't a pass, as far as I'm concerned, but the guy definitely isn't. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article (lacking references) appears to be a non-notable biography. --Ozgod (talk) 17:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus, even after relisting, defaulting to keep --Step hen 23:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lauterach Transmitter[edit]

No evidence of notability of this transmitter. Ghits are pics and wiki mirrors. Travellingcari (talk) 20:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Darkspots (talk) 01:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. —FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'll admit that this article need improvement but a 74 year history of broadcasting to a significant population in a large geographic area makes this facility notable. - Dravecky (talk) 05:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite the name, it appears to be another tower article. Previous AfDs have said these should be in a list as this one is. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Configuresoft, Inc.[edit]

No context given for notability, only contributers have questionable COI issues. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete If the article gives no context for notability, it qualifies for A7 under WP:CSD. However, despite this, I am actually neutral on the topic's notability itself, set aside from the article's assertion of notability. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 01:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC) Weak Keep This company does seem pretty notable. I may be wrong but they do have some type of reputation that seems like it should be mentioned. Somebody feel free to say otherwise since I am not sure. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 01:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What would that be? Cumulus Clouds (talk) 02:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The corporation has some high-profile customers, and is one of the major IT employers in the Colorado Springs area. I think this nomination may also be ratherWP:POINTy!-- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 09:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~keep The article is no good, it has no claim of notability. However, there are some references, and if someone finds a source saying that it is a major IT employer in the Colorado Springs area, and a source naming those high-profile customers mentioned above, I think I'd sway to keep. --Minimaki (talk) 14:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After the recent edits by JediLofti I'd say there is enough for an article. It does now say what makes it notable, and there's references - besides primary sources and a press release also including some actual third party coverage. The article of course could need more work, but that can be done by anyone at any time. --Minimaki (talk) 11:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article is boosterism, and therefore delete for advertising. They offer an Enterprise Solution Manager? Really? That's unique? The company may or may not pass, but the article is an ad, and we don't hang onto ads in article history just so, one day, an article by someone with a sense of encyclopedic writing, can come along and overwrite it. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The creator added some awards that where given to the company's product, which could indicate it's a notable product on its area. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The newly added references indicate some notability, probably enough to keep the article. The dubious Hoover link was taken out. Source indicates 170+ employees, so it's a mayor employer Delete unless a source saying it's a mayor employer is found. The Hoover's listing may have been added by company employees themselves. There is simply no actual reason listed saying why it's notable enough --Enric Naval (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC) --Enric Naval (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added some sources about employment, their customers, and some of the award they've won. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 17:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This may be relevant to this discussion. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources seem to indicate notability. MBisanz ^talk 02:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by my reasoning on the same issue over at WP:COIN. WP:MULTI tells us it is better to keep discussion centralized, and simultaneously opening up an AfD and a COIN complaint on the same article is something that might be avoided in the future. The article has 12 reliable sources as references, the company employs 170 people and the product has won some awards. It could use more explanation of what Enterprise Configuration Manager actually does, though the related article at Serverware Group plc has more details on that. In the nominator's defence, the article didn't look quite so good until new material was added during this very debate. EdJohnston (talk) 03:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Don't see any blatant POV in there, there's no mention of it on the talk page, and also nothing in the article itself is tagged as such. "COI issues" need to addressed on the COI noticeboard, assuming they exist, not by deleting an article. Socrates2008 (Talk) 03:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Prior precedent is that an employer of this size is notable, the same way population centers are. Additionally, sufficient citation has been added from major independent sources to satisfy WP:N. The article needs help with a re-write, but I don't see a good reason for deletion. --BizMgr (talk) 18:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete. This is a procedural closing; the article was speedy deleted by Anthony Appleyard at 17:09, 21 February 2008 as G3 Vandalism. Darkspots (talk) 23:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rapist (card game)[edit]

