< February 25	February 27 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bandog Dread[edit]

No evidence that this is a famous or otherwise notable dog. Google returns roughly 665 hits for the phrase but half of them are Wikipedia mirrors and the other half fall in the category of unreliable sources. [1] Suggesting deletion unless evidence of encyclopedic merit can be provided. RFerreira (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete A dog could be notable enough for an article, but I found only such sourcing as an opinion piece(letter to editor? editorial? Blog?)) in an Alaska newspaper [2] saying "Another little known fact is that the dog who has obtained the most titles of any breed ever, was and APBT named Bandog Dread, owned by Diane Jessup." Also I found the dog's owner Jessup's fairly popular book [3] which talks about the dog. These just do not seem to stack up as sufficiently reliable and independent to satisfy WP:N. There should be newspaper article for each of those claimed awards, somewhere. Edison (talk) 23:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its possible that the editorial/blog you refer to may have relied upon Wikipedia as a source, and beyond that everything else is based upon primary sources (the author writing about her own dog). If there are any experts on this subject who are aware of any reliable third party sources about the subject, I will respectfully defer to them. RFerreira (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, the sitnews.us posting is dated August 2006, while our article was not created until October 2006. --Dhartung | Talk 00:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Dhartung, I should have noticed -- that settles the chicken/egg question at least. :-) RFerreira (talk) 00:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Edison. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:RS even if it's true. If true, I'd like some context as to whether these are awards in a similar classification or not, e.g. I wouldn't think that winning the Ketchikan Dog Show would be as prestigious as another. --Dhartung | Talk 00:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Notable subject as it is the "most decorated dog in history." Here is a reference from The Times naming Bandog Dread the 15th greatest sporting animal of all time: [1] I think although this dog may not have a huge web presence, the subject may be covered in depth in books. I think that we need the opinion of someone who is familiar with dog competitions and the subject in general to help clarify this before it is deleted.BWH76 (talk) 09:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator. Looks like an unusual case of self-promotion, I see nothing substantiative to indicate this dog is worthy of encyclopedic note. (jarbarf) (talk) 20:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of regional Burning Man events. Action to be taken by others. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recompression[edit]

Another regional offshoot event of Burning Man. Not notable in its own right, no independent reliable sources to verify anything in the article, appears to promote the event more than inform in an encyclopedic manner. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:19, 20 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 23:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect per proposal at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frostburn (Regional Burn). — Scientizzle 16:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. The article subject lacks notability and is mostly a cut and paste from the festival website (copyright?). At best, it could be a reference in the main "Burning Man" article. The article is also out of date (lists last festival as 2006, no mention of 2007 festival). In my opinion, it's really an advert for a festival masquerading as an article. Bardcom (talk) 14:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 participants here seemed uncertain what to do with this article. This suggested a no consensus close was appropriate. But I decided to be bold and rename it, to replace the awkward "editor-in-chief" from the name with just "editor", as seems to be the convention. As part of that process, while updating all the wikilinks for the places where he is wikilinked from, it seemed kinda obvious to me that he has some level of notability, just from the sheer volume of mentions in other articles. So the "on the fence" nature of this argument along with my own "hunch" leaned me from no-consensus all the way over to keep. (It really did not matter, though, as both are technically keep outcomes). Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Green (editor)[edit]

Notability is neither asserted nor extant for this magazine editor and podcaster. JFlav (talk) 02:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not go far enough to establish notability (insufficient references); notability is not inhereted from magazine associated with this person (editorship of a notable magazine does not automatically convey notability). If this person is notable, references must bear it out. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 03:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Wikipedia newbie who listens to video game podcasts and keeps up with the video game community through video game websites, magazines, podcasts, and forums, and I think that Jeff Green is popular within that community. What steps can I take to keep this article from being deleted? Modul8r (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, this article should only exist if Jeff Green is considered notable by Wikipedia's definition of notability. I sympathize with your position; I listen to the Brodio and I like Jeff Green. But being popular within a subculture isn't enough to make someone notable. That's why I put this article up for deletion. On the other hand, the whole point of going through the AfD process and gaining consensus about an article's fate is to figure out if this article does or does not fit Wikipedia's policies. By putting this article on AfD, I assert that I think Jeff Green isn't notable enough to have an article, but if you think he is notable and you can pull together independent, verifiable sources about him, then you'll always win. So to answer your question directly, to keep this article from being deleted you have to demonstrate that Jeff Green is actually notable in accordance with WP:N. If you can find good, verifiable, independent sources and put them into the article, it stays. JFlav (talk) 20:36, 22 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, Djsasso (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—It does appear that he is at least mentioned in quite a few independent sources although it is difficult to gauge if there is enough there, without accessing the full text of the articles. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A lot of those sources look like they're about Games for Windows, and just mentioning Jeff Green as the EIC. Others are articles in Computer Gaming World, another name for GFW, so hardly independent. To be fair, though, there are a couple links that may be worthwhile—this one from ABC News, for instance, quotes Green. Others are unclear: is a Gamasutra podcast interview enough for notability? JFlav (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found the following sources:

http://www.armchairempire.com/Interviews/jeff_green.htm http://www.armchairempire.com/Interviews/jeff_greenII.htm http://www.armchairempire.com/Interviews/jeff_greenIII.htm http://www.armchairempire.com/Interviews/jeff-green-4.htm http://www.armchairempire.com/Interviews/jeff-green-5.htm

http://www.gamerdad.com/detail.cfm?itemID=2278 (called "an industry veteran")

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/interviews/1216-Game-Magazines-Have-Sucked-for-Forever-GFW-s-Jeff-Green-on-the-F

http://www.gdcradio.net/2006/09/gdc_radio_presents_gamasutra_p_4.html

Modul8r (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm honestly not sure what to do. We have news articles that solicited Green for quotes (ABC news, Red Herring, and The Arizona Republic), and several interviews listed above. However, those interviews are all from enthusiast press, i.e. websites about videogames. Is that enough to meet the notability criteria? I'm stumped. JFlav (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of regional Burning Man events. Action to be taken by others. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

InterFuse[edit]

Another regional offshoot event of Burning Man. Not notable on its own, no independent reliable sources to verify anything in the article. (Sound familiar?) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:32, 20 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 23:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The larger events are notable. This one claims 700 participants, which means there's much more interest in this topic than many of the things on WP. This article should stay so that editors can fix the concerns about sources. Bry9000 (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There seems to be somewhat of a consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frostburn (Regional Burn), sn article similar to this one which also nominated for AfD, to merge these articles into one larger article with sections devoted to each event, then redirect this and the other articles to the appropriate section. How does that sound? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:

Realkyhick made the most profound argument for continuation of the Interfuse entry in Wikipedia. Realkyhick noted that Interfuse is a Regional event of the Burning Man Project. I am of course assuming that Realkyhick is not a Burning Man Participant, thus Realkyhick's knowledge of the event and it's status as an approved Regional event, especially as such an authority on notablity, has demonstrated that the event entry is worthy of notice.

Interfuse is by definition most notable in the Midwest because of its ability to unite the scattered Midwestern Burners to their culture throughout the region.

But don't take my word for it, feel free to contact Zay, the Regional representative for the event. He can be contacted via the email address information found on the Burning Man Project web site. I've not included the link because I'm sure that you can find it.

The Interfuse event entry is for the yearly "event", much like a lunar eclipse which does happen and is considered notable, but the entry is not an advertisment for the organization that sponsors the event, nor is it an advertisment for the Burning Man Community at large.

Interfuse distinguishes itself from other Regional events because of it's namesake, but to post the information below would actually be in violation of "Wiki is no dictionary" guideline. (definition found at www.thefreedictionary.com):

In`ter`fuse´ v. t. 1.

1. To pour or spread between or among; to diffuse; to scatter.

The ambient air, wide interfused, Embracing round this florid earth. - Milton.

2. To spread through; to permeate; to pervade.

Keats, in whom the moral seems to have so perfectly interfused the physical man, that you might almost say he could feel sorrow with his hands. - Lowell.

3. To mix up together; to associate

Interfuse also holds certain truth's to be self evident at each event. Those truths are posted in the entry. At the Interfuse event they build a temporary city-community of tents, domes, light, dance, fire and music in the wilderness. They celebrate diversity continuously through out the event. Then they dismantle the city and Leave No Trace. Not only are all state and federal laws applicable and followed, but the event is re-themed to motivate progressive community interaction.

Specific details about the current stages of the event can be found on the event's website, which was provided as a link.

The effort and community participation necessary to hold the event year after year is a phenomenon in itself, but that is only an opinion. I'm sure that most participants and organizers feel the same way. But you won't find that statment on the page.

I would suggest that Realkyhick re-read the Wiki five pillars that define the character of the project. In an effort to not insert personal opinions, arguments or experiences the article was written as an informative entry about the topic Interfuse, was concise, and with a neutral point of view.

By no means perfect, it was a true representative entry about the event, simply because it was simple and included no upcoming and thus unconfirmable information.

Each Regional event is a separate event. Each letter of the alphabet has a seperate entry, simply because phonetically it is different from every other letter. Each event that is a classified as a regional event, wether they be Burning Man affiliated or no, should have their own entry, simply because they are quite simply geographically different.

I use Wiki on a regular basis, sometimes as a starting point for research, sometimes as a tool for clarification. Many who might use Wiki in the same way would lose valuable information in reference to the Interfuse entry if it were deleted. I personally would have liked to have seen previous art shown at the event on the Wiki entry. I followed the provided links and saw great examples of similarly expressive work, much like I what I experienced when I attended a regional out east, which happens to NOT be marked for deletion. Of course if works of art were included in the entry, there would need to be cross referencing, artist permission, and seperate pages created. Works of art should of course be listed on an artist entry page, much like each state lists "notable" residents.

I know the last time I tried to devote time and energy to an artist page that had profound effect, was worth notice, not only by myself but to an entire neighborhood in New York City, it was of course scheduled for deletion by an editor much like your self: someone who wanted something besides actual "information". I might have been mistaken when I thought that "information" IS the most notable part of Wikipedia.

If you would like to read published text about the Burning Man Community and find the actual atributes of a regional please see the listings on the Burning Man Project site. Feel free to contact anyone, listed, speak to them in person if you need to verify the existience of any Regional event, it's notablness, it's independence in and of itself. It is my hope that then those that would delete this entry would at least understand that somethings in reality, their distinction and discription, depend not on words, or on an opinion of them; they simply exist. A mere mention of them is sometimes enough for those looking for an entry about them. Contemplate deletion, but be first willing to part with something before any experimentation with the impermanent aspect of anything. Otherwise some might start to call ya a

Burner(Burning Man).

lyriclees

Comment: That has to be the most long-winded AfD argument I have ever seen in nearly three years of editing. It's so long-winded, in fact, that it is terribly ineffective. But moreover, lyriclees is twisting my words to the point that he is engaging in outright falsehood. To say that my recognition that my recognition that Interfuse is "the most profound argument for continuation of the Interfuse entry" is patently absurd, and blatantly wrong. I recognize the status as a regional Burning Man event because the article says it is, and for no other reason at all. But that doesn't make it notable! More to the point, there are no reliable, INDEPENDENT sources that indicate whether or not the event meets notability standards. The official web site does not count, because its content is controlled by the event organizers, who may or may not provide accurate information about the event. Some guy named "Zay" is not a reliable source, more multiple reasons. The Burning Man project site is not an independent, reliable source, because it is affiliated with this event. To say that each regional Burn event should have its own entry because each letter of the alphabet is different and, ergo, each regional Burn is different — well, I'm trying to be polite here, but that make absolutely, positively no sense whatsoever. I take considerable umbrage as this editor's suggestion that I re-read "Five Pillars." As someone who has spent way too much time over the past 2½ years-plus writing, editing and policing Wikipedia, I'm bloody sure I have a very good idea of what Wikipedia is and isn't. It isn't a listing of non-notable subjects. Interfuse simply does not meet Wikipedia standards of notability, no matter what "Zay" says. If a newspaper or magazine that has no connection with Burning Man recognized this event with some sort of coverage (more than a trivial "coming events" announcement that any event can get), I woule be inclined to change my opinion. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be nice to the newcomers. So he wrote a lot and used one ineffective argument among all his other points; big deal.
You write that the page doesn't have verifiable sources, but then you spend half your post above trying to disqualify certain sources. By those standards, a great deal of material on WP would be disqualified. A better conclusion is to let the largest regional Burning Man events have their own pages, merge the smaller ones, and give editors and fans a chance to find more independent sources.
Several editors have argued emphatically that certain regional Burning Man events that claim a *small* attendance should be considered non-notable on the basis of attendance numbers alone. This is apparently not such an event; it claims 700 participants and is thus not "non-notable" by those same standards. Merge the smallest ones; keep this and other large ones. Bry9000 (talk) 16:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It seems that Realkyhick fancied themself slighted or insulted because I, a reader/user posted my "talk" that questioned their long standing (2.5 years) experience, much like the question posed about the legitimacy of fledgling Regionals. I requested that the pillars be re-read because Realkyhick assumes as stated above, the right to "police" Wikipedia entries. Call me old fashioned, but I think that information should always remain free from personal bias and from biased enforcers. In the pillars it calls for neutrality in editing. That is why I often referr to the information in Wikipedia.

The discussion has gone from what is notable based on content of information, to notable based on attendance records, and thus classification of actual independent events as entries, to classification as popular and unpopular events. The events are actually for the participants, just as the information in this forum is for the reader/user.

And once again a point that I tried to make, has been proven by Realkyhick's own response. What one might call indepth and expressive, might seem "long winded" to another. If it be deemed too long to read, it can of course be seen by the unfamiliar as ineffective.The entries should be left as they are, separate and simple, and as a user I'd ask that the editor that brought the entries into question should be sanctioned in what ever way that this site handles the issue.

To give a few "chosen" regionals their own pages "especially" for demonstrating record attendance based on last years numbers again goes against the principals that the events are based on, and would only be decided as an appropriate thing to do by people who don't really know what they are talking about. The regional events are held based partially on geograhpy, hence the "Regional" title, not a need to gain local recognition or publication, something that's begining to look like a foreign concept here.

A collation of regional events posted on the Burning Man Project entry page, each leading to their own page would show more neutrailty than a few chosen regionals garnering their own pages, (ie Finches and Darwin's Finches) but then that would go against the nature of the event which is to have the main event and the regionals stand alone on their own. Burners tend to call that self reliance.

It is also pertinent at this point to direct any reader back to the Burning Man Project contacts for clarification about media involvment at any event and the need for participants to feel free, and to express themselves as such. It also allows each participant to not have to defend their view of the experience when bombarded with the perceptionally biased views published in a locally syndicated journal that prints most often what's fit to increase circulation. Unless a event has been experienced I don't expect any reader to "understand". That is why the events are posted as they are: so that if the entry sounds so interesting that personal research is deemed necessary, then specific event attendance information, called an "invitation", can be found using the links provided.

Information not only about the rigorous process to be come a regional, but the ideals behind the regional events is posted on the Burning Man Project website. I directed readers there for information clarification. If the assumption stands that all information on the internet is an "unreliable" source, and that of course only "mass produced publications" are legitimate, fine, but then then some reasearch into propoganda might also come in handy.

So unless this forum is advocating that every participant or "fan" become "deviants" of the event process simply to satisfy a purposeful lack of local independent sources that report on the events, I suggest that no one hold their breath for a "chance to find" more "independent" sources. If the media attends as participants, not as "writers with an agenda" then they might just create a piece that clarifies how notable the regional events actually are.

And FYI, he's a she, but you'll have to take my word for it.

lyriclees —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.142.10.152 (talk) 07:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry about the gender assumption in my use of "he." Bry9000 (talk) 09:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a forum. It's an encyclopedia. Representatives of the mass media are perfectly capable of attending an event without becoming participants, and they need not abandon their principles of professional journalism to recognize the notability (or lack thereof) of an event. I should know — I'm a member of the mass media. We're here to document, not promote an event or an agenda, even though I'll be the first to admit that the media sometimes overstep those bounds of professionalism — John McCain vs. New York Times, for instance. Still, Wikipedia requires reliable, independent sources to prove the notability of a subject. That's not my rule, but Wikipedia's. Information on the Internet is often reliable, particularly that published by recognized media organizations, academic or professional journals, and the like. Information sources controlled by the subject — primary sources — are frequently used here, but they should not be the sole source, because they may not be the most objective source of informaiton about a subject, its notability and its veracity. That's why these Wikipedia policies are in place, as well as policies against promotion. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This right here, where these comments are posted, this is actually a forum. Wikipedia is a multilingual, web-based, free content encyclopedia project. In the project there are articles. Even the guidelines for Wiki tell you that the concesus process is because EVERY writer or author will present a biased opinion, that includes the editors here, and the Mass Media out there.