Card game invented this year with no claim of meeting WP:Notability. Contested prod. Fabrictramp (talk) 01:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notice how the game has no references whatsoever and that it will be very unlikely that the article will get references. Definitely not in the realm of notability. I can't even believe such a weird game was created (well, actually, I can, but that is a whole different story) Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 01:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Utter trash and nonsense. PROD was removed without cause or explanation. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Darkspots (talk) 01:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Last section makes it clear that this is a joke. Zetawoof_(ζ) 03:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Hoax article, looks like it was made as a joke. --Borgarde^talk 03:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I put the prod tag on it in the first place, and suggest that it doesn't meet WP:Notability or WP:RS, among others (I can't think of the link for [Wikipedia is not for stuff you made up in school one day]). For the first time ever, I'm regretting that sheer bad taste isn't a cause for speedy deletion. Accounting4Taste:talk 05:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Zetawoof_(ζ) 05:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Thanks -- and if I'd been sufficiently awake to look above, I could have found it <sigh>. I'm writing that one down. Accounting4Taste:talk 06:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Pointless waste of server space. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly a poor joke. No reason this can't be quickly deleted. The article even says it was just thought up by a couple of students in the last few weeks. No notability whatsoever. Alberon (talk) 10:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The fact that it goes into a lot of detail without having any sources suggests it is either OR or a hoax. Either way it's not notable or verifiable and all of these are reasons to delete it. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 11:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its REAL It is a real game and i have played it, and i know Mr Wells is in the process of gaining a patent. --DÅπñŸ (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absolute horseshit. JuJube (talk) 16:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
''Not a Hoax it is not horseshit, it is a real game!--DÅπñŸ (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete...and everyone's already said why, so I won't repeat it. —Qit el-Remel (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everybody. Obvious WP:NFT case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete immediately per WP:SNOW.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blizzard - Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 19:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

35 Biggest Hits (Toby Keith album)[edit]

No sources, 0 g-hits related to the name, pure WP:CRYSTAL. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 01:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as purely hoax album; nominator has history of problematic edits. No mention of this album on Toby's page or Show Dog Nashville. Furthermore, I doubt such an album would even exist, since a.) he hasn't been on Mercury since 1999, and b.) about half the songs here are from his DreamWorks albums anyway. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:CRYSTAL. The creator provided two sources in the talk page, but neither warrant substantial coverage yet. It's still way too soon. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If I can't buy it, and if no one has it, then we cannot discuss it. This is because it does not exist. When it exists, and when it achieves some note in culture, it will be appropriate, but, at present, it is speculation about something that is presumed to have in the future some effect. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. At the moment it's purely a speculative article. Cloudz679 (talk) 14:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete my crystal ball says come back when it's an actual album Travellingcari (talk) 04:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - An album with a documented future release date is not WP:CRYSTAL. WP:CRYSTAL refers to pure, unsourced speculation, not to confirmed future release dates. That is why we have the ((future-album)) tag. The acceptable use of the tag has been confirmed before. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 21:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Massively pare down or delete While I found plenty of info that this is and album that will be released, I found nothing more than that. Particularly, I didn't find anything that indicated which songs are going to be on it other than "one [new] single, and then they're going to put on every hit song that we had from '93, 'Should've Been A Cowboy' on up to 'As Good As I Once Was,'".[67] The releasing label doesn't even have any info... — Scientizzle 16:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree on removing the tracklist since it appears to be a total guess by a fan on a message board, but that's just a content issue. The album itself isn't in question - the album itself does exist, so the problems aren't anything that requires deletion. Merger maybe, but the deletion of valid information shouldn't really be an option. (Bleh, I feel dirty doing this much research about this album.) —Torc. ^(Talk.) 01:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the above. I have never heard of it, when, and if, it's released recreate the article with the correct information. Izzy007 Talk 23:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus for delete - and merge comments are various specific - to my mind at this stage = default keep. --VS ^talk 04:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pinning (modelling)[edit]

Wikipedia is not a guide. All sources are within the context of the how-to section, otherwise this is a dictionary definition about a nonnotable term. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mostly per nom. This article has no place in an encyclopedia. It might be appropriate to merge it into another article, but the only information on the topic is how to do it, and as said by the nominator, "Wikipedia is not a guide". Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 01:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC) Merge The article is now notable, but there is hardly enough information to give it its own article. It would be better as a section in a larger article, some of which users mentioned below. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 21:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment/question - wouldn't this also be an Engineering term ? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 05:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those are contained in seperate artices: Pinning. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should be Merged into a Engineering related Article (specifically Butt_joint#Dowel_Reinforced_Butt_Joint). Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 17:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well the article is specifically about pinning models, not the enginerring term. If any merging is to be done, I'd have thought miniature conversion or scale model would be the place to put it.-- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 09:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not as I see it. It is about a construction technique, one already described in the afore mentioned Article. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 07:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at that article - it seemed to be talking specifically about a woodworking term. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 09:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's hardly a non-notable term; almost every publication that discusses wargames modelling will mention this term at some point, especially if they are discussing conversions. I shall try to work on the article to improve it.-- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 09:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: 1. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. 2. A dictionary definition belongs at Wiktionary. Suggesting that there is a cultural history or effect on history of putting little pins in a model is a bit far-fetched. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Noted. I've removed the "How to" section, and added some more sourced text. I imagine the article will only ever be a stub, but stubs need love too! :-) -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 17:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with scale model page. —Qit el-Remel (talk) 17:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree w/ Cumulus Clouds (talk · contribs) and Parent5446 (talk · contribs). Article does not assert notability or show coverage/significant discussion in multiple secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources. Cirt (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was contacted on my talk page by JediLofty (talk · contribs) to revisit my comment at this AfD, but I have to say it is still "Delete". I also agree with Utgard Loki (talk · contribs). Perhaps if more significant coverage/discussion was shown in a good deal more secondary sources that satisfy WP:RS/WP:V, but that has not been shown in the article, or asserted here. Cirt (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with miniature conversion. --78.16.182.8 (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable term. Not everything consrtuction related it deletable under WP:NOT#HOWTO. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge too trivial by itself to be worth an article.DGG (talk) 15:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge But keep disambig/redirect. It is a conceivable search term re: models. MBisanz ^talk 01:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've not read the above very closely, but editors who vote merge should specify which destination page they recommend, as there seems to be more than one choice here. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep List of 21st century lunar eclipses shows that these events are not particularly rare, but not unduly common either. The article doesn't just list the event but adds verifiable encyclopaedic astronomical information too, such as the cycles, other alignments, and images, all of which suggest the basis of complete encyclopaedic coverage. --Step hen 00:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

16 August 2008 lunar eclipse[edit]

A previous AFD decided that an article on a total lunar eclipse was notable, but is an article on a partial lunar eclipse notable? From what I could find, this is the first article on a partial lunar eclipse. --CWY2190^T^C 00:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing but an event listing, with no sign that it's a particularly important event, to boot. --Calton | Talk 00:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some weird miracle occurs and the partial lunar eclipse makes some random person go insane and start a killing spree. That would make the article notable. Anybody want to waste their time to find out how small a probability of that happening is? Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 00:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article should be kept, as it may be used when the eclipse occurs. --ginbot86 —Preceding comment was added at 00:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not like Wikipedia's the only place the information could be put, though. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For whoever wants to keep the article, could you please explain how such an article could be useful? Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 01:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a small article but a valid scientific moment. Also if it is possible to further explain what a patial lunar eclipses is and maybe list some previous ones. that would help to prevent a controversy over deletion.--Sbkbg (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The only coverage ANY partial lunar eclipse deserves on Wikipedia is an explanation of what a partial lunar eclipse is on the Lunar eclipse article. There is nothing significant about a partial lunar eclipse, unless you can name a specific reason for why it is other than it is a valid scientific moment, because very few scientists are going to come to Wikipedia looking for a partial lunar eclipse. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 01:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a major partial eclipse, will be very visible over half the world, worthy to observe, worthy to have a place to give information for viewers. Obviously it'll be expanded, and I'll help when I have some time! Tom Ruen (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a major partial eclipse that will be seen by half the world, but that is it. The only important or significant thing that relates to the topic is that the eclipse will happen. It is simply not as important as a full eclipse, whether the whole world saw it or one person. Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to note when every single partial lunar eclipse will happen unless it directly affects something or somebody in a way that would make it notable, which I would doubt. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 01:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You give much to think abouk, thanks. Tom Ruen (talk) 07:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lunar eclipses happen often enough that no single eclipse is notable. Does anyone realize that all the "keep"s are basically WP:USEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean WP:ILIKEIT or We like the moon? -- RoySmith (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my. We actually have an article We Like The Moon. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the article Lunar eclipse states, "Every year there are usually at least two partial lunar eclipses." Are we to have an article about each of them throughout recorded (and unrecorded) history? Deor (talk) 02:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We dont have room for two articles a year? Even a paper encyclopedia could manage. Even paper almanacs contained such content. Mankind has been keeping records of solar and lunar eclipses, partial and total, as long as they have been keeping records of anything. They're part of the basic phenomena of the natural world, from the observation of which the the sciences developed. I would not like to think that they've stopped developing with Wikipedia. that would be a notorious, and I mean notorious, not just notable, historic role for our project. DGG (talk) 02:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep. The article is worth enough to be kept... I don't see any necessity as it's in the near future. If it were describing about a eclipse that'll happen, may be in 2019 or so.. It can be deleted. But this, is worthy. Strongly Keep.Mugunth^{(ping me!!!,contribs)} 02:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see looking at List of lunar eclipses and its subarticles that we already are notorious in our decision to partially ignore this subject. Time to improve the situation; and least we can, as a cooperative project, realize and correct our past collective folly. DGG (talk) 02:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've brought up (indirectly) List of 21st century lunar eclipses, exactly what information is contained, or could be contained, in this article that isn't already present in that list or the reference linked therein? Deor (talk) 02:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia is extemely inclusive. And we're not exactly hard up for that 1.5 kb. So why does anyone object anyway? Saros136 (talk) 02:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 16 August 2008 sunrise. Both articles describe future astronomical events, and are equally worthy of having encyclopedia articles written about them. WP:NOT an ephemeris. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't Wikipedia an ephemeris? It's a gazetteer, covering all named geographic locations. What makes an ephemeris inherently less encylcopedic information? (NB: Serious question. Please remove any sarcastic intonation you may hear when reading it.) —Quasirandom (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's a fair enough question and deserves a serious answer. An ephemeris predicts future astronomical events by tabulating mathematical formulae. We know the orbits of the Earth and Moon to sufficient precision that we can predict eclipses 1000's of years into the future (or, for that matter, the past). Geographic locations such as towns and cities are the result of human interaction with other humans and with the environment, and do not follow any strict mathematical law. It is inherently more interesting to document the fickle movements of human populations than to crunch some numbers and compute when three celestial bodies will line up sufficiently for one to cast a shadow on another. The calculations aren't even very complicated by today's standards. Anybody with a PC and the right software can do these calculations at home. For $10 you can buy a book by Jean Meeus which teaches you how to do the calculations on a hand calculator (this book was written 30 years ago, i.e. the calculations are simple enough to be done on a 30 year old hand calculator). —Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs) 18:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is only the second lunar eclipse in 2008, and since the other lunar eclipse has an article, this one should as well. A partial eclipse isn't much of a sight to look at, but it is an astronomical event that is notable and relevant. 68.193.130.33 (talk) 04:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are too many partial lunar eclipses to make the article notable. It would be like creating an article for every bus line in a bus transit system, in my opinion. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 04:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. This is astronomy cruft and List of bus routes in Manhattan is likewise bus cruft. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as no valid deletion argument posed. The concept of "notability" has gotten way out of hand. WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR are policies; WP:N is not. Post a valid deletion reason. "Cruft" is a bullshit reason. Cburnett (talk) 06:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, WP:N is a valid reason for deletion. All Wikipedia articles must discuss topics that are considered notable, or else the article shouldn't be in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephenchou0722 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia needs more astronomycruft like this. The February 21, 2008 lunar eclipse article is a perfect example of how this one can (and almost certainly will) be expanded. Alansohn (talk) 06:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per Alansohn's argument. Article can be expanded further. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 07:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Alansohn and Cburnett, unless some sort of rogue heavenly body captures Earth, ripping it from its orbit around the Sun and leaving the Moon behind. --Merovingian (T, C) 07:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for various reasons, including WP:PAPER Fosnez (talk) 08:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:CRYSTAL has Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. even partial eclipses are rare, so I think this meets the criteria. --Salix alba (talk) 09:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except that partial eclipses are NOT rare, and more to the point, not distinctive. So it actually fails WP:CRYSTAL, dunnit? --Calton | Talk 14:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There have been millions such eclipses and there will be millions more. Why does this particular eclipse get an article - obviously because it is happening this year. This is a perfect example of routine news per WP:NOT#NEWS. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A partial lunar eclipse is far too common for each one to deserve its own page. One page listing all of them is all that is needed, and would far more useful as well. Unless there is something unique or notable about a partial eclipse it shouldn't have its own page. Alberon (talk) 10:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because of all the reasons already stated. Almost all the information already exists on the list. --U.U. (talk) 12:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First kid on the block syndrome at work. Nobody has written about it yet. For crying out loud, it's a lunar eclipse! The Earth's shadow will temporarily cover the moon, as it has in every prior eclipse, barring a freak accident. Why not write an article about "16 February 2008 sunrise"? It was significant, probably more so than any eclipse, because it was visible in every hemisphere and billions of people witnessed the event; plus, we need a Wikipedia article to point out that the sun didn't actually "rise" that day, and that it was actually a case of the Earth rotating until a dark side came into the sun's rays. Moreover, if it had not happened, the consequences would have been disastrous. Mandsford (talk) 13:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see a lot of delete votes saying how frequent eclipses happen. Twice a year is frequent? Sunrises happen daily. 71.110.133.213 (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia is not the Farmer's Almanac and is not designed to be useful for planting crops, finding peak fishing times, nor figuring out where the moon is. It is supposed to be a discussion of events that have already occurred and which have been discussed by reliable 3rd party sources. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A twice a year event that can be expanded quite nicely, see the current one, is notable and interesting. 71.110.133.213 (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep,as I don't see how this one is any the less nor any the more notable than all the others that have articles. If they all get an article each, what is so exceptionally unnotable about this one? --140.203.12.240 (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other articles are on total eclipses. This one is on a partial eclipse. ---CWY2190^T^C 16:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and include where to look, where it will be visible, and what stars/planets will be nearby. I've tried to use other astronomical web sites before, and found them impenetrable. This will be sought out by far more people then many wiki articles. Algr (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes - I plan to expand some graphics here. Tom Ruen (talk) 17:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep I'm not convinced that we need a separate article on every single eclipse. The previous one was notable for the scale at which occurred. However, we know that this event will happen so it doesn't have any CRYSTAL issues and has already received coverage in secondary sources. This meets the core content policies. Comparisons of an eclipse to a sunrise are also not persuasive; eclipses are much rarer events. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of things appear in secondary sources. That doesn't make them valid topics for encyclopedia articles. We wouldn't have an article on 21 February 2008 IBM closing stock price. Nor 21 February 2008 weather forecast for New York. Nor for every baseball game that's ever played. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As noted above, List of 21st century lunar eclipses covers it. If someone wants to expand that to include the regions from which it will be visible, that's fine, but it doesn't merit a separate article. I mean, what else is there to say about it? Clarityfiend (talk) 19:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Hey daddy, are we going to have another eclipse this year? I need it for a school project." "Not sure son, check out Wikipedia. They have all sorts of useful information" 222.153.81.168 (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and List of 21st century lunar eclipses gives the answer to that question. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh! The list has scant information about the eclipse, but links to an article with fuller information -- the article you want to delete! Illogical. 222.153.81.168 (talk) 01:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After reading through the whole AFD, I noticed all of the keeps were "I like it" or "it is useful". The problem with that statement, however, is that the eclipse isn't notable enough to be an article on Wikipedia. Therefore, a deletion is the best bet. Tavix (talk) 03:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break to make editing easier[edit]