It is the process of concensus, and not just one editor, that makes the final entry of neutral view. This project is to ensure that the information posted is the most "real time" information about lots of things, including events.

Promotion includes an invitation. The entry for Interfuse was lacking not only grandstanding about the event, but also a flat out invitation, so it was not a promotional item, if that's what is being insinuated.

In re:"Representatives of the mass media are perfectly capable of attending an event without becoming participants, and they need not abandon their principles of professional journalism to recognize the notability (or lack thereof) of an event." This statement completely demonstrates Realkyhick's lack of knowledge about the ablity to remain PROFESSIONALLY unbiased as a reporter on any event. Reporters should use the gift of writing to record the event as they EXPERIENCE it, not as they personally PERCEIVE it. Perception condones a preconceived notion, where as submersion into participation without agendas to be looked out for leads to real expression, and that's what resonates with readers. Mass Media Members like Realkyhick are no better suited to the Regional actual events described in the entries, any more than serenity is compatable with veracity, hence the lack there of for independent sources that can attest to the "truthiness" of the events.

And I quote: "Wikipedia has advantages over traditional paper encyclopedias. Wikipedia has a very low "publishing" cost for adding or expanding entries and a low environmental impact, since it need never be printed. Also, Wikipedia has wikilinks instead of in-line explanations and it incorporates overview summaries (article introductions) with the extensive detail of a full article. Additionally, the editorial cycle is short. A paper encyclopedia stays the same until the next edition, whereas writers update Wikipedia at every instant, around the clock, ensuring that it stays abreast of the most recent events and scholarship."

I still say leave the Interfuse entry as is until July of 2008, with a wikilink on the non-neo-notable and "independently verifiable" source of the Burning Man (Project) entry if the "OC of the pedia" police make it a must. If there are no "non-website" sources that meet the Wiki standards after that, by all means merge it into a long list of Regionals with the break away "already published" events getting their own page.

lyriclees

ps thanks bry

Comment: Lyriclees' comments above again demonstrate his complete lack of understanding about the concept of notability in regards to Wikipedia, as well the role and professional principles of journalists. I know more about reportig and writing than Lyriclees ever will, and I take strong exception to his assertion to the contrary. Apparently his concept of a real journalist is one who agrees with his view. Apparently he believes that, since any Burn event is on a totally different metaphysical plane, there's no way any mere reporter can be expected to understand it. That's pure bollocks. These events must meet the same notability criteria as any other event. Period. Merge this into the "list of" article with all the others. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:

And Realkyhick's comment again proves the point that most "real" journalists are more concerned about what they think they see and don't report the real facts. I also think that real writers are first good readers. Realkyhick obviously wants to disregard actual information like the fact included previously that this he is actually a she. I understand the "concept" of notability, it's been made quite crystal clear. I still think that in this specific case merging to a "list of" not only does amounts to a load of shite, because the application of the "concept" in this case would be detrimental to readers/users. I asked for an extension of merge, and would still like to see that happen.

By the bye, a real jornalist in my view would not cloud an issue with personal perception. Journalist's like that are not often found. I never claimed to be a reporter or a writer, or assert my expertise. I never questioned Realkyhick's expertise as a writer, only as an editor.

I just figured, as a reader, that any one who only uses perjoratives as their persuasion can't be a very perceptive person, and of course lumped Realkyhick in with those who can't actually use words properly. Those are the kinds of journalists who fail to be able to find them (words) at events like those that are supposed to be lumped together.

Those are the kinds of journalists who would be better off as participants with no agenda, rather than as floundering professionals who try to recap reality in the dash for the deadline.

lyriclees —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.142.10.152 (talk) 01:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has become quite obvious that your notion of "real facts" in relation to this subject is greatly clouded by your obvious devotion to the subject and the Burn movement, and no amount of rational discussion could sway you. I am reminded by a fellow reporter (who got quite a kick out of this whole discussion) that trying to debate such issues with such people is like mud wrestling with a pig — you just get dirty, and the pig likes it (whether it's a he or a she). - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 09:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:The "real fact" is that I am going through the proper channels to try to make a significant contribution and try and effect a much needed change to a common misconception. That doesn't mean that things will actually change, nor does that mean that everyone will approve of my attempts.

Even before tools such as encyclopedias existed, humans have been trying to perfect the system of classification. The real truth is that sometimes things defy even classifcation, especially when they are in the first stages of their evolution. The events set to be lumped together are a perfect example. This venue, the wikipedia articles, seemed to be the place for an entry such as the informative article on Interfuse. I guesse I figure if I'm lucky at all, then someone might not mind another figure, and the Interfuse entry won't fall "by the way" side before it is "professionally and independently" backed.

I am of course glad that your friend got a kick out of the discussion. And while I can appreciate your friends view about how the stodgy might not relish the idea of getting down and dirty, where I come from it's something that has to be done.

This discussion reminds me of one that I had with my grandfather about raising sheep when I was very young. The first time that I was able to participate in the birth of a new herd of I was delighted. Within a few days, the lambs had their tails cut off. I was of course horrified. When I asked why that had to be done I was told that it was to stop the lambs from getting sick until they learned how to take care of themselves.

I've grown up alot since then, but I have never stopped asking why. My grandfather was a good man, but he was really just a laundromat owner who was forced out of business by the "expenses" of a war. I've since learned that real care, and not just of the lambs, but the surroundings-the workers, the land, the feed, the water, the pens-will enable the lamb to still be well while it learns to take care of itself. It takes alot of consideration and "dirty work", but the tails do not have to be cut off.

Pigs are of course fun to wrestle, one at a time, and when slaughtered correctly, they make really good bacon.

lyriclees —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.142.10.152 (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect per proposal at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frostburn (Regional Burn). — Scientizzle 16:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. It's not notable, and contains no more info than what is contained on the website. It's really just an advert. Bardcom (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Scientology Handbook[edit]

Article appears to be a simple advertisement with link to both the website to buy the book, and the online version. It uses 2 lines of text to explain the history of the book, and spends alot more on the asthetic qualities of the origional version. Coffeepusher (talk) 23:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then fix it. This book is written by Hubbard and Google book shows plenty of hits, evidence of its notability. Just because it is a book about Scientology doesn't mean it warrants exclusion from Wikipedia. This article can easily be salvaged, do it rather than abuse the nomination process. Hazillow (talk) 23:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It isn't being nominated because it is "about" scientology. We have plenty of books and screenplays writen by L. Ron Hubbard that I havn't nominated for deletion. I am actually slightly offended at the implication that this AFD is a POV attack on scientology. A Google hit list is a tool that can be used to establish notiblility, however that in itself dosn't make an artile notible. The article itself, based on the content within the article isn't notable.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It also Failed the google scholar test, which gives a better indicatior of notability in published works.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In a search of news archives, I found several brief mentions of the book in passing, but I could not find sources, book reviews, etc., that significantly reviewed the book in secondary, WP:RS/WP:V sources. In a search of books, again, I could find no other WP:RS/WP:V books that discuss The Scientology Handbook in any great detail or depth of discussion, just mentions in passing or briefly in a sentence or less. I was unable to find any reviews of the book in a search on Infotrac. In a search of archived newspaper articles on Infotrac, found some brief mentions of Scientology ad campaigns and promotional pieces from people affiliated with the Church of Scientology, but again, no secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources that either directly review the subject matter, or analyze/discuss the work in depth. If anyone else has found secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources that discuss the work in some depth, I have not been able to find any in several news archives and other sources. Cirt (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The criteria for the notability of books are listed (logically enough) at Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria. I honestly can't say that it meets any of them. Perhaps the closest is #5, "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable", but the Handbook is merely based on the works of L. Ron Hubbard; it's not actually by him, despite the attribution on the cover. It's basically an anthology of a number of his writings plus a good deal of padding - note that its first edition was published only in 1994 (Hubbard died in 1986). I don't think criterion #5 could realistically be applied to an anthology of this nature. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. No point in giving it an advertising page.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 19:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 —αlεx•mullεr 12:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of socialist countries[edit]

This article has no sources and appears to be original research/synthesis. The contents seem to be tendentious. While the article makes some show of being objective, the selection of countries is, in fact, subjective as cases like Democratic People's Republic of Korea show. Google returns this article as the primary result when searching on socialist countries and one might imagine Kim Jong-il boasting of this to his subjects. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on, keep. This list may not be neutral but it is WELL within the scope of Wikipedia. Instead of nominating it for deletion, you should have attempted to fix what you felt was POV issues. Your comment on Kim Jong-il is pretty irrelevant to the discussion. Wikipedia doesn't care what petty world dictators think. Hazillow (talk) 23:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did make some attempt and am quite good at finding sources but consider this case to be hopeless. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources likely exist in the articles about the various countries discussing where on the socialism spectrum these countries exist, and the political orientation of nations is obviously notable in terms of world politics. If there is disagreement about whether North Korea is socialist, sources can be presented on each side, such as the refs in the North Korea article from the Times, the Telegraph, and the New York Times describing North Korea as a Stalinist dictatorship, and perhaps Warden can find equal refs saying it isn't, rather than just deleting the article because of an editing disagreement. Edison (talk) 23:5 4, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You'll find that there is significant disagreement as to whether Stalinist dictatorships are socialist or not. That's the trouble - it's too much a matter of political opinion. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In particular, the list of countries which had a Marxist-Leninist government is something that should be in Wikipedia. The second section, I'm not sure of how applicable calling them socialist countries is, as they are countries I don't know too much about, and there are no defined criteria for inclusion. The first section, though, is indisputable - nearly all those countries are ones I know have or had a specifically Communist government. Stalinist dictatorships definitely fall within the spectrum of communist ideology, even if they only pay lip service to socialist or communist ideals. Supersheep (talk) 00:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The list is quite informative and the descriptions of the different categories are clearly defined. Cmrdm (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since no other related article has the same information pertaining to the subject at hand. Not all things/sources are always online at websites, but as long as it can be proven by some other means or from other already sourced articles on Wikipedia, then this can stay (until corrected otherwise). That-Vela-Fella (talk) 01:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep for all the above good reasons and improve the article as time goes on. WP has lots of time; we don't have to have perfect articles right now and, if not perfect, delete them. That is almost a spite argument. Hmains (talk) 03:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear how the article can be improved. For example, consider the EU. Is it a country? Does it have a constitution? Is its formal aim of social justice an interpretation of socialism? You could argue each of these points either way and probably find some source to support it. Deciding whether or not to include it then becomes a matter of politics rather than NPOV information. This encyclopedia doesn't have List of democratic countries or List of Christian countries because these would have similar problems of definition. You see the difficulty? Colonel Warden (talk) 12:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant argument. The stated inclusion criteria for this article is "This is a list of countries, past and present, that declared themselves socialist either in their names or their constitutions". This could not be more clear. Hmains (talk) 19:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without malice I think that this topic could produce a very informative and useful article, but I completely agree that the current article does not satisfy WP:V as it contains no reliable sources (no sources at all). As it is, the article is 100% WP:OR. Reliable sources don't always have to be online (actually, most of the mare not). But we do need some here, online or not, otherwise the article violates the OR guideline and fails WP:V. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 05:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All we need to do is add the sources. They are out there. Just because it currently contains unsourced claims does not mean that the article should be deleted. That is not what the deletion nomination process is for. Seriously. Hazillow (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please provide an example. The Socialist International might be a good unambiguous source but the list has currently been rigged to exclude such democratic socialists (because they are "mealy-mouthed"!) and so I suppose one would have to fight an edit war with Marxist hard-liners to get them in. I've looked at the CIA World Factbook and the UN but not found anything useful. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - How about one of the 220,000 hits on Google Scholar? If your only argument is that the list may prove to be controversial to some then I say, with no malice, that I feel your argument is weak. Look at the list of socialists. The editors of that article placed a disclaimer that said "This is a list of self-identified socialists" on the top of the article. Can't we do the same? If you think it would still be a problem, we can just change the name of the article to "List of self-identified socialist countries" and redirect "List of socialist countries" to it. Even a "Marxist hard-liner" (a label I apply to myself) can agree to that.

P.S. I don't mean to come off as abrasive. I really don't mean any ill will. Hazillow (talk) 18:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update. I see that there is a disclaimer that says something like that on the page. The scope then is already limited - governments that proclaim themselves to be socialist in name or constitution. Surely we can find the constitutions of governments (present and historical) and include only the ones that we can find to contain the word "socialist." How's that? Hazillow (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current nominal approach leads to the conclusion that the National Socialist Germany should be included and that Social Democratic Sweden should be excluded which seems unsatisfactory. Looking at the Google Scholar search you provided, the most common usage seems to be post-socialist or former socialist and they seem to mean the Soviet Union and its satellites - the Comecon members. Another common usage is the juxtaposition of capitalist with socialist implying that these are the only two alternatives. Perhaps this just means that the author is a Marxist or perhaps it is contrasting centrally-planned economies with market/mixed economies. Anyway, notice that we don't have a List of capitalist countries even though the term is widely used. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason there isn't a list of capitalist countries is because it is the default organisation of economic matters in modern society. To be perfectly honest, the list of current socialist countries that are not Marxist-Leninist-ish is, with the possible exception of Libya, pretty much a list of capitalist countries - anyone who thinks that Portugal is not capitalist needs to look at the actual system in Portugal. Democratic socialists are not socialists in the sense that I assume is used here - namely those believing in the abolition of capitalism and the establishment of some form of a workers' state - they are slightly fluffier capitalists. As for national socialism, it should be obvious that it is entirely different concept to socialism - it means a certain thing that is fairly rigidly defined. Socialism, democratic socialism, and national socialism are all entirely different political concepts - they have nothing in common apart from the word socialism in their name. Supersheep (talk) 02:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ - ~~Could this better be covered as a category instead of an article? Even better, several categories (Category:Socialist Countries; Cat:Former Socialist Countries)?~~ Weak delete - After doing about 2 minutes of research, I see that there already are categories for this, including Category:Communist states and Category:Former socialist republics. I'm not sure if I see the need to have a separate wiki entry for this if it is already covered by the categories.BWH76 (talk) 09:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. A great deal of accompanying explanatory text is needed; existing and new categories can't provide this. Virago (talk) 19:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pawtucket Brewery[edit]

This article establishes no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just a repetition of the plot of several Family Guy episodes. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable outside of the Family Guy universe. It's just a fictional brewery that showed up in a couple episodes. So what? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Family Guy per everyone below. Is there such a thing as a snowball redirect? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Family Guy, non-notable fictional company. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Caldowards4. Hazillow (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Family Guy per above. Soxred93 | talk bot 23:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Family Guy article as suggested. RFerreira (talk) 00:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either Family Guy or the The episode where it makes its first appearance Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}_{Strange Frequencies} 16:18, 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. The majority of the text was a direct copy and paste from another website (copyvio) and what remained left failed to assert the importance of the subject.. Rjd0060 (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Auto summarize[edit]

Non-notable, unencyclopedic, not worthy of an article ukexpat (talk) 22:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a copyvio from http://www.slate.com/id/2419 -- Whpq (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This MS Word program deserves a sentence in larger article on that family of technologies, but no more. —Noah 05:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and salt by User:Steel359, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Smallbone[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Recreation of deleted material. PC78 (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G4 per reposting of deleted material, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:21, 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 penis. Um, wait, I'll try that again... :x

The result was a slight keep; reliable sources have been found over the course of this AfD, e.g. by Edison and Kizor, that seem to satisfy notability guidelines. krimpet ✽ 19:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Penis game[edit]

This page survived a VfD, and it was the funniest VfD i ever saw, but Wikipedia has grown up a little since then. Whether the game is real or not, the article doesn't have anything that looks like reliable sources. Call me a boring bureaucratic PENIS, but i think that it should be tested at an AfD discussion again. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Becksguy (talk) 03:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Penis. I mean, delete. Hazillow (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete no sources, Wikipedia is not for something you made up one day. Mr Senseless (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sources I can't search for right now, but isn't it clear that this game is extant and quite widespread? --Kiz o r 22:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)c[reply]

Yeah, this is going to be difficult to source. But, I mean, everyone knows what it is. Why doesn't someone write about it for a reputable paper or something? Oh yeah... now I remember. matt91486 (talk) 23:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have to agree, WP:NOT and no reliable sources make this an article that will have difficulties in staying erected on Wikipedia. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete This game can't possibly be the subject of any reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete We don't need this kind of stuff on the Free Encyclopedia. -- Carerra^{"I help newcomers!} 22:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored. The closing admin should discount any !votes based solely on a dislike for the subject material of an article. notability should be the guiding principle. Edison (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Have the participants of the previous VfD from nearly four years ago been notified of this discussion? I would like to hear from them, individually, as to why they near-unanimously argued to keep this. RFerreira (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't know of an easy way to contact that many users, and i hope nobody invents one. If they give a damn about this article, they should have it on their watchlists. You are welcome to contact them one by one. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given the unique circumstances here, where we had an overwhelming number of respected, long-term editors involved, including admins, arbitrators, our Wikimedia UK press agent, and the Wikipedia Featured Article Director, I honestly would like to give them all the opportunity to provide their insights and have the opportunity to learn if their perspective on this article has changed over time. RFerreira (talk) 23:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment. It turns out that I could spare the time for a non-conclusive yet inexplicably disturbing Google search. (The VfD says there are a lot of variants, by the way - people such as Brits and Germans should try to find sources using their local terminologies. This demonstrates the existence of the "Bogies!" game.) This paper features the game on page 66 by the document's numbering. Yes, it cites Wikipedia. This article. Bear with me here - I believe I can build an argument that is not an abomination. His quotation does not expect academic respectability from this site. It recites the nature of the game as common knowledge, in little enough doubt to make the quote representative of the uses of the game. That's how I get away with this in my own writings. It makes the paper no less credible than if the author had described the game his own words. Possibly slightly more credible, since he instead chose a more preferable option.