Keep - Wikipedia includes all sorts of obscure articles on individual episodes of TV programmes. A lunar eclipse is much more noteworthy. EuroSong ^talk 23:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: (already voted keep) - I accept a deletion process is a good prod to wikipedia editors to improve article quality and prove the value, but besides the good-cop, bad-cop routine, it's hard for me to believe the seriousness of rejectors. It would seem a better process would be (1) Put an article on notice (2) Give a month for supporters to clean it up and make it's value apparent (3) Constructive feedback (4) THEN make an assessment of the result after the month or whatever. OTOH, I'm as good of a procrastinator as anyone, so deadlines don't necessarily encourage early action. But at least 7 days would be good! Tom Ruen (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to List of 21st century lunar eclipses - Partial lunar eclipses are not notable enough. We don't have any other articles about partial lunar eclipses. You can also see List of solar eclipses. There are articles on total solar eclipses but no articles on partial ones. – FISDOF9 04:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC) Changed to keep, see below. – FISDOF9 21:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This partial eclipse is an event that hasn't occurred yet, and has a high probability of occurring in the near future. And because it is the only partial eclipse of 2008, it is quite notable. 68.193.130.33 (talk) 04:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - But is the seperate page really needed? List of 21st century lunar eclipses covers it perfectly well and a link to an external astronomy site provides all possible info. Unless some notable event connected to a partial eclipse happens I don't think it should have its own page. A total lunar eclipse is different, but partial ones are so regular and there's very little to differentiate between each one. Alberon (talk) 09:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reasons given for the previous total eclipse AfD. Being "only partial" doesn't make it less notable if both are covered in multiple reliable sources. --Itub (talk) 13:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable enough, already contains more info that summary list article, can be expanded when eclipse happens. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because none of the deletion arguments hold water:

Not notable enough: Partial eclipses are rarer than total ones (List of 21st century lunar eclipses says 58:85, with 87 penumbral).

Rarity does not imply notability. There's only one Vernal equinox a year. That makes it even rarer than a partial lunar eclipse. Does that mean we should create Vernal equinox of 2008? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's only partial: This sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me.

The partial vs. full argument is silly to me either way. I don't see anything about full lunar eclipses that makes it worth having an article about each one. There's nothing substantially different about one from the next other than some things like start and end times and where they're visible from, all of which belongs in a table in one common list of lunar eclipses article. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have any other articles on partial eclipses: This may be partly due to their lower frequency; in any case, this is just WP:OTHERSTUFF. Matchups (talk) 13:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Eclipses are notable by default, and doesn't violate WP:CRYSTAL as they are obviously guaranteed to happen!--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Where does it say that eclipses are notable by default? Stephenchou0722 (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it is not yet consensus that Wikipedia is WP:NOT a ephemeris. Widely observable astronomical events are no more or less notable than, say, small rivers. Until there is community agreement that there this sort of thing is not what we want Wikipedia to be, it is part of Wikipedia's "larger than thou" collection of important and useful informtion. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. Everyking (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Changed my mind. Many people interested in seeing the eclipse are going to come here looking for information such as the time of the eclipse or where it can be seen. – FISDOF9 21:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is a notability guideline that describes how the notability of a topic in Wikipedia should be sustainable. I believe we should consider whether it will really matter in the future (say 30 years later) that a lunar eclipse occurred on August 16, 2008 at a certain time on a certain continent and at another time on another continent. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 01:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Does a lunar eclipse ever really matter long-term? How much of Wikipedia's content as a whole really matters long-term, anyway? It's not a very good way of evaluating notability. It's good enough for it to be judged significant at one time—when the lunar eclipse happens, a lot of people will be interested in it; 30 (or 300) years from now, a handful of people will be interested in it. I think we can happily serve both the larger number of present/immediate future readers and the the smaller number of distant future readers. But apparently, the number of people in the future who interested in a subject must meet a quorum if we are to have an article on it (never mind that the future hasn't happened yet). Everyking (talk) 04:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment To answer your question, most, if not all, of Wikipedia's contents, in my opinion, matter in the long term and satisfy the notability guideline. If partial eclipses are really important to people decades in the future, then why aren't there any articles on eclipses that occurred in the 1970s? How many people now, if any, actually need to know (or even bothered to find out) the best moment to see the partial eclipse on December 10, 1973 from North America? I feel that the list of lunar eclipses that we have now should be sufficient to the majority of readers most of the time. If people really need to know when to go out and see a lunar eclipse, I am sure there would be an article in Wikinews that would give them the information they only need for a short term. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 15:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - But I didn't say partial eclipses matter in the long term. I actually said they probably don't matter in the long-term (and that most WP content probably does not matter in the long-term), but that something should not need to matter in the long-term to qualify for inclusion. Everyking (talk) 19:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment And indeed "Notability is not temporary" and the linked essay Wikipedia:Notability does not degrade over time, if you read then carefully, actually say that Wikipedia content does not need to have long-term importance. Once notability is established by sufficient short-term coverage in reliable sources then a subject remains notable even if it never gets another mention outside of Wikipedia. Gandalf61 (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment Actually, the essay and the guideline are two separate things. They relate to one another, but say different things. In fact, in the second paragraph of the guideline states, "A short burst of news reports about a topic does not necessarily constitute evidence of long-term notability." Also, the essay is merely an opinion piece (as stated at the top of the page), meaning that it is not an official guideline and does not need to be followed. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 01:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        But this article is not based on a short burst of news reports. There's nothing in that section that that supports considering the long term interest. Saros136 (talk) 05:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Reply to Stephenchou0722 The important words in the sentence that you quoted are news reports. The point it is making is that short-term mention mention in news reports alone does not establish notability. "Notability is not temporary" contains a link to the essay Wikipedia:Notability does not degrade over time. The essay is obviously intended to expand on that part of the guideline - why would they say different things ? That would be crazy ! Gandalf61 (talk) 09:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment As I stated before, it is critical that we think about whether an article on something that people are most likely going to forget by the end of the year is really even necessary. What I am saying is that since most of the unique contents of the article are important only around the time of the eclipse (including optimal timing for eclipses from different continents), a whole article should not be necessary. Instead, those interested in finding out when to view the eclipse could refer to other news source (e.g. Wikinews). Also, in regards to the guideline, I will once again quote that "A short burst of news reports about a topic does not necessarily constitute evidence of long-term notability." This means that just because an event (e.g. this eclipse) receives a lot of attention for a short while (e.g. from now until about a week after August 16), it does not mean the topic is notable. In addition, regarding the link, I maintain that the essay (which is the opinion of merely one individual or group) and the guideline (which is a consensus of all editors) are not the same thing. In fact, about 7 hours after your statement was posted, another individual took out the link to the essay from the guideline (by the way, I want to make it clear that it is NOT me who did that, in case you are wondering). Stephenchou0722 (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment reply Stephenchou0722, I agree I tend to want to blurr the distinction between news and information. An article CAN be written as news, giving information that 99% of people will only be interested in for a short time, and then as a historical event which has a different focus, like its unique qualifies and its relation to other events. I TEND to think Wikipedia can do both, that contents can be temporarily inserted that are of interest as news, and later scaled back to include the historical perspective. WELL, like the local time-zone event timings is the easily example here. Anyway, if WikiNews can be promoted as a source to SEARCH for information as Wikipedia, then perhaps dropping the "news" effort here makes sense. I mean perhaps someday dynamic Wikipedia articles can have a "news header" section, so a person could search for Lunar eclipse and find her way to a "Wikinews" report on the coming eclipse. Anyway mostly I DO find articles on specific lunar eclipses as superior to a single table. I mean an alternative could be an article Lunar eclipses 2000-2009 which might have one section per event, and give the same information. I'm not against that, although it is less convenient for printing - since there's so way to print a single section, and I overall don't see the harm in one article per event. I hope to cross-link more events and expand information on the Saros cycles, and I can link as easily to a section-anchor as an article. Tom Ruen (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I added a stat table and some graphics for the eclipse event. Still could use more work on content when I get a chance. I really do appreciate this discussion on deletion. While I strongly support keeping it, I accept the notability of any event as debatable. Mostly I see eclipse at two levels - the event itself which is historic and out of the ordinary and beautiful to watch, full or partial, even a penumbral eclipse is worthy to watch. Then a second level is the science and math behind the predictions of eclipse, and the fascinating reality of Saros series that repeat so faithfully