This and this are not relevant to the issue, but will likely still be of interest to you, you freaks. This too.

Sentiments that this should be deleted for being a silly or stupid subject are likely inescapable, and suggest that we should also decimate our coverage of clowns. Additionally, I take an interest in editing philosophy and am open to arguments that this should be deleted for harming our reputation or opening us to ridicule, as long as those arguments are internally consistent by explaining why we should bow to this particular bit of external pressure while ignoring the three hundred thousand people who want us to remove our images of Mohammed, or if we shouldn't ignore them, how making public opinion a critical inclusion criteria on one of the ten most visited websites on the planet would not bring the whole place crashing down in one of the most gruesome defeats of the Information Age in a matter of weeks. --Kiz o r 23:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete and thank the Wikigods that we're all apparently a lot smarter and more mature than we were in 2004. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clowns... --Kiz o r 23:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I admit I do not like this article, and I have never heard of the game. But Wikipedia is not censored, and "liking" something is not a requirement in the notability guideline. A Google News archive search [4] shows a few refs which have substantial coverage of this game. Some refs are not about this innocuous inanity, but are inappropriate touching, comparison of equiment, or indecent exposure. But very much on topic are [5] , [6] [7] (Do campus papers count for satisfying "multiple reliable and independent sources?"). Since variant versions in other countries/languages are claimed to be part of the article, there could be additional references. The BBC [8] and a paper in Wales [9] had some coverage of "Bogey game," but BBC talking about a BBC program is not very "independent." (edited) Edison (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On reflection, I think the discussion of this in college newspapers at widely varying locations satisfies WP:N. Previously campus papers have been discounted somewhat as proof of notability of campus organizations at their location. That is not the case here, since they are talking about something in the general culture, and would not be exercising favoritism as for a campus chorale group. They doubtless are freer to discuss such a thing than most papers of general circulation would be. Edison (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the variants, it appears that the "Bogies!" version was a recurring part of the British TV show Dick and Dom in da Bungalow, popular beyond all reason and awarded, and ranked highly on The 100 Greatest TV Treats 2004. The show provides a highly verifiable and prominent source. Everything was running smoothly as thousands of people poured into Sheffield city centre... then children randomly began shouting "bogies" at the top of their voice. Within seconds, as the sunlight faded and the temperatures dropped, the sporadic outbursts became a uniformed, and slightly worrying chant. --Kiz o r 00:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question - how many of the delete votes would be switched if we found proper sourcing? A lot of people are just seemingly disgusted by the existence of the article. matt91486 (talk) 02:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not disgusted by silly and funny children's games. I proposed the AfD because because of almost zero sources. And let's face it - simply googling "penis game" is not Safe For Work or for a public University computer room.

So yes, improving the sources will lower the motivation to delete the article. Russian mat, for example, is extensively used in Russian school-children's rhymes, and these rhymes have been documented in books, so it's perfectly OK to discuss that on Wikipedia. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 08:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I understand the nomination, sorry, I didn't mean for it to sound like that; a couple of the deletion comments by users have been along the lines of talking about maturity. I was just wondering if those users in particular would change their votes with credible sourcing. I personally haven't voted keep or delete yet myself for the same reasons you started the AfD. matt91486 (talk) 09:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. While I can vouch that the game most certainly exists, it doesn't bode well that the article has been tagged with a request for reliable sources since 2006. However, if the article does get deleted, I don't think we should "salt" it. The fact that it's silly does not disqualify it from being in Wikipedia. If the subject is ever sufficiently sourced (instead of using original research), it ought to be included. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 02:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check the logs. It was deleted for the majority of that time. --Kiz o r 02:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On further reflection, I changed the ref tag from Oct 06 to Feb 08, since the article was summarily deleted in Aug 07 and restored as an objection this month. The former date is technically accurate, but is not representative at all of the article's degree of neglect and fixability, which is what ref tags are commonly used to determine. (This was also because people without a handy "delete" button would have no way to easily check the article's log entries and no reason to think they should, thus proving that I'm an idiot since there's a "logs" link at the top of this page. Then again, when was the last time you noticed "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"?) There's some indication that the "bollocks" variant is popular in UK festivals, and The Observer might support that in noting that Saturday in 1995, when the entire eastern campsite erupted into cries of 'Bollocks!' for an hour from 3am. And while we're being this thorough, does anyone have access to this article? --19:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep per the multiple third party sources cited by Edison and others. I too believe there is sufficient WP:N to sustain an article, this simply needs to be flagged for rescue. RFerreira (talk) 18:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (I've discussed not stated a position yet). I think now, we've got enough to work with sourcing wise, to make it verifiable anyway. matt91486 (talk) 23:12, 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 Speedy Delete by Kim Dent-Brown CSD G3 vandalism (non-admin close). —Travis ^talk 16:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RAC 125 (drink)[edit]

Non notable drink. IP removed my prod and replaced it with a hoax tag without comment. J Milburn (talk) 21:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Perhaps it is a hoax, I most certainly cannot find any evidence of it even existing, let alone anything that approaches our standards for a reliable source. RFerreira (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I't a hoaxe, as if the UK could do an energy drink, the UK's drink's indusrty is boloks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.249.252 (talk) 14:35, 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 speedy redirected to Wood Brothers Racing. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 06:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wood Brothers[edit]

We already have a much more comprehensive article about the topic. Redirect to Wood Brothers Racing --Boss Big (talk) 20:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close and redirect then. This is AfD, not AfR. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:23, 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. John254 00:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nafovanny[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Nafovanny

This article should be deleted. In its current state it is non-salvagable - the entirety of NPOV information would be one sentence.

It is not notable. Per notability about corporations, the corp should be referenced by multiple, independent third party sources. This article has one independent third party source, and Novafanny recieves an insubstantial one sentence mention at the bottom of that source. All other references are primary sources (two minor mentions in UK parliament) and activist sources.
It is a POV hit piece. All of the other sources in the article are from activist groups who make negative allegations about the company. We know nothing about the corporation, its employees, its budgets, its ownership - nothing. It contains a shock picture instead of a logo or other identifying graphic.
It is a POV link farm. Up to the latest revision [10] It contained two animal rights navigation templates. It is strictly categorized in animal rights categories. The see also is eight animal rights wikilinks. The "further reading" is an external link to an activist web page. Four of the "reliable source references" were to animal rights campaigns designed to get readers to those activist pages, not to give NPOV information about this company.

SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Keep. There is no reason at all to delete this. There are multiple independent sources, including newspapers and the British Home Office. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think those trivial briefs are quite what the the Notability guidelines are wanting. I can think of many other articles you've asked to have deleted with stronger media mentions than those. Have you addressed the POV concerns? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Keep per SlimVirgin. I too am perplexed as to why this should be deleted, the article is well referenced through multiple non-trivial sources. Full stop. RFerreira (talk) 23:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this seems to meet all the criteria for inclusion. If you are having some problems with PoV on the article, feel free to improve it and edit them out. matt91486 (talk) 23:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You really think a one sentence blurb in the bottom of one newspaper article establishes notability? In that case my mom is notable, because that's about the strength of this notability claim. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Weak Keep I see SchmuckyTheCat's point, it was essentially an attack article, and it still has that flavor to it (though less so since SV's additions). I think the only (and hence leading) image is a problem, because it is a representation from a partisan and critical lobby group which doesn't appear to be authenticated or published by any neutral, reliable source (indeed, BUAV claim that all the major UK broadcasters backed away from an agreement to broadcast their investigation after they saw the material. Make of that what you will). However, there are now a few, neutral 3rd party sources reporting on its creation of the joint venture and the controversy it engendered, so within he context of the notorious publicity-shy lab animal industry, I would argue that it is sufficiently notable enough for its own article. Rockpocket 01:03, 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 Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vaanmathi[edit]

Non-notable film as discussed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swathi. This will never be expanded beyond the current sub-stub, because it is wholly non-notable, as it lacks the kind of critical media sources one would expect from a "blockbuster" film. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 20:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this was such a blockbuster then I would have expected to be able to find references in English language newspapers such as The Hindu and The Times of India. They don't restrict their film coverage to English language films, and their archives are available via Google News, but there's nothing there. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep You need to search in the right place. I put the weak qualifier on 'cause even with in those references I don't see too many that look like they would help unstub the article. —Noah 05:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did look at those sources before nominating this AfD, and I agree that they do not provide any reasonable content upon which an encyclopedic article can be written. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nice improvement, and consensus indicates that new sources are enough to warrant a keep. --PeaceNT (talk) 15:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gwyn Ashton[edit]

No assertion of notability. His discography is WP:NN... if he is a musician (I can't actually tell) then he fails WP:MUSIC/WP:BAND. In general, article's subject seems very WP:NN. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 17:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although he has an All Music Guide entry, I couldn't find anything to show that his songs or albums have charted. No prejudice to recreation if someone can give better sources. Spellcast (talk) 04:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's published three albums with Riverside_Records, which IMHO qualifies for "more important indie label" as of Wikipedia:MUSIC, criterion 5. I'll try to track down the "Guitar Parts Magazine" competition thing, too. Hey, he's not Clapton or Moore, but he's doing alright... ;-) --Syzygy (talk) 08:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needs third party sources if that's true about Riverside Records, friend :-) Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 09:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does the Amazon catalogue count? ;-) Okay, I'll try to hunt it down. --Syzygy (talk) 09:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. [11] I'm beginning to have doubts whether this is the same Riverside label, though? --Syzygy (talk) 09:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, those guys don't seem the same... the wiki article says they're a jazz based label whilst the link you've dug up seems to be a for a rocky sort of label. Looks like the label isn't notable... Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 12:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about the Guitar Part vote mentioned in the WP article? (I took it off GA's website) It doesn't look like it's a too serious competition, and GA seemingly isn't mentioned anymore at all there. OTOH, the list of band he's played with (also from his website) to me looks fairly impressive.

Like I said, he's certainly not top-notch commercially, but he's a fine player and apparently a well-known figure in the guitarists' world. Check out the press clippings on his site... --Syzygy (talk) 13:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, you can't really trust his site, it wouldn't count as a reliable source. Also, the sentence where it talks about him being an opening act for those big names isn't sourced, so I don't know if it's true or not. My first assumption would be: "Being an opening act for a few big artists wouldn't necessarily make you notable" - But I'm open to persuasion :-) Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 10:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be equally honest, I don't have a conviction myself anymore. From what I gather, he makes a living off his music, he tours the world quite a lot, he makes records which sell modestly (about the same ranking on Amazon as Klaatu), apparently has been seen on stage with quite a few important names (provided he doesn't blatantly lie on his commercial webpage...), and seems to have a small fan base. I have no idea what his importance in the R&B scene really is; at least he scores 26,000+ hits at Google, not counting the WP entries. ;-) (Add to this a bit of personal bias, since as an owner of all his CDs I think he's wildly underrated, and I feel a bit parental about the article, too.) So, I'm not sure whether he qualifies as notable? (In a nutshell, I'd like to see the article survive, but I won't throw a tantrum if it gets deleted.) --Syzygy (talk) 11:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and source [12]. Clearly notable [13]. JJL (talk) 15:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, at this point in time the article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. However, if it was edited to include the references that are mentioned above, then that is a different story. If someone comes across this article and reads it they shouldn't have to go googling to see if the person in question is notable or not. That's what references and citations are for. You guys have obviously found a bunch, lets get them edited in and keep this article. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, I understand you're saying "Keep, but expand the article from a stub to a decent entry"? --Syzygy (talk) 08:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, you could say that too. I do tend to decide based on how the article is presented in the here and now though, not on what it could look like if some one got around to doing something to it. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:35, 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, --Esprit15d • talk • contribs 20:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. JJL has provided some good sources. Hazillow (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JJL, the notability of the subject should now be evident. RFerreira (talk) 23:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources clearly show notability. matt91486 (talk) 23:55, 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, the only keep argument wants the deleters to prove a negative, instead of giving sources to establish the positive. Disregarding this keep opinion, the balance clearly goes to deletion. Fram (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Austin[edit]

No references, doesn't meet notability, and has been around for a few years. I tried to speedy delete it a few weeks ago, but to no avail. Lady Galaxy 19:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I googled his name to see if he had won any awards, but I don't see anything. Unless someone can find an award, I see no reason to keep the article since he doesn't seem to be notable. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 20:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:PORNBIO. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—On the other hand, I find no suggestion that the actor has not made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as the particular focus of his exposure as a "straight" man playing gay roles. Tony (talk) 13:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete by User:John Reaves, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Broken source[edit]

PROD disputed by anon wanting a "vote" on the deletion. AFD is not a vote, but a discussion here is the closest we have. :) Anyway, Transwikied dictionary definition, and possible neoglism. TexasAndroid (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Article is too short with no references. I marked it for speedy. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:58, 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. John254 00:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jason DeRose[edit]

Journalist not meeting WP:BIO. Article has no sources and appears to have been written by its subject. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All Things Considered et al are all notable, as is at least one of his references. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that All Things Considered is notable. Does that mean that occasional contributors to it are notable as well? The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Occasionally contributing to multiple notable media outlets, as well as being the Senior Editor for the Arts & Culture Desk for Chicago Public Radio suggests a bit more exposure than trivial appearances. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Notable journalist that's worked for the National Public Radio, Chicago Public Radio, etc.--TBC !?! 20:39, 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. Kind of a sad commentary that a "political party" with three members gets this much attention, but it is what it is.--Kubigula (talk) 04:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Partij voor Naastenliefde, Vrijheid en Diversiteit[edit]

Good grief. Here we have a Dutch political "party" that:

consists of three oddballs (plus "a few other members who wanted to remain anonymous" i.e. nonexistent I assume);
takes a few extreme bizarro positions (animal sex, public nudity etc.) which are or could be designed just to pull people's chains and get some free shock value;
is unable to get even the 570 signatures needed to appear on the ballot.

I don't know about the Netherlands, but here in USA I could 570 signatures for anything by standing in front of a Wal-Mart for a copuple of days. This may be a spoof party. Whether or no, it's still just three people and is not notable. Herostratus (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnotable. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with Herostratus so far as he goes. It is an unregistered party with only three known members and for that reason is non-notable. However the group has been the subject of extensive press coverage, based on the number of references. How about merging it into List of political parties in the Netherlands? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds okay to me. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, received extensive media coverage. The party likely failed to meet electoral requirements because far-right groups threatened to 'out' and harrass any potential signatories. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is not measured in "signatures", but in coverage from independant sources, and this one got lots. Bikasuishin (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Sure, it's a tiny one-off party, but it seems to have gotten a fair whack of coverage in reliable sources, and that's good enough for me. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per extensive media coverage. matt91486 (talk) 23:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AnotherSolipsist, the party has received extensive media coverage. (jarbarf) (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete under criteria A3. --Allen3 ^talk 19:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spyro the Dragon (film)[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 19:34, 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. John254 00:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Ayoob[edit]

Entirely unsourced, original research. One of the primary proponents of the material has a conflict of interest as indicated at WP:BLP/N#Mohammed Ayoob BLP 2. No notability established. seicer | talk | contribs 19:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why an article, that has been vandalized and in which libelous material has been inserted, should be deleted instead of the vandal being deterred and/or punished by exposing him/her publicly. The offender's objective would be achieved by deleting this article. No other purpose will be served. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.144.7 (talk) 20:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bio can be authenticated by referring to the Michigan State University website at http://jmc.msu.edu/faculty/show.asp?id=2 and at http://polisci.msu.edu/people/ayoob.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.144.7 (talk) 20:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be deleted. Dr.Ayoob is the creator of this article himself. If you trace the original i.p.addresses the day this article was created it goes back to his home in lansing, michigan through a comcast connection resgistered to him. Dr.Ayoob is not an authority on any subject that requires a special wikipedia section dedicated to him. A footnote as an author in the international relations, subsect of realism is more than enough. This article should be deleted to prevent Dr.ayoob from self promotion. 35.8.219.25 (talk) 00:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ayoob continues to flagrantly self promote himself and violates wikipedia rules again and again even in this section. Instead of appreciating rules of Wikipedia he is pleading that his self created hagiography ( fiction ) be allowed to stay on a great website like wikpedia. The unsigned user from I.P.Address 76.20.144.7 is Dr.Ayoob himself. Please delete this article as soon as possible.35.8.219.25 (talk) 00:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The honesty of user 35. can be seen by the outrageous BLP-violating additions repeatedly made to the article after repeated warnings in the last day since the item was placed on AfD--and on other articles previously. . I have semi-protected the article. I was about to block the ip, but another admin beat me to it. DGG (talk) 01:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep He is in fact, as can be readily verified from official sources, University Distinguished Professor of International Relations, Michigan State University, with multiple awards. His publications can be independently verified as well. The present article contains no puffery, and COI is not reason for deletion. The nom seems to have been placedwithout any attempt to verify or look for sources. DGG (talk) 01:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article has been orphaned since 2006, and unreferenced since 2007. Even before it was tagged, the article was nothing more than research. There is little doubt that it will be improved in the near future. seicer | talk | contribs 02:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Having the title Distinguished professor, which only goes to a small number of full professors and is confirmed by the university source provided, is ample evidence of passing criterion 6 of WP:PROF. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has a single source which confirms his notability. Using a quick google search, there appears to be additional sources that could be used to further cite the article Having an author who has a conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article. The article definetely requires some work, but that isn't a reason to delete it either. Jons63 (talk) 12:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No doubt about his position. Most facts in this article appear to be easily sourceable; it's a little unbalanced, perhaps, but editing can fix that. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think that just about everything that could be said to support a keep position has already been written. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to set the record straight, I am not the original author of this article. In fact, it was brought to my attention by a colleague about a year after it had been posted on wikipedia. I am grateful to the editors for protecting the article and for their fair minded comments about it. Mohammed Ayoob —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.144.7 (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete:

I agree that this section should be deleted. Ayoob clearly has a conflict of interest. This document is a rather biased work of one living person editing his own "praise" and "critique". If you notice this Mohammad Ayoob edits all sorts of critical and crique related information and adds in subjective information such as " imporant figure", "prodige", "expert". Even this Michigan State University bio that is referenced as a source does not back up these flagrantly self promoting claims. Secondly the opportunity to provide critique of ayoobs main political philosphy, thesis and other dubios and specious arguments are vehemntly denied by Ayoob and deleted by the author.Ayoob cannot make his own creation on wikipedia, his personal fiefdom. Again This person is not a figure worth having any wikipedia living person biography section dedicated to in the first place. 35.8.131.140 (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete:

Comments inserted by Mohammad Ayoob such as "Ayoob has been an important figure in the field of International Relations. He is considered a leading scholar in this sub-discipline of Political Science" are evidence of this man's clear self promotion on this forum. No peer reviewed journals support these high claims. Ayoob is an unknown figure in academia, with a notorious reputation to self promote. Please delete thise section immediately in the interest of maintaining standards on wikipedia.35.8.131.140 (talk) 00:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Mohammad Ayoob needs a reality check. Please go to the msu student website rating professors. http://www.allmsu.com/home/ Their you can clearly see the disdain with which most students, academics of michigan state university view ayoob and his self promoting ways.35.8.131.140 (talk) 00:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article needs to be thoroughly edited as some of the claims are ludicrous. It is obvious the author and subject of the wiki document are one and the same i.e., Mohammad Ayoob. Wikipedia rules are violated numerously by Ayoob. Recommend to delete this article soon. 35.8.218.247 (talk) 02:05, 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 --Step hen 23:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey D. Gordon[edit]

Delete - A military spokesman is not notable in his own right and has not independently contributed to the events related to the Guantanamo Bay proceedings. The article does not satisfy WP:NOT. There of course are independent articles mentioning him, but that is expected due to his position - not due to his contributions to the subject at hand. BWH76 (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a military spokesman is a diplomat for the armed forces. He is in charge of the public affairs for that arena, has been called the camp's top Washington spin doctor, the Pentagon spokesman on Guantánamo, &c. I'm not saying those claims are true, but it is evidence of his notability. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 19:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Gordon has played a significant and creative role in the USA's war on terror. ~~He has been called on to testify before the United States Congress on the controversial claim that dozens of Guantanamo captives.~~ No offense, but I believe it is a fallacy to to think that a public affairs officer's role can be performed by rote. Geo Swan (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I agree that the position is not "performed by rote", but there is no claim that he has (or is) contributing to the Guantanamo proceedings other than speaking to the press. Additionally, although some articles allude to his importance as Sherurcij states, others simply refer to him as "a" spokesman for the Pentagon (New York Times, Washington Post). Although this may be a question of semantics, it does not detract from my belief that a spokesman for the military is not notable unless he has independently done something of note (as opposed to speaking about something of note as his or her job description demands).BWH76 (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This would be useful to anyone doing a project on this sort of thing. Definetly keep. -- Carerra^{"I help newcomers!} 22:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above, this is a notable military spokesman and our biographical guidelines have been satisfied. RFerreira (talk) 23:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I think that there may be a fundamental misunderstanding as to the role of a military spokesman (or more properly, a Public Affairs Officer); a position which dozens currently hold. As opposed to perhaps a communications director or a Press Secretary (for example, in the White House), a military spokesman has no role in making policy decisions. He or she communicates the decisions and actions of others to the press - a PAO does not participate nor contribute to these actions. Asserting that a military spokesman is "a diplomat for the armed forces" is only true in the most general sense; it is not true in practice as he or she is not engaged in diplomacy )or the "the art and practice of conducting negotiations between representatives of groups or states" as defined in Wikipedia. Although Gordon's interaction with the press is interesting, it is unencyclopedic, and any mention of Gordon may be merged to other articles describing the Guantanamo Bay proceedings.BWH76 (talk) 04:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BIO#Basic criteria - "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." His name appears in tons of independant reliable sources, but they are only quoting him. There's no articles to be found where he is the subject of the article. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Question' : I cannot find any sources that support Geo Swan's claim that Gordon was called to testify in Congress relating to the Guantanamo Bay issue (nor for any other reason). Is there a source for that? Comment - (updated) Gordon did not testify in Congress on any issue, much less the Guantanamo issue for which the article claims notability. After about 30 minutes of research, I can't find anything at all that supports the claim that he has done so. BWH76 (talk) 14:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - BWH76 is correct. I did my own check. I couldn't find references either. Although I found multiple references to Joseph Benkert's May 9 2007 testimony before Congress, with "two other officials", that quoted Gordon on that issue in the next sentence, or the next paragraph. I think now I mis-read those articles. They did not establish Gordon was one of the other officials. I now doubt he was one of the other officials. My apologies to anyone for whom this was the deciding factor in the opinion they expressed here. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 15:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the rationales for retention provided in the comments above. John254 23:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Geo Swan and others, I believe this suits our biographical guidelines just fine. (jarbarf) (talk) 20:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —BWH76 (talk) 20:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, withdrawn by nominator. Soxred93 | talk bot 19:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brandworkers international[edit]

Contested prod, reason being "Non-notable organization. Please establish using reliable sources." It sounds like an advertisement, likely to be a copyvio. Soxred93 | talk bot 19:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am a first page Wiki-writer and though I have read all the advice and used the sandbox, I'm still having trouble. Please do not remove this article. I believe it is a notable organization for two reasons: 1) It is having real impact on workers' rights 2) It is part of a larger movements of workers rights advocacy groups and immigrant workers rights 3) It has been covered in NYC new sources, which were used and cited in this article.

Problem: I cannot get the page to update itself, it is missing over half the text that appears in the 'editing' page. If you could see the rest of the text you would see that this is a valid wiki entry. Can any one help? 70.23.70.22 (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed a ref tag problem on the page, which was hiding ~half the content, including some references. I would ask that you review your comments on this page, to ensure they are still valid. Thanks, Stwalkerster [ talk ] 19:28, 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. John254 00:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USA Parkway[edit]

This is a private road built to service an industrial park. I don't feel it's significant enough to have an article. Has an interchange with I-80, but that's about it. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks quite notable to me. I don't see anywhere that's its a private road. If it's a private road, why does it have an intersection with a major interstate and why is it open to public traffic? If the road is going to be 18 miles long and improve access to an airport and reduce travel time between Reno and Las Vegas it sounds notable. Dgf32 (talk) 19:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- [14]. Merely having an interchange with an interstate does not confer notability; there is an office park along an interstate in New York that has its own exit, for instance. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The newspaper cited for the claim "shorten the distance between Reno and Las Vegas" is a quote made by the private real estate developer that is promoting the highway. I.E. it's not an objective claim. The newspaper made no attempt to confirm or deny the claim by an objective expert. Comparing the existing Nevada road map with the map of the proposed route of USA parkway in the sources used does not confirm the claim. In fact it seems to disprove it. The problem with the drive from Reno to Las Vegas (which I have done many times) is the highways in Nevada run almost true NS or EW. While a direct route between those cities would run diagonally. This forces motorists to take a route that looks like stair steps across the state. According to the map used in the source for the article, the USA parkway is again almost a true north south alignment, which again does nothing to shorten the highway distance between those cities.Davemeistermoab (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sources provided and others in Google News indicate notability. According to the map it will be a significant shortcut if people want to use it, but I don't see what that has to do with notability. --Dhartung | Talk 20:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's a major rural four-lane highway. Some articles call it "Highway 805", which suggests it was planned as a state highway - though I can't find any evidence of that from NDOT, so that should be researched more before being added. --NE2 22:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dgf32 and others, this appears to be a notable parkway regardless of whether or not it falls under the category of a private road. RFerreira (talk) 23:34, 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. Fram (talk) 14:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tarun Chakraborty[edit]

Speedily deleted once already some time ago for failing to assert any kind of notability and failing to provide any kind of verifiable reliable sources, this has, once again, been recreated and another editor has generously ((prod))'ed it. I'm keen to resolve the situation once and for all so I'm bringing it to AFD for community discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: per nom. The article had already been deleted, and the recreated version is identical to the deleted version. Non-notable person who fails WP:N. --Ragib (talk) 19:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced biography that does not meet Wikipedia's criterias of verifiability and notability for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Regards. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:31, 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. Fram (talk) 14:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Community Emergency Services Incorporated[edit]

No RS coverage and 15 ghits are directory listings of local chapters. No notability per WP:CORP and creator is an SPA with a COI. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Blast Ulna (talk) 08:48, 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 —αlεx•mullεr 00:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speech writing: CEO Preparation and Coaching[edit]

Violation of WP:NOT, guidebook section. Also quite likely copyright infringement as the page looks like a pure copy paste. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 18:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Par being the nominator. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 18:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, obvious copyvio but nothing turns up in Google to id the source and speedy TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 19:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dgf32 (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Not a manual. If it is not a copyright violation, then it is almost certainly WP:Original research. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentCopyright - how's that? Who are you people anyway? I cited the appropriate sources...how is this copyright violation? I wrote it. You all are very confusing - Down with Wikipedia!!! unsigned IP, transferred from Talk TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 21:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note above comment made by User talk:Kressjo on afd talk page & copied here by User:Travellingcari. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 00:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from talk, unsigned: "It is a copy paste you morons. I wrote the paper then cut and paste it into wikipedia. How do you recommend I put it in here since i'm a not as computer literate as some of your tech savvy employees?" Hazillow (talk) 23:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOT Bardcom (talk) 23:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, too guidebook-ish for an encyclopedia, also fails the "no original research" policy as well. RFerreira (talk) 00:25, 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/Redirect to Paul Harteck. Appears to already be mentioned in this article; any further relevant information can be merged in, in an encyclopedic style. Black Kite 09:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harteck Process[edit]

This article was listed under unassessed Military history articles, so I assessed it yesterday, but after a careful look at the article a few things about it raise red flags, enough so that I feel an afd for the article is justified. Top at the list was this now removed line "Much of the information recounted here about the Harteck Process can be found in the meticulous research of author David Irving in his book the 'Virus House' which can be downloaded online. The same book is also known by another title 'Hitler's Atomic Scientists.' The following is based on notes from the book and other sources.", which leads me to believe this may be a copyright violation. Oberiko (talk · contribs) respond to my request for a second opinion, and reported that a Google Book search did not find a single result for "Harteck Process", and most web results were from forums. In addition the article itself states that the Iriving was widely discredited, and we have heard nothing from the physics project on this. As a result I feel the best course of action is to file an afd for the article and see what the community thinks, then move from there. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not feel there is enough evidence to support having the article here, it seems iffy to me. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —TomStar81 (Talk) 18:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless suitable references are included and quickly. ~ Dreamy ^§ 22:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if it is indeed unverifiable. Carom (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the first half of the article is verifiable, and the sources for the article under Paul Harteck discuss it --and the biographical article there does briefly describe his separation process. which is essentially the ultracentrifuge separation of uranium isotopes, one of the techniques used in the US atomic weapons project during the war, and by it and other countries thereafter. There is now an abundance of sources. But I have never known it called by his name--that is presumably a neologism from somewhere--possibly Irving. The material on the use of the process is South Africa etc shouldbe moved to the appropriate articles. Walker, M. German National Socialism and the Quest for Nuclear Power, 1939-1949. New York: Cambridge University Press. 1989 is sa standard source, though there has been more work subsequently. , relevant page at [15]. the details are verified there--the articlehere seems accurate, though not based on good sourcing.
Merge into Paul Harteck (and elsewhere as appropriate) and source as required. Dr. Harteck's work is notable, but as the preceding editor observes, the "Harteck Process" appears to be an innovation. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found some literature of the isotop enrichment of Harteck with ultracentrifuge separation during the war, so the article contains a true core, but the rest is highly critical and sourced only by one book, which claims to be well sourced. So in the ultracentrifuge separation article there should be a mentioned that Harteck produced Uranium upto 5% enriched with this metode in germany befor 1945. I would like to keep and rework the article, but I have no time in the next weeks!--Stone (talk) 20:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Consider copying the article in its current for and moving it into your userspace by creating a user subpage (User:Stone/example). In this manner you can keep the page and work on sourcing the material after the afd concludes. If you can in fact find additional sources for the article you are welcome to place it back here. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I copied it and will try to improve it sometime!--Stone (talk) 16:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge- True; the article in its current state is not exactly what you might call one of the best contributions to come from the WP community, but the problem is not to be solved by deleting it. Merging it would seem like the best solution here, I nonetheless can see the article being kept after some modifications. Λua∫Wi se ^{(Operibus anteire)} 13:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Improve the "See also" link on the Paul Rosbaud page; add a link from the Paul Harteck page; add a link from the Isotope separation page. (Then rewrite the Harteck process page using a more encyclopedic style! ;-) (sdsds - talk) 01:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Folf[edit]