and allowed ancient humans to predict long before computer or modern math. Having tables brings out visibility of the patterns, but individual articles help promote interest in the tables, which are harder to understand from first glance. Myself I tend to be more attracted to pictures first, and get some basic understanding of something and then wonder about more hidden patterns like the cycles. I think creating articles on up-coming eclipses helps promote interest in specific events AND can help pull kids into science and math behind the event. So hope consensus will be to keep and lets see what such articles can include. The NASA and other expert websites are great in themselves, but Wikipedia can have hundreds of interested people helping to improve the quality - I mean I copied a NASA time table to wikipedia and within 24 hours there was message on the talk page about and error that I copied from the NASA page. NASA is great, but doesn't allow the dynamic content and participation of Wikipedia. Anyway, hopefully my graphics will help a little. :) Tom Ruen (talk) 01:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So how long does this discussion go on for? And who decides to close it? It says "5 days" here - Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Closure. Tom Ruen (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It goes on until some admin comes along and closes it. It looks like there's currently a bit of a backlog in closing out old discussions. I'd expect somebody will get to this within the next couple of days. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Ingram[edit]

Non notable bass player. Fails WP:MUSIC, no independent sources, no references other than his band's website and myspace. Mr Senseless (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional articles:

Black summer suicide —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esanchez7587 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The band he is in is even not notable enough to have its own article. It is not judicious for the bass player of the band, who seems to not have done anything else, to have his own article. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 00:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He was also in the band Sanity which ws featured in the movie Penny Dreadful. They have a nationally Televised Music Video —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chopperdudep (talk • contribs) 00:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, apparently that band does not have its own article either. In addition, the article for Penny Dreadful does not make any mention about "Sanity" (the band). So unless all three of the following conditions happen in the next week or so, I doubt the article will survive: 1) the Penny Dreadful (film) article is edited to include a mention of the band (with a source), 2) the Sanity (band) and/or Black Summer Suicide band gets their own article(s) and 3) the members of the band become important enough to get their own article. Good luck! Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 00:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, in addition, this version of the article is a re-creation of a deleted article which was deleted just hours ago due to WP:CSD#A7 (for those who do not have CSD memorized, that means the article failed to assert notability). Just to anticipate any arguments, I know that asserting notability and notability itself are not necessarily related, but in this case I would think otherwise, as it is like the many other bands around the world who want their say on Wikipedia. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 00:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I also add that the editor who contested my comment happened to be the main contributor (in fact, the only real contributor) to the article in question. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 00:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. It would make sense to have the band listed on Wiki first. And the band would stand a better chance of having their notability established if their record label was notable. This looks like a non-starter. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 00:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of the musician's notability. Aramgar (talk) 01:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. The editor has taken your suggestion by creating an article on one of this person's bands at Black Summer Suicide, which also fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BAND. One appearance on a cable tv show and being a member of a professional organization do not bring notability to a person. Redfarmer (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have searched on Google News archives and in a library database of newspaper and magazine articles and have found no sources to add. Delete. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of the musician's notability. Esradekan (talk) 11:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article fails WP:RS and WP:N. Cloudz679 (talk) 14:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added two more resources Chopperdudep (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You added club listings. Unfortunately that does not help to establish notability according to WP:MUSIC. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. coverage isn't substantial enough to be considered notable. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon why cant you just leave it be, you guys give no chance to promote an up and coming band. They are on the verge of making it big. Honestly, im not trying to be a jerk but why does it have to be deleted? Chopperdudep (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Wikipedia is not a promotional avenue of any kind. Mr Senseless (talk) 16:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails to establish notability, lacks references or sources to bolster that claim. A google search on Pete Ingram with additional searches for any awards, coverage, etc. failed to turn up anything relating to the subject. Ozgod (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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