Almost certainly nonsense or made up one day in school Dan Beale-Cocks 18:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Frisbee FOLF is apparently real. I find no evidence that this is, but I did not search through 48,000 hits either. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 19:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is not about the actual sport folf, which is frisbee golf. Maybe its a hoax. I'm saying delete. Dgf32 (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment I should have noted that this article is not about frisbee golf, which is real, but about soccer golf, which does not appear real. Dan Beale-Cocks 19:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This sport does not seem so notable or widespread. And the word is ridiculous.-- Carerra^{"I help newcomers!} 23:00, 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 delete.--Kubigula (talk) 01:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Totally arbit funda[edit]

Contested prod; subject to me appears to be a case of WP:NFT; 1 non-wiki google hit supports this. Marasmusine (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable neologism for a putative literary genre. Dgf32 (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:NFT. Hazillow (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. The article claims to document the emergence of a new literary genre without taking the trouble to describe it. The unintelligible title doesn't help. This is a very brief article without real content or context, and as such is a case for WP:CSD #A1 or #A3. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A1. Tagged as such. It exists. Maybe. But nothing to say what it is or why it's notable. DarkAudit (talk) 04:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is the only possible outcome here. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:31, 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, now that the copyright violation has been removed. The article can be rewritten —αlεx•mullεr 12:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Coconuts (TV show)[edit]

Only source for article is from broadcast network. Article contents is a copy from the network article. http://www.mnet.co.za/Mnet/shows/displayShow.asp?id=611&Type=art&ArticleId=1942. Notability via 3d party sources not shown. NrDg 17:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. Notable television show featured on a notable South African television network, M-Net. Lack of sources might be attributed to the fact that it's a foreign television show.--TBC !?! 21:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and address copyvio. Notable TV series in its homeland. Major content issues but that's separate from AFD. 23skidoo (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm convinced by above comments. Listed for AfD as I could not find any 3d party stuff to support noteabililty and article creator was sock puppet of person renowned for creating bogus articles.--NrDg 17:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- with the copyright violation removed, the "article" contains no content whatsoever besides an infobox. This isn't a stub, but merely an empty page. John254 00:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite, but obviously remove the copyright violations as we routinely do. (jarbarf) (talk) 20:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Technology of Study[edit]

As it stands, the article itself is completely unsourced WP:OR. The article even states that "The Technology of Study" is not a "book" but a "booklet", part of a series of booklets in the Scientology Handbook. The only external links in the article are to primary, self-referential sources affiliated with the Church of Scientology organization. But aside from the present state of the article, let's examine whether there is significant coverage of the topic in secondary sources that satisfy WP:RS and WP:V. Searching for "The Technology of Study" in news archives only reveals advertisements for courses put out by Scientology - no independent reviews of this "booklet" whatsoever. I was only able to find one book that mentioned this "booklet", An Educator's Classroom Guide to America's Religious Beliefs and Practices, by Benjamin J. Hubbard (coincidentally same last name as L. Ron Hubbard?) and even in that book this "booklet" is only mentioned once in one sentence. I searched Infotrac and found zero book reviews, I also searched Infotrac news archives and found zero mentions there as well. Cirt (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: As a side note, the article was initially created by PEAR (talk · contribs), since then blocked indefinitely as a "vandalism only" account. See block log. Cirt (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not of sufficient notability to have its own article. Article contains no information that is not already in the Scientology Handbook article. Only linked to from Scientology Handbook. Dgf32 (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - with provision of restoring if notability can be established. John Carter (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Contains little to no information about actuall content or usefulness for the CoS, much less establish notability outside the church.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Perhaps something could be made of this stub, but as it stands it is uninformative and of questionable notability.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 23:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Study_Tech in Scientology is notable but the relativly new booklet The Technology of Study which is basicaly used for dissemination by the church is not notable. We don't need articles about advertorials. -- Stan_talk 17:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP's notability standards for books. There is also nothing of interest in the article to the general reader, for whom encyclopedias traditionally are written. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:25, 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 —αlεx•mullεr 12:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Falangist Party of America[edit]

There's been some discussion already as to its notability, but there doesn't appear to actually be any. Two trivial RS hits. The vast majority is an unsourced copyvio. Removing that eliminates the article essentially as ghits don't demonstrate any notability. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 17:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. They seem to have some interest with people interested in US third parties, often showing up on lists, but there are only two trivial hits as nom said; can't really find anything that confirms any actual party activities. Hazillow (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found a few hits from major newspapers including the Guardian and the Iowa State Daily. The article needs better citations from verifiable sources, but in the mean time I think it should be kept. Dgf32 (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Verifiable political parties should be kept. The info in the copyvio can be rewritten if it seems reliable . DGG (talk) 05:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am in agreeance with DGG on this one. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dgf32, there are plenty of reliable sources available on the subject such that this can be expanded. (jarbarf) (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unniceness[edit]

Disputed prod (a few times) - procedural listing. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it's essentially identical:

~~Delete.~~ Delete all. The only source that turns up is UrbanDictionary.com and a few blogs. Hazillow (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless any RS pop up. --Dweller (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If the nominator agrees, I would also suggest adding Unnice to this AfD. Marasmusine (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed yes, I hadn't noticed that. Thanks for the pointer. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki - belongs in Wiktionary, or delete if they don't want it either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matchups (talk • contribs) 17:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment presumably even Wiktionary want reliable sources beyond urban dictionary? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I strongly suspect that the word was invented by the person that created these articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unkeep protologism which is used by very few people in the context it describes. Also note the creator has repeatedly taken the AfD notic off the pages and has been blocked for a short period for disruption. JuJube (talk) 19:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Dicdef of a neologism.--TBC !?! 20:42, 26 February 2008 (UT

This word was invented by a troll in Yahoo Answers who goes under over a dozen names. He asks questions constantly that try to put "normal" people in a bad light. He also created the entry in the urban dictionary. He has referred to both asking for people's opinions of them. Both are written in the same writing-style as his Yahoo Answers questions. (For confirmation of this do a search on Yahoo Answers on the word "unnice" and you will find that PeteandCl, Pastasauce88, Cheesecakefries, Bostongreenleaf, Sucker, Chilidogsteak, lemonaidjuiceii, jigganyc, royalsweethights, noreagared, cherrysodalime, No pity, Magixstick, N, and others all write very similar questions citing "normal" people as "unnice".)

I think the person who created the word has a mental health issue. No self-respecting person with a disability would use it. No self-respecting person with a disability would refer to people without disabilities as "normal". This "unword" needs to be removed in its entirety. I have edited the entry at least 5 times only to have my edits removed. Xuxan Xuxan (talk) 00:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doubleplusungood sources suggesting not unmeaningful word--Rumping (talk) 18:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not an established concept, as concepts have higher requirements for verification than things in my opinion, not to say this has any though. Ansell 00:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Closed by a non-admin. ~ Dreamy ^§ 22:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invasion theory[edit]

Unsourced since June of 2006. I tried to add some references but the only Google hits that turn up refer to Aryan invasion theory, or trivial passing references to invasionism. Most likely impossible to assert its importance and notability. Hazillow (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A google scholar search returns many useful hits. The article claims that the theory has fallen out of fashion, and that it did so in the 1960s. Thus there's unlikely to be much online refs for it. It's not a horrid article. Could it be tagged for some project (history? archaeology?) for a few weeks to see if someone can clean it up a bit. I know it's had the unsourced link on it for some time. this source seems useful?? Dan Beale-Cocks 18:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the very term "invasion theory" itself is vague and undefined, as is the article. The fact is that there is no scholarly theory such as this, except perhaps in the article author's own head. It's not worth keeping. StudierMalMarburg (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, very definitely real and historical concept that desperately needs sourcing. --Dhartung | Talk 20:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn per Dan Beale-Cock's sources. I'll tag it for history. Hazillow (talk) 20:39, 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. Fram (talk) 14:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LTTE and Maoist Relations[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This AfD is a relist of the previous AfD on this matter due to the influence of a sockfarm. Soman's nomination rationale was that the article is merely an essay copypasta'd from various news sources. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing)} 16:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, as that's exactly what the article appears to be. so that's where all my missing socks are, and all this time I was blaming the dryer! TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 17:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dgf32 (talk) 18:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as well. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No RS given and has not been covered by major news sources that are respected. This is just another propaganda in the long running Sri Lankan Civil War. Closer look at the citations can assert that the citation used are once that have not been ever used on wikipedia and seems more like attack sites and random blogs rather than RS. Furthermore one RS citation is the US embassy but that citation does not even call any links between the two rebel groups. The other, Rediff, merely claims that the Moist claimed that they were Trained by the LTTE but this claim says it was decade ago and was assisted by "On the run" LTTE cadres. This is mere accusation and creating an article from accusations is not what we do in wikipedia. Other sources given are either citation of Sri Lankan Government and their associates like Asian Tribune. Writing an article from accusation of one of the warring party is in direct violation of WP:NPOV. Watchdogb (talk) 13:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomTaprobanus (talk) 22:49, 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 Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Rechcigl[edit]

The article has no claim of notability and does not satisfy WP:NOT. It also appears to be a COI as the creator of this article also created pages on her husband, father-in-law, and grandfather-in-law (although this is not the main reason for nominating this page). Furthermore, it may be useful to check out the AFD for the article subject's husband, the result of which was Delete. BWH76 (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like a resume or CV. No claim of notability. Unencyclopedic material. Dgf32 (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A google search does turn up items that point to potential notability. There are some publications to this person's name, in the specialized field of ornamental plant care, while other potential references seem to point toward some level of prestige within that narrow field. I didn't dig into it further than that. If references pan out, the article may be salvagable, but it would need significant work to bring it beyond the vanity bio/resume that it now appears to be. As it stands, weak delete. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 20:21, 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 for lack of reliable, independent sources, as indicated by those preferring to delete the article, and not shown to be incorrect by the others. Fram (talk) 14:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CigarettesPedia[edit]

No RS coverage, an Alex rank of 368,798 and ghits that don't assert notability. Appears to fail WP:WEB. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Site appears to be a significant source for collectors. Some third party coverage comes up on a Google search. Dgf32 (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reliable coverage? I see blogs, forums and mirrors. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hello, there!

I would like to give some explanations about the notability of CigarettesPedia. It contains images of cigarettes packs and articles regarding tobacco products and manufacturers. One can trace the history and evolution of any cigarette pack. The project does not promote smoking or smoking cessation. The resource itself is neutral.

About the ghits that don't assert notability, I suppose that this only shows that the supporters of the website did their job to increase traffic. I suppose that it deserves an article on WikiPedia. It is a quite young resource, but it has no analogies.

For example the article about Altria group http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altria and its Alex rank of 416,743. How this thing is connected or influences the notability of the article about the Altria in Wikipedia? I understand that it is up to you to decide to leave or to delete the article but taking into consideration that the resource is new may be you’ll kindly give it a little of support? As I mentioned before, the whole resource is neutral. I really do not know, but may be more neutral penmanship in the article? If you have any suggestions on how to improve the article- I am all ears, your assistance will be appreciated. Thank you for your time.--Arolga (talk) 11:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Arolga I realise you worked very hard to create this article, but just because other stuff exists doesn't mean it (or this) should. There's nothing to establish notability because there have been no reliable sources covering the site, its significance, etc. Wikipedia has notability guidelines for websites and this site doesn't appear to meet them, so it's not so much a question of re-writing. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 12:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear TRAVELLINGCARI, thank you for detailed explanation. Possible, this resource will be more notable for Wikipedia. Wish you luck in your hard work. --Arolga (talk) 13:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arolga (talk • contribs) 09:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nomination, blogs and forums != reliable sources for encyclopedias. Wikipedia should be no exception. (jarbarf) (talk) 20:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EVS Broadcast Equipment[edit]

Delete fails WP:CORP, WP:V. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:56, 20 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, — Scientizzle 16:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination; unreferenced article about a tech product. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:CORP, WP:V, WP:NOTE —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 22:55, 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 Not notable, with no sources for the claims made. --Step hen 04:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teefr[edit]

There are some ghits but no evidence of any RS coverage. The Dinosaur Interplanetary Gazette is owned by the author, so it's not independent. If there was a reliable source to confirm the claim it was "among the first novels ever published online in English" then it *might* be notable, but I doubt that. I've bundled the nn teddybear in this series

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 16:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly, this pretty much hinges on the claim of being "among the first novels ever published online in English", which I find a little hard to imagine. By late 1996 the internet was already pretty mainstream, and ebook publishers like Boson, Hard Shell, and Online Originals were gearing up. The LA Times recently wrote that "the Internet boomed with hundreds of amateur "hypertext novels" almost as early as the birth of the medium", and our own Hypertext fiction article supports this, with examples of online novels from 1987, and the first web novel from 1994. Of course, the Teefr article doesn't say it was the first, but was it truly among the first? That claim is fishy ay best, and at the very least not supported by any reliable sources that I could find. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Asserts no notability for novel itself. Claim of being an early novel published online would not make it notable even if it was verifiable. Dgf32 (talk) 18:25, 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 Delete Non-notable --Step hen 03:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ian K. Clark[edit]

As a composer or musician, he doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC as the only non-forum/download/mySpace site is this alumni mag which may or may not be the same person. Removing the middle initial creates a lot of false positives and still no RS coverage. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references, a paltry amount of information, and fruitless attempts at cleanup... seems to be a no-brainer. SingCal 18:42, 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 redirect to Doyle (guitarist) pending the establishment of independent notability. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gorgeous Frankenstein[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This was a speedy G4 declined by Sasquatch - article was previously deleted in a previous AfD. Article fails WP:N: the only importance of the band is that one member was in another band once. That band member also has his own article anyway. Article fails WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:V - no independent sources given for article, only 2 sources were the band's "official page", and a MySpace page which I deleted.. Also see WP:SPAM.

Delete and redirect to Doyle (guitarist), which is exactly what WP:MUSIC says to do with side-project type stuff. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as per suggestion above Bardcom (talk) 14:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete No sources given to establish notability --Step hen 09:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Drinkwater[edit]

Not really a Speedy candidate as there are some assertions of importance. Though I doubt they meet notability guidelines or academic guidelines. Polly (Parrot) 16:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You've barely given me a chance to enhance to enhance the article! Jamezp1 (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apparently co-authored a paper in 1979 with 2 other people. Google results for this name bring primarily other people, mostly geneological entries. Doesn't appear to pass WP:PROF. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now Article was just created today. Give the editor more time to assert notability and add verifiable citations. If the article still looks like it does not in a few days, then I would support a delete. Dgf32 (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per user above, give them time —— Ryan ^(t)^•^(c) 10:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google scholar comes up with a total of 6 papers and an underwhelming 23 citations for his co-written papers. I don't think there's much that extra time will help with here - if he is notable then it is not for his academic career, and it would only take the article creator a few seconds to tell us what it is for. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. There is no rush, give this a few weeks at least. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Phil Bridger. Does not seem to pass WP:PROF. It's now been several days and the article has not changed at all since its initial creation. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will be working to enhance the article over the weekend. 80.42.205.167 (talk) 15:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We don't need enhancement. Just verifiable sources that assert subject meets WP:N. Verifiability and notability are basic requirements for an article. Where did you get this information? Can you please cite the source(s). It should not take "weeks" to tell what sources were used in creating this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talk • contribs) 03:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of verifiable sources and lack of notability. The only link is to the subject's web page? Dlohcierekim 03:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. It may have been a bit bitey to nominate this so soon, but it has been over a week now and we still have no reliable evidence of encyclopedic note for this individual. (jarbarf) (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 14:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frankie's Playground[edit]

connections to notable musicians are only supported by biased external links; list of labels is really a list of artists; thisd article seems more bent on promotion than establishing notability - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be self-promotion. Reads like a press release. Article's creator is likely in the musical group that is the subject of the article. Fails to assert notability and provide verifiable citations. Dgf32 (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. not notable. Peter Fleet (talk) 12:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 —αlεx•mullεr 12:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries and organizations that list the PKK as a terrorist group[edit]

Such a controversial issue should be referenced. This probably has links only for USA and Turkey. TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC) If properly cited, however, article could better be merged into something, PKK for example.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 17:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - being uncited is not a reason for deletion. Read this. This says that the EU has classified it as a terror group, and therefore 27 of those countries can be cited now, if you wish to do that. I would recommend looking for sources before putting an article before AfD (that page took me a few seconds to find). Best regards, EJF (talk) 16:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This is an important and easily verifiable list that would be of great interest to anyone wanting to learn about the PKK, terrorism, or popular conceptions of what constitues a "terrorist organization." A list this long can't be merged into PKK without destroying the flow of that article. Unsourced does not mean "delete." Unsourced and cannot BE sourced does. Hazillow (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — POV fork, fails WP:V due to the large number of uncited entries, not likely to ever be compliant with WP:NPOV. Cited information, if there is any, could be incorporated into the main PKK article. *** Crotalus *** 17:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. NOT a POV fork. And the deletion process isn't to force people to clean up articles. EJF found a source in three seconds that could be cited for every country in the EU. Hazillow (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here: Wikipedia:POV_fork#Articles_whose_subject_is_a_POV. The article up for nomination is obviously not a POV fork. Hazillow (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Very true. Indeed,
  Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as "POV" — except in extreme cases of repeated vandalism
  This is a list that could easily be cited. I don't see how this list supports any POV. It only refers to factual actions taken by certain governments. It doesn't say "PKK are good/bad" or "Ireland are bad/good, they banned PKK". Sincerely, EJF (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what can be sourced into PKK. The title of this article sounds like begging the question. Bikasuishin (talk) 23:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but review in a month's time if no sources are added. GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 23:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not going to vote on this either way, but I'd just like to point out that the EU listing the PKK as a terrorist group is not the same as the individual nation states listing it as a terrorist group - they are, after all, separate entities. To be honest, I think this would be better off as being added to the PKK article in prose form rather than as a list. Supersheep (talk) 09:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Supersheep, European Union's structure causes that, if EU signs a treaty, it is the same as each nation has signed it. EU's current structure has some resemblance to US, when US federal government signs a treaty, all the individual states should employ it.Khutuck (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Treaty /= declaring a body a terrorist organisation. The EU and the US are not really comparable. Supersheep (talk) 02:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I have added most of the references required. Khutuck (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clubs' Next Top Model[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Clubs' Next Top Model

I think it exists, but it appears to fail WP:WEB as I don't see evidence of notability in any language. Creator is an SPA with an obvious COI TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails to meet notability criteria. Dgf32 (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteDoesn't appear to be very notable.-- Carerra^{"I help newcomers!} 23:03, 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. This is recreation of deleted material, specifically Lee Gooden, and as such, still does not prove notabilility through independent, reliable sources. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Adam Gooden[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. The assertion of notability rests on five articles published in the Post Star (Glen Falls, New York): Two focus on local amateur theatre (Gooden's name is mentioned), one concerns a workshop production of his play "Quaternity", and the remaining two deal with a poetry festival which was founded by a colleague (Gooden's name does not feature). Amateur theatre aside, his literary output appears to be limited to non-paying websites. He is the recipient of the "Parnassus Award for Poetry", the web presence of which is limited to this article and Gooden's blog. Apparently a recreation and expansion of an earlier article, Lee gooden [sic], which had been the subject of a speedy deletion. Both were created by the same single purpose account. Victoriagirl (talk) 15:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't pass WP:BIO or WP:N. Local newspapers generally aren't reliable sources, especially when that's all an article has, so fails WP:RS too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There seems to be a misunderstanding here. Local newspapers are reliable sources. Like national ones, they realize their credibility is their most important asset. Their news judgments reflect their audience, so their coverage of local events, organizations and people is likely to be more comprehensive than of coverage of what happens elsewhere. --Eastmain (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't really want to enter into the discussion on whether or not local newspapers can be considered reliable sources. My reason for writing about the Post Star articles included as references has to do, again, with WP:BIO. In short, there is no sign, even within the local press, that Gooden "has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Indeed, his name does not even appear in two of the five references provided. Victoriagirl (talk) 01:22, 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 Keep, nom withdrawn with consensus to keep. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sidney Rosenthal[edit]

The article contradicts itself, stating first that the subject invented the marker pen, then quotes the US patent office which says someone else did. Reference for the first claim is answers.com. Without a better ref, this has to be a delete. Note that the same info is repeated on Marker pen. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 15:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC) This now appears to be better sourced, nomination withdrawn. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 16:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as this Newsday article appears to back up the claim. I'm going to add it. I can't imagine a better source, however than answers.com ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travellingcari (talk • contribs) 16:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- sourced it, and there are more here. It appears true. I removed the OR and commentary from the article as well TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Slightly marginal, but there appear to be both newspaper and book sources that back it up. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:13, 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 —αlεx•mullεr 00:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop the Traffik (album)[edit]

Unreleased album (crystal ballism) with very little media coverage; fails WP:MUSIC#Albums and songs. Can be re-created if and when album is released or garners significant media attention. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Speculative content without significant sources to claim notability. Lacks verifiability. Dgf32 (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - isn't there a speedy category? There is almost no content, possibly because there's nothing to say - and this is crystalballery. I suspect WP:SPAM. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:CSD isn't applicable to albums. I think it's more fan-ism than spam-ism, anyway. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 16:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, people seem to want to be the first to create articles, end up jumping the gun. Blast Ulna (talk) 08:27, 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 all. Rjd0060 (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Bailey (singer)[edit]

Hoax article. No verifiable references show a singer named Derek Bailey (not to be confused with the well-known guitarist) having any success whatsoever. Google likewise turns up nothing about Dr. Dre working with anyone by that name. His website at derek-bailey.com is a joke. Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:V. Also adding two album articles. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Hoax and/or no real notability. Could almost speedy if it weren't for the fraudulent statements made. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. No verifiable sources to assert notability. All these pages should go. Dgf32 (talk) 15:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 19:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; hoaxalicious with a Retsyn™ coating. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 03:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is it a hoax? Maybe. Its hard to tell when there are no verifiable sources to go by. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:36, 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 Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supavadee Phangkaew[edit]

No claim of notability in article. 0 non-wiki ghits; external links in article don't mention this person. Contested prod. Fabrictramp (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to establish claim to nobility. Granted, one must be wary of trans cultural notability/verifiability issues. However, the creator and editors of this article have been requested to provide sourcing and have not done so. Surely, if notability could be established, they would have been able to by now. The links added to don't fit the bill. Dlohcierekim 15:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 00:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently in the process of adding to this article. Please refrain from simply deleting at this stage. Thanks 84.64.255.190 (talk) 23:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some verifiable sources asserting subject meeting notability is what we need. Will happily reconsider my position if can be shown to meet WP:V and WP:N. Cheers, and happy editing! Dlohcierekim 03:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but I do not totally exlucde the possibility of deletion. Just check the article's history; the user is taking his time to edit the article, so I persuade that we all give him more time to expand, but again with a limit, preferably up to one to two months more. I recommend that we call the creator (check the page history) and notify him of this first. Mr Tan (talk) 06:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and give more time Finding references may be more difficult in this case, since the majority of source material can be expected to be in the Thai language. The creater and other contributors should be given ample time with these difficulties in mind. Thanks and happy editing Demathis (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First edit. Dlohcierekim 16:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no reliable sources in the article at this time to verify notability. If the creator manages to produce such and wishes to expand this article, even if this AfD closes as delete, it can be userfied on request at deletion review. After sufficient sourcing is introduced to verify notability, the article could be restored to article space without concern about recreation. (Of course, if it was reintroduced without sufficient sourcing, it would be subject to speedy deletion.) In it's current state, it doesn't qualify. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 14:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candiss Casto-McGlynn[edit]

Article does not establish notability and does not provide sources to support any claims to notability (no awards, external articles, press coverage, etc.) Ozgod (talk) 15:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The article makes no claim of notability. Dgf32 (talk) 16:02, 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.

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

The result was delete. The article on the album "Ai no Uta" by the band Strawberry Flower does not verify notability. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ai no Uta (Album)[edit]

Unreleased album (crystal ballism) with no references and little or no media coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:V. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without checking, I smell some kind of a walled garden here. See Strawberry Flower and look at the singles section. The second and third were added after the first was also called the "only" at inception. Sales are within 10 copies of each other (and 100,000) for all 3? The second consists of remixes of the first? The album is based on the single released seven years before? Dekimasu よ! 07:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, walled gardens exist. Blast Ulna (talk) 08:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that there is a different, notable album called "Ai no Uta" which is currently on some sales charts in Japan. A deletion here should not be held against recreation of a different article at this title. Dekimasu よ! 01:27, 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 speedy delete.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 20:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spiel Mit Feuer[edit]

Fails WP:N, article about a school Dodgeball team Jeepday (talk) 15:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing notable about it. Punkmorten (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as A7/nn-group. Per the article: "...planning to play semi-professional Dodgeball by 2010". Geez. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dodgeball team. Herostratus (talk) 17:01, 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. -- Longhair\^talk 01:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basil Catterns[edit]

Article does not establish and does not provide references or citations to support notability. Ozgod (talk) 15:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Close to the margins of speedyable, it does (just) assert notability by the mention of the MC. Not enough information to avoid deletion, though. Tonywalton ^Talk 23:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Catterns was well known in Sydney during his life and made the 1956 Olympic doco etc.. Note unlike the in the nothern hemisphere, MCs were not "handed out with the rations" in the AMF especially in NG actions. Albatross2147 (talk) 01:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 02:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Catterns was the subject of a lengthy obituary in The Sydney Morning Herald, and I would say this isn't anywhere near speedyable. One of the more highly-decorated Australian military officers, and his actions during WW2 at Eora Creek were covered in The Toughest Fighting in the World by George Henry Johnston (1943) and Paul Cullen, Citizen and Soldier by Kevin Baker (2005). --Canley (talk) 02:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Others may correct me, but being the subject of an obituary in a major reputable daily such as the Sydney Morning Herald appears sufficient to assert notability. Murtoa (talk) 02:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The award of the Military Cross is a very notable honour. WWGB (talk) 06:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability established by AWM link and obituary. Article could do with expansion, but it's a keeper. •Florrie•leave a note• 08:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, they certainly didn't give out MCs like chocolates back then. That, plus the other things he's done, makes him easily notable enough for my liking. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per above, notability has been sufficiently asserted. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Florrie. Twenty Years 11:23, 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 SPEEDY DELETE. Re-creation of article formerly deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burke and Hare (musical) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burke and Hare: The Musical[edit]

Non-notable play performed at high school; lacked speedy cat., prod removed without discussion - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit] DON'T DELETE!!!!! Correct me if i'm wrong but isn't Wikipedia a website that allows people to find out information about certain subjects? It's just that alot of people who would like to find out about Burke and Hare: The Musical have gone onto the previous Burke and Hare: The Musical wikipedia page and read up on it. So why is the article getting deleted? It's a genuine article about a genuine musical, if you need proof then I can show you photos, links to newspapers that previewd it, the offical Burke and Hare; The Musical web page, What more do you want! —Preceding unsigned comment added by

Lochaber High School I have you know that Lochaber High School DID perform Burke and Hare: The Musical it even says so on Lochaber High School the wikipedia article, follow this link and see...http://www.lochaber-news.co.uk/news/fullstory.php/aid/1620/Show_hits_a_gruesome_note....html please allow the article to exist, i beg you! 212.219.203.157 (talk) 15:05, 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 Speedy delete - nonsense/hoax. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 16:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya Brahmana Kusuma Firmansyah[edit]

The article is actually about a different person altogether, David R. Cheriton. A quick check of all the links reveals that all the info credited to Mr. Aditya are in fact those referring to Mr. David. The article includes even a picture of Mr. David R. Cheriton. Welt^anschaunng 14:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Welt^anschaunng 14:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete hoax per nominator. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong (speedy?) delete as hoax. I blanked the page since we can be reasonably sure all of the information is inaccurate (per Wales: better no information than wrong information). A link to the pre-blanked version is here [16]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mscuthbert (talk • contribs) 21:26, 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 defaulting to Keep, disagreement over whether he meets notability criteria. Davewild (talk) 18:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Loren Chasse[edit]

fails musician notability criteria - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete No claim of any notability. Dgf32 (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable musician. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Former member of notable band (that I was somewhat surprised to find without their own Wikipedia article), Mirza (AMG link); if any more coverage as meaty as the SF Weekly article could be found, I'd probably tip the other way. (Disclosure: I was asked to come here.) —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 16:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nowhere even close to passing WP:MUSIC. Probably Jewelled Antler should go too, but that's a seperate issue. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong keep - I'm really surprised at the comments made after the article was in its current state. This guy has an article about him in the SF Weekly, an article on Piero Scaruffi's site, was a member of several notable bands (many of whom, granted, don't have articles yet but easily satisfy WP:MUSIC on their own; he and his work are covered on All Music in those articles: 1 2 3 4 - those are just the articles and reviews that list Chasse by name; the Thuja article has several reviewed albums as well. Pitchfork Media has also reviewed albums from Chasse's bands (1 2), and even mentions Chasse in relation to Jeweled Antler even for albums he didn't personally play in (1 2). All this AND the essay was AfD'd fifteen minutes after creation while an established editor was still working on it - where was the assumption of good faith? The SF Weekly article was already linked when it was nominated. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 04:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Torc. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the rationale provided by Torc2, I believe that this subject does pass WP:MUSIC, just marginally. (jarbarf) (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 21:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baphomets Throne[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Appears not to meet any of the critera listed at Wikipedia:Notability (music) eg. hits on a national music chart, albums released on a major label, major music awards, regularly played on major radio networks or certified gold sales and the official website [17] has no information that the band meet these criteria. Previsously deleted in December 2007. Speedy deleted from es:, nl:, no:, sl:, sv: and da:. Thuresson (talk) 13:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weakest conceivable keep. The article currently says that Rob Darken of Graveland was in the band at one point, which would make it pass criterion 6 of the criteria cited. That said, those criteria also point out that a redirect is often a better result here, and that may be the best result in this case too. I'm also having a bit of trouble verifying that Darken actually was in the band, although that may be due to my lack of Polish rather than anything else. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no information on the webpage supporting that Rob Darken ever was a member of the band. Various websites suggests that Rob Darken held a different capacity, such as playing keyboard at recording sessions. Thuresson (talk) 10:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Duly noted. Encyclopedia Metallum lists a couple of other members as being in various other bands, and I'm still trying to track down the notability of those bands. If I don't before the AfD ends, then I won't object if the article is deleted. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BigHaz, as, presumably, he has been unable to locate evidence of the notability of those bands. :) There's insufficient in the article as stands to verify notability. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (sources) to the article. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Renfroe[edit]

Non-notable internet phenomenon, minimal secondary sources, fails WP:BIO and WP:BLP1E. Relata refero (talk) 13:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, apparently's been hired by GMA as a "special contributor". May put her over the margin for notability. The one youtube videos and a few concerts didn't do it for me, but this might. More sources being searched for. Relata refero (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero coverage from anything that passes as an independent reliable source. Posting a popular video on YouTube does not automatically make you notable. Terraxos (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Google news for the past month alone gives dedicated coverage in ABC News, The Independent, The New York Times, and Publishers Weekly. Youtube also has coverage from CBS here. What more can you want? -Paularblaster (talk) 18:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment sources have now been added to the article to the extent that they were not present already (in the unhelpful form of unidentified http links). --Paularblaster (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'm inclined to think that GMA and the added sources do put her over the margin, though not by much. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Step hen 01:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Arenson[edit]

Contested prod. Non-notable journalist, coverage related only to one event, and so ruled out per WP:BLP1E. That other event already covered in the appropriate article. Relata refero (talk) 13:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What other article? I'm not seeing it. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a link to Joseph Massad in there, who was the central figure in that internal investigation. Criticism of a particular NY Times article was a very minor little aspect of a relatively non-encylopaedic controversy. Relata refero (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, there wasn't. I've added a link and done some other clean up. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep a notable reporter and a notable scandal. If anything, this is material that cannot be reasonably included in the Massad article and should therefore be kept separately. I'm getting a bit tired of the use of BLP1E to argue for very general deletions when BLP1E specifically talks about things like "unimportant criminals" not reporters for the New York Times(which lets not forget is the newspaper of record in the United States) who have been the subject of controversy. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rot. If you think the scandal is notable, start an article on it. The so-called references here mention the Times article only in passing, and in neither case talk about the individual reporter in detail - as well they shouldn't, because the error in question reflects on the editorial team as much if not more. (In fact the Sun specifically says "between the two institutions".)

And BLP1E says "When a person is associated with only one event, such as for a particular relatively unimportant crime or for standing for governmental election.." What part of "such as" gives you trouble? Relata refero (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the examples given are much less notability. "relatively unimportant crime" is something like a random thief. That's much less notable than an NYT reporter. And Areson has name has been in the neews in other contexts as well other than just this controversy. See this for example. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? This random reporter is much more notable than that guy in Australia? Please. In any case, this is a straightforward application of policy as written. If you have a problem with the policy, there are other places to argue that.

And if your best example of another story is "random journalist who happened to be quoted as one of thousands who happen to have donated money to political campaigns", it doesn't help much. Relata refero (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that article isn't probably the most persuasive evidence for that particularly claim. I'll spend more time later looking for additional sources of that form. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And for some reason I've been quite snappy in this whole discussion.... sorry about that. Relata refero (talk) 20:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Seemed fine to me. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to have been the subject of external criticism making her sufficiently notable. As this directly relates to her professional capacity, it is not BLP1E, it is her career. This is far different from being, say, an interview subject or other incidental relation to a single event. --Dhartung | Talk 20:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, firstly, is that interpretation actually in BLP1E? Relata refero (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well no, but it is a highly reasonable interpretation of the logic behind BLP1E. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sigh*. I don't think so, but will consider it for a bit. Relata refero (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My argument was derived from the closely related WP:COATRACK#What is not a coatrack. --Dhartung | Talk 07:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and help - the problem with this page is that it is difficult to find info on her not because its not out there - it almost certianly is - but because she has an ordinary name. I tried, for example googling "karen arenson" "new York Times" award - to see what journalism prizes she has won. likely she has won some. Problem is, myriad articles pop up that she has written about somebody or other who ha won an award.

I suspect that if we leave this up for a while, somebody who knows more aobut her will know the good key words to google to find articles that discuss her work in a positibe way.

In fact, in general, when an article seems biased, the best fix may be to leave it up unitil somebody who admires the subject can type in better info. American Clio (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC) American Clio[reply]

Keep per JoshuaZ, I too am tired of seeing BLP1E misused in entirely inappropriate situations. RFerreira (talk) 23:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, explain how this is inappropriate. Policy is clearly written to include such cases, why do you want to make an exception? Relata refero (talk) 07:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Her work is regularly cited in books and scholarly articles, so she seems to be very notable as a journalist, quite apart from any controversy. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She's a journalist! Of course she's occasionally cited. If that's your concern, then she fails WP:PROF as well. Relata refero (talk) 08:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ho hum, what is the problem here? No "exceptions" are being made here, the person is just notable as a matter of fact. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In heaven's name, how? Where has she been the subject of at least two independent stories in reliable sources about her? Relata refero (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable person, fails WP:RS. She has not been the subject of significant coverage from reliable sources; out of the references provided, the only one that could plausibly be called 'significant coverage' is a blog, which flatly fails WP:RS. The rest are either articles written by her, or brief mentions of her in articles about something else (i.e. the New York Times-Columbia University controversy). It's pretty clear from the sources that it's that controversy which is notable, not Arenson herself. Indeed, this article is basically a coatrack, which uses Arenson as an excuse to talk about the Columbia University controversy. Terraxos (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. The subject is a notable New York Times reporter and I would expect that interested parties would want to turn to Wikipedia to learn more about her. (jarbarf) (talk) 20:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 14:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Ninth Wave[edit]

Non-notable school newsletter. Contested prod. Insufficient notable, reliable, secondary sources. Relata refero (talk) 13:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing notable about it. Four pages? Punkmorten (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 19:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Blast Ulna (talk) 08:27, 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 Closed as moot. Article has already been deleted by User:Orangemike. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tin Whistle Man[edit]

Non-notable person. Few google hits for exact term, none relating to the subject of this article. Think outside the box 12:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - have tagged it as such. Completely no-notable, and no references to confirm notability. Unencyclopaedic - Fritzpoll (talk) 12:59, 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. Arguments by keeper(s?) are not convincing, sources mostly don't even mention Justin Wells. Fram (talk) 14:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Wells[edit]

Article about television person of questioned notability and without sources; was proposed for deletion but has already been deleted once per prod, so it should be discussed here. Tikiwont (talk) 12:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in the article suggests notability. Lacks verifiability as well. Dgf32 (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete A local news producer does not merit a page on Wikipedia. Producers sit in the control room and witness notable events daily. Their mere presence is not encyclopedic. Now if we're talking the producer of a nationally-recognized newscast who has earned major awards and accolades, they may merit inclusion. Plus, this was deleted once before. Burghboy80 (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:BIO and seems like it is probably a conflict of interest issue also. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 19:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article was since updated to address notability issue. Individual is an Edward R. Murrow winner which is more prestigious than an Emmy in journalism. Very well known for coverage of hurricanes and sits on national journalism leadership boards. Is regularly featured in television industry publications [[User:Newsguyupdate|Newsguyupdate] (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.53.104 (talk) [reply]

It might help if you clarify and source which of the various Edward R. Murrow Awards he has one? If it is the one by the RTNDA, where he is also listed as member, it seems to be a community award. --Tikiwont (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears it has now been referenced to and is linked to on the wiki page which previously had issues with missing references. I work at NBC and am familiar with his work. Did a google and it appears he won the award with the host of the coverage Maggie Rodriguez. Based on frequent publication individual may merit inclusion. --Newsguyupdate (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.53.104 (talk) [reply]

Well the added link tells me that WFOR-TV, Miami has won a 2007 RTNDA Regional Murrow Award (not a national one), not even mentioning Wells personally, not that RTNDA Edward R. Murrow Award as membership organization award would automatically confer notability in any case. Also most of the other sources added are very generic and refer to program etc. So without some good sources about Wells himself, he shouldn't have personal bio here.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link to TelevisionWeek article is an interview with Wells which was published. I've also read him as a contributor in other Television Week articles in the past that are published in magazine and not online. The other links back up other claims in article. --Newsguyupdate (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.53.104 (talk) [reply]

Strong Keep it appears article was updated to address notability. this is a natl award winner and referenced were posted to the many publications he's been quoted in as wiki references. as someone who works in media, i know he is a well-recognized name for anyone who is trying to get 'in the door.' he is a hiring manager at fox NYCnewz (talk) 10:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)— NYCnewz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I'd like to add that I, too, work in media for a New York company and have won Murrow Awards as part of a team. He is not a hiring manager at Fox, as you speak, but WNYW. There is a distinct difference between working for a major network and for a local station. If hiring manager is the only qualification you require, then every HR representative should be posted on here.Burghboy80 (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Working for a company based in New York (i.e. a Pittsburgh station), and actually working in New York is very different. This person works at the Fox NY headquarters. References cite programs individual has managed and produced with record breaking multi-million dollar revenue, which clarifies he is not simply a 'hiring manager' I've also read several contributions he's made in print publication TelevisionWeek. I think this merits inclusion for anyone researching the big media companies in New York--Newsguyupdate (talk) 20:41, 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 non-notable --Step hen 09:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Wright (Professional Gamer)[edit]

Aside from the obvious style and conflict of interest issues (having apparently been written by the subject of the article himself), notability seems questionable; while the gaming team Birmingham Salvo does have a WP article and sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:V, individual members do not; sources go no further than a couple of mentions by name in the Metro and Mirror as far as I can tell. ~Matticus ^U_C 12:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - subject not notable except for this membership of a gaming team, so should only be mentioned within Birmingham Salvo - Fritzpoll (talk) 13:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd say merge with the Birmingham Salvo article, but there isn't anything there worth merging. Alberon (talk) 13:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and "Birmingham Salvo" is marginal at best, although that's another issue. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Birmingham Salvo would be fine for now. There are not enough reliable sources available to warrant a separate article at this time. RFerreira (talk) 23:21, 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 Not notable, for now. --Step hen 04:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Troisi[edit]

Contested PROD. Has not made an appearance in a fully professional league, so fails WP:ATHLETE. robwingfield ^«T•C» 19:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. robwingfield ^«T•C» 19:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GiantSnowman (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BanRay 22:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was posted by an IP on the talk page of this AfD rather than the page itself, I do not endorse the opinion but copy it here for the sake of completeness: ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please keep James Troisi's page. He's literally games away from a senior start. He's played in many friendlies, including in a recent trial with Roda JC. He also nearly made the final squad for Australia's World Cup Qualifier against Qatar, despite not yet having played first team football. Once again, first team football for this kid AND MORE, like Senior National Team selection, is just around the corner. Please stick with this entry as he's considered one of Australia's most promising talents who may impact for us as soon as Australia's next World Cup Qualifier against China on March 26th, though I suspect he may see first team football at club level, just before then ;) .

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks notability. Subjective claims of athlete's future potential do not merit inclusion in Wikipedia. Dgf32 (talk) 15:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although he has recently been involved with the full national team and is listed as a first team member of the Newcastle squad he hasnt made a debut, so page can be deleted and restored when he does so. Nufc2006 (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per nom, though I think this is probably one of those cases where turning a blind eye wouldn't harm Wikipedia. Still rules is rules. John Hayes^talk 11:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:FOOTY/Notability the article can be recreated if/when he makes his professional debut. English peasant 01:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - A possible borderline claim to notability as composer is outweighed by a rather widespread agreement that there aren't enough independent sources for a biography. Tikiwont (talk) 11:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael L. Vincent[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)).

Delete Non notable musician, no non-trivial sources, fails WP:BIO I have done a google search and cant find any published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent or independent of the subject. BigDunc (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is little coming up on google for him, but this is not unusual for a contemporary composer. There are 4 independent news stories from canadian news papers concerning his work on a notable project cited. His opera is also listed in a reputable opera database. His piece "Essence" was included on a publicly available CD of electroacoustic works, and he is also listed in a significant composers community website (Canadian Electroacoustic Community). These sources seem reliable and intellectually independent and seem to be a reflection of the notability of this composer.Gregg Potts (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry they won't get it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.64 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 26 February 2008
Delete - there is little or nothing available about this supposedly notable opera, outside of a non-notable advertising-supported website; "publicly available" is not the same as "signed by a major label," but rather just a step above self-publishing; and "community website" = "forum= = "not a reliable source." The notes that talk about Triaspora do not, in many cases, even mention his involvement, and thus certainly fail any test of notable mention. The Georgia Straight I consider a reliable source; but neither article from the Straight cited so much as mentions Vincent's name in passing. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- response - I just wanted to to clarify one point in Orgemikes comment above regarding Vincent's CD. After some research, It seems is in fact produced by a major label/organization called Canadian Electroacoustic Community. The CD in question "Discontact III" features a jury selected compositions. This alone seems to suggest he is notable.Gregg Potts (talk) 00:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Orangemike and the fact that my search didn't turn up anything else either. Please also note that Greg Potts has a vested interest in this article's continued existence TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 00:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - how so? I've been assuming good faith all along on this. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

response

- response - Regarding the comment on my "vested interest," of myself by TRAVELLINGCAR, I can assure you it is my sole intent to add to the wiki content, and there is nothing wrong with supporting a wiki entry questioned notability using the facts. Remember, this is debate should be made using the facts alone and not users personal opinions behind others intent. Gregg Potts (talk) 00:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- response - per our guidelines on conflict of interest, if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when: 1. Editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with, 2. Participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors... You have failed to do either. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- response -Again your personal assumptions are not relevant to this debate regarding the notability of Michael Vincent. I have respond to the comment, and assured you I have no conflicts of interest. Like you I've been assuming good faith. This is my first article, and I believe he is a notable addition to wikipedia so I have added it. 5 min after adding it, it was consistently tagged for speedy deletion, and passed despite the continued attacks. The evidence has been disregarded. It is a shame there are many who seem interested in arguing in the removal of relevant wiki material.Gregg Potts (talk) 01:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - my personal assumptions are aside, and he's still not notable per WP:N, WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 01:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

response -What no-one seems to be admitting here is that he has been established as notable according to point 2 of the Wikipedia:Notability (music) guidelines for a composer. It states:

"Has written musical theatre of some sort (includes musicals, operas, etc) that was performed in a notable theatre that had a reasonable run as such things are judged in their particular situation and time." His musical theatre work Triaspora was performed in a notable theatre (Chan Centre for the Performing Arts), Vancouver's premiere theatre (http://www.chancentre.com/), and it had a reasonable run. Triaspora was covered by 4 independent news sources ("The Province", The "Vancouver Sun", "The North Shore News", and Georgia Straight) all previously cited, and effectively establishing it as FACT. Michael Vincent is a notable composer period.Gregg Potts (talk) 01:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The performances and references add up to notability. Coverage of a musical composition is equivalent to coverage of the composer. --Eastmain (talk) 02:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 02:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 02:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 02:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have seen the website, and read the arguments for and against. If the question is if he is notable, it looks simple to enough to me - yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.75.77 (talk) 02:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC) — 24.80.75.77 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment As Orangemike states the only reliable source that can be found remotely related is the Straight and it doesn't even mention this non notable composer, also if there is a WP:COI it would be good if it was cleared up thanks.BigDunc (talk) 09:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- response - This was cleared up if you already if you have been following the argument: ("The Province", The "Vancouver Sun", "The North Shore News", and Georgia Straight) are all reputable news agencies. With all due respect, It would be more helpful if you keep up with the arguments instead of insinuating incorrect information.Gregg Potts (talk) 14:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete The sources are as follows: Trivial coverage, own website, trivial coverage, trivial coverage,no mention of Vincent, trivial coverage, no mention of Vincent, trivial coverage, no mention of Vincent, no mention of Vincent. The only sources are namechecks in passing. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

response - These 4 objective news sources are about Vincent's project not Vincent. The point of these sources were to establish the notability of the musical theatre work. His participation in the project is noted on this website <http://www.orchidensemble.com/multi_triaspora.php>. It is not unusual for news stories to not mention the composer when many performers are involved ie: dance, live visual images, and a Chinese chamber ensemble. AGAIN, his musical theatre work Triaspora was performed in a notable theatre (Chan Centre for the Performing Arts), Vancouver's premiere theatre (http://www.chancentre.com/), and it had a reasonable run. Triaspora was covered by 4 independent news sources ("The Province", The "Vancouver Sun", "The North Shore News", and Georgia Straight) all previously cited, and effectively establishing it as FACT. According to wiki own rules, they are notable. Interesting no-one is arguing this particular FACT.Gregg Potts (talk) 14:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If Vincent is notable, you should be able to produce sources about him. All you've produced is namechecks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is not unusual for news stories to not mention the composer when many performers are involved that's not true, composers are frequently mentioned if they merit mention, i.e. are notable TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 15:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would have to agree with you there TRAVILLINGCARI just look here notable composer and mentioned in first line. BigDunc (talk) 15:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

response - I think this debate is a good one, and appreciate all the stimulating comments being made on this! However, nobility of a composer is not synonymous with fame how how many times his name in mentioned in the press. It is based on the 6 clear criteria listed in wiki guidelines regarding notability of a composer:

For composers, songwriters, librettists or lyricists:

1: Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.
2: Has written musical theatre of some sort (includes musicals, operas, etc) that was performed in a notable theatre that had a reasonable run as such things are judged in their particular situation and time.
3: Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria.
4: Has written a song or composition which has won (or in some cases been given a second or other place) in a major music competition not established expressly for newcomers.
5: Has been listed as a major influence or teacher of a composer, songwriter or lyricist that meets the above criteria.
6: Appears at reasonable length in standard reference books on his or her genre of music.

Now according to this, if he satisfies any of these, he is unarguably notable (for wiki standard). I have proved with verifiable sources he satisfies point 2. Evidence of this is found in 4 independent news stories describing the project- (not Vincent specifically, but the project). Evidence found on this website that claims he was a co-composer: <http://www.orchidensemble.com/multi_triaspora.php>. According to wiki's own rules, specific for composers he clearly qualifies as a noted composer. Case closed, he should not be deleted. I suggest that if some sources need editing, then they need to be edited, but the validity of this articles presence on wiki should not be in question.Gregg Potts (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've not seen a reliable source that says the theatre was notable, or that the run was of a reasonable length, thus point 2 is not satisfied to the best of my knowledge. There are still no non-trivial independent reliable sources, please provide them. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are few notable Canadian composers - Michael Vincent is one of them. He has made his mark in every corner of Canada, with ongoing performances from Montreal to Vancouver. He has an audience which appreciates his pioneering movement to use pre-recorded elements (text especially) and make the classical genre approachable to mass audiences; this isn't a common theme here just yet (as opposed to the states). True, his name may not be all over the press (as he is commissioned to compose most of his works), but his works are and that should speak for his notability, not against - that he is sought after by Canadian performers to compose for them.Wasfou514 (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)wasfou 514 — Wasfou514 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment Sources? There's still no evidence he passes WP:MUSIC TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- response -Sources have already been listed. (4 articles describing the project, and one source conforming Vincent participated in it.)- see aboveGregg Potts (talk) 19:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources about Vincent, instead of ones that mention his name. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

response -Again, these sources mention his project which makes them relevant in establishing the significance of it an an entity in itself. His link to the project are provided elsewhere- the project website. The two combine to establish his notability as per point 2 of the wiki rule regarding notability of composers (see above for full enumerated list).Gregg Potts (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, they might establish the notability of his project, but they do nothing to assert his notability. Major composers are notable, there's no evidence this one is. I also echo the above comments, COI is an issue here as you're unable to look at the article from a neutral POV. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 19:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As far as I can see, the theatre isn't notable, and the run wasn't of a reasonable length - thus meaning he fails point 2. It's quite clear by your inability to actually provide sources that mention Vincent in any level of detail that they don't exist, meaning he fails the primary notability criterion. Also as his press "coverage" (and I use that term loosely) is only in the context of the show in question, WP:MUSIC recommends merging him there anyway, thereby removing most of this puff piece. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could anyone provide a WP:V and WP:RS link regarding the notability of theatre?BigDunc (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Searching "Vancouver Performing Arts Theatres" brings up many sources: According to the official website of the city (Vancouver), it is mentioned:<http://www.hellobc.com/en-CA/SightsActivitiesEvents/ArtsCulturalHistoricalExperiences/TheatrePerformingArts/Vancouver.htm> It is also included on this website <http://www.cultureandcommunities.ca/resources/cultural-facility-profiles/artspace-north/chan-centre.html> Ticketmaster (Canada's primary source for concert tickets) has many shows listed: <http://www.ticketmaster.ca/venue/139280> This seems to suggest it is well established, and notable.

In regards to the run, according to the cited website and the source articles it was performed over a 3 days, and two different cities and venues. <http://www.asiancanadian.net/2007/09/triaspora-orchid-ensemble-moving-dragon.html> and one place here: cached file: <http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:7FXK_2E4RLUJ:www.harbourliving.ca/event/crimson-coasts-infringing-dance-festival-triaspora/2007-09-15/+InFringing+Dance,+Nanaimo+BC,+Triaspora&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=safari>. Looks like a reasonable run.Gregg Potts (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid WP:DRAMA won't help. :) Vincent's alleged notability is as a composer; theater-related guidelines, even if they existed, wouldn't be much help here. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly won't, it's a redirect to WP:ANI ;) One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sorry, might I remind you of the notability criteria: "Has written musical theatre of some sort (includes musicals, operas, etc) that was performed in a notable theatre that had a reasonable run as such things are judged in their particular situation and time." Triaspora ran for a reasonable run and was notable as a project - this alone should satisfy the notability requirement.
In addition, although Generation X did not see a run, it was a notable project involving slam style poetry and did place Michael Vincent at a different level as a composer by collaborating with notable artist and author, Douglas Coupland.
Finally, many of his pieces have seen multiple performances in notable theatres and in different incarnations.
I believe that if you're going to claim :COI, you should perhaps claim it on yourself, as it seems you have a vendetta against an actual young and notable Canadian composer and we as the audience will continue to defend this sought after composer's notability, just as we would John Oswald's (already included on wiki) or Arne Eigenfeldt's. No need to add sources, they're all there and I'm sure there will be more to come over time as performances and press arise.Wasfou514 (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)wasfou514[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF is not valid. I have no COI, I just don't believe non-notable people should be included per WP's guidelines. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 21:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to prove the theatre is notable, and I don't consider that any reasonable thinking person would consider a three day run in any way notable. And yet again, I request sources that cover Vincent with more than a namecheck. Do they exist? Yes/No (delete as applicable) One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Over 3 days and two different cities was that once in each city, with a break in between or 3 performances? Not a very lenghty run.BigDunc (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

response: According to the links, the run was 3 days, in 2 cities. Two were in Vancouver at the Chan Centre, and 1 was in Nanaimo as part of a larger dance festival. The run is short compared to a broadway show, or an event an opera at the MET, but I think reasonable for a contemporary musical theatre show with multimedia, and modern dance.Gregg Potts (talk) 04:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Get over yourselves, anyone who doesn't understand that he's notable is racist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.64 (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I have access to the complete Canadian Newsstand archives till 1980, and I can't find any non-trivial coverage of this. I guess that makes me racist. --Haemo (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

response: -AGAIN, according to wiki guideline regarding the notability of composers, Vincent qualifies for category number 2:

"Has written musical theatre of some sort (includes musicals, operas, etc) that was performed in a notable theatre that had a reasonable run as such things are judged in their particular situation and time."

This point has been established with 4 factual news sources (previously cited) and all but one were proved significant news sources ("The Province", The "Vancouver Sun", and Georgia Straight). The production website (previously cited) clearly states that he composed the music. The theatre has been proved a notable, and the run a reasonable length. If you can't disprove these facts, then no matter what anyone personally believe, according to wiki guidelines he is notable and should qualify as notable. You may not like it, but "thems the rules folks" :)Gregg Potts (talk) 04:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment. The burden still exists to provide multiple nontrivial sources, i.e. lengthy writeups about this composer and his works/career, to establish notability. The sources provided may be reliable, but they are trivial mentions, at best. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 04:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

response: Basic notability guidelines are only 'generally' relevant, and mainly concern cases with no specific stipulation unique to the artcile topic. Remember this is an article about a composer, and wiki has special guidelines concerning the notability of composers. These special composer notability standards should be the ones used to measure Vincent's notability: WP:MUS (see section re:composer). As a side note, I think it is helpful to understand something about the Canadian contemporary classical music 'scene'. In Canada, (and perhaps elsewhere), unless a composer is famous worldwide, they are usually just mentioned as composer of the works in question (as some have described as trivial)- they are often overshadowed by the performers and the musical event itself. I suspect this is why there are special guideline reserved for occupations requiring a unique set of notability standards.Gregg Potts (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:Bio#Basic_criteria. I've been to every source provided, and there is not one of those listed that is anything more than a trivial mention. In fact, a some don't even mention him at all, and this is an article about him, not his works. It is early in his career, wait until there is something substantial that the music community has written about him. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 04:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am personally changing to Keep per Voceditenore's extensive research below on the subject. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 01:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

response: I don't think anyone is stating any one of these prove notability on there own. However they all help map the work of this composer and are relevant to the article. Remember citations are provided not just to prove notability, but also offer links to further information on relevant to topics, idea etc raised in the article. His notability is established using wiki guidelines for establishing notability of a composer. WP:MUS (see section re:composer)Gregg Potts (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- response Please note that there are separate criteria for musicians and composers, see WP:MUSIC. This leads to our going around in circles - In an effort to not repeat everything listed above: The coverage of composed musical theatre production is from reliable sources and not trivial, as complete articles were dedicated to the production. As his contribution as composer to the production has been confirmed in the various articles, and as the production ran for a reasonable run, his notability is also confirmed.137.82.115.250 (talk) 20:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC) — 137.82.115.250 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note. I have listed this discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers, Wikipedia:WikiProject Contemporary music, and the talk pages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music and Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera for more specialized views on the subject. Note to closing admin - please allow more time. Thank you. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 08:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article says: "Michael also contributed as one of four composers in a . . . work entitled Triaspora, performed at the Chan Centre for the Performing Arts on September 21-22, 2007 . . ." . The Chan Centre is indeed notable in the sense that well-known international artists perform there, such as Emanuel Ax and Bryn Terfel. So this does appear to establish some (possibly slight) degree of notability given that Vincent's name appears in reviews.-- Kleinzach (talk) (Opera Project) 09:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC) Followup: I now understand that the performance was not on the main stage, so I am withdrawing my opinion above. -- Kleinzach (talk) 11:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Fails WP:Bio#Basic_criteria, and I can't find any reason to why he should be notable. --EivindJohnsen (talk) 08:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Neutral (See my comment Looking further below. Voceditenore (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)) I'm here because of a notice at the Opera Project asking for comment. You might want to look at the criteria we use in borderline cases, such as this one, which was at the very minimum of the notabilty required for a keep. In my view, Michael Vincent isn't there yet. I've checked out all the independent sources provided in the article and in my view, they are not enough to establish notability for the following reasons:[reply]

Vincent is only mentioned in passing as one of the four composers whose pieces were used in Triaspora, a dance work. He's not mentioned at all in some of the 'references' provided for these performances. All the articles for Triaspora are similar and are about the choreographer/dancers of the Moving Dragon ensemble and (to a certain extent), the musicians in the Orchid Ensemble - not him. The references for his other work are all simple announcements of performances, i.e. trivial. Neither he nor any of his compositions has been the subject or significant component of non-trivial independent coverage as required by the Music Notability Guidelines. The fact that he doesn't appear much on a Google search isn't necessarily an indication of non-notability. Coverage of contemporary composers and their work may appear only in specialist publications that aren't online. Having said that, these have to be reputable, independent, (and non-student) publications. However, I note that there are no references to such articles about the subject or his work listed in his Wikpedia article. I'm sure if they existed, they'd be listed.
Triaspora may have been performed in a notable arts centre, but note that it wasn't on the main stage of the Chan centre, it was in the Telus Studio Theatre. Its 'run' consisted of 2 performances, and Vincent was not the sole composer's work used in the production. In fact, I'm wondering exactly how much of the music was provided by him. Even the production itself is only borderline notable (at least judging from the sources provided).
The opera he's composed was part of his Master of Fine Arts degree requirement at Simon Fraser University, and so far has only been performed as a student production.
There is no indication that his music has even been published, let alone by a noted music publisher.
As for the 'awards' listed, they are all student grants and fellowships, including the "Alain Award in Electroacoustic Composition" at Concordia University (see [18]).
The assertion in a comment above that "He has made his mark in every corner of Canada, with ongoing performances from Montreal to Vancouver" has no verification at all in independent, reliable, and notable Candadian sources. Again, if proper verification is available to justify such a statement, why is it not in the article? I'm afraid that "I've heard of so-and-so and they're great" is not a valid argument in a notability discussion on Wikipedia. Voceditenore (talk) 10:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

addenda to 1. & 2. above To call Triaspora a musical theatre work which Vincent composed or to refer to it as "His musical theatre work" is stretching the limits of the notability guideline for composers to its breaking point in my view. In addition, the only other performance apart from the 2 in the studio theatre of the Chan Center was a single performance in Malaspina University-College Theatre. Voceditenore (talk) 11:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

addenda to 3. above To say (as someone did higher up the page) that Vincent "collaborated with notable artist and author, Douglas Coupland" for his opera Generation X is also not quite accurate. Having read Vincent's M.F.A. thesis, Coupland does not appear to have had any significant input in the project or have collaborated actively apart from granting Vincent permission to use parts of his novel for the dialogue.[19]

Looking further Inspired by Michael Bednarek's comments, I've pursued this a little further, as I wanted to make sure we weren't doing the article (and its subject) an injustice. What has been presented so far as evidence is not really enough to establish notability. His role in Triaspora was slightly exaggerated (as was it having been performed in a 'notable theatre' in a 'reasonable run'), and the purported 'collaboration' with Douglas Coupland was frankly misleading. However, in the case of a contemporary composer, having more than one composition played by more than one reasonably notable ensemble might possibly help make up for an almost total lack of independent published coverage of either him or his compositions. So I followed up some of the others mentioned in the article (and surprisingly not mentioned in the discussion here). What the article calls the 'Bozzini String Quartet' is actually Quatuor Bozzini who are reasonably notable, e.g.[20]; as is the Bradyworks ensemble's director Tim Brady (not currently linked to his Wikipedia article in the Michael L. Vincent article) and John Oswald who is linked. Vincent himself is not mentioned on the official web sites of any of them, but I have no reason to doubt that they did play his work or include it in their programs. The ÉuCue festival at Concordia University, (where a lot of his work seems to have been played does get a few mentions in Computer Music Journal published by MIT Press. (I can only access the abstracts though, not the articles). Is all that enough? I don't know. Possibly. Voceditenore (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~per Voceditenore~~. -- Kleinzach (talk) 11:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC) (Reviewing Voceditenore's last note, I still think this should be deleted.) -- Kleinzach (talk) 02:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep IMO sufficient notability established. Also: Cui bono? Wikipedia can afford thousands of pages on the most obscure sportspeople, starlets of dubious talent, etc. I'm aware of WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:POKEMON and similiar essays, but it still irks me that the exclusion of less popular or even esoteric artists is so passionately argued. Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insignificant. Fails WP:BIO. Eusebeus (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sources provided do not demonstrate sufficient notability and I’ve been unable to find better ones. Also, there is a fairly good chance that this is a vanity page. I’ll change my vote to keep though if someone can provide me with good quality, neutral sources that prove the composers importance. --S.dedalus (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep Keep Keep if you don't get how vital he is, then it's your own fault for being an uneducated idiot. — Mainquick1985 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

No personal attacks please. “Knowing who he is” is insufficient reason to keep an article. Sources must prove notability. --S.dedalus (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Totally a keep, and if you even try to delete we'll just keep re-creating until you see that it's the only thing to do — Unitdealt1987 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep, he's an important composer and that's all that matters. — Storyrates1987 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete. No signs of notability. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails WP:Bio#Basic_criteria, after reviewing sources presented here and conducting further research. --Fredrick day (talk) 23:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This may be very interesting to those involved in this discussion. [21] --S.dedalus (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I got a message from one of them on my talk page acting as if I knew them, and that they were making copies of the article. (sigh) I think they are trying to make it look like I am vandalizing this discussion via a 3rd party. I deleted it.Gregg Potts (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is very interesting, and I've been deleting those copies left and right. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve asked at WP:AN that the creation of further copies be blocked. --S.dedalus (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the trolls are all over this one.Gregg Potts (talk) 23:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about it, they always seem to think this is something we've never seen before and cannot deal with - those sort of sockpuppets stand out a mile and would have never made a difference anyway. --Fredrick day (talk) 23:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Trolls" that Gregg Potts canvassed apparently. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good heavens, here we go....Gregg Potts (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it’s more likely that you are actually Michael L. Vincent and these “trolls” are friends of yours. Don’t you find it suspicious that Storyrates1987 vandalized UserRockpocket’s talk page with the words “leave our page alone!” [22].Also what advantage would Storyrates1987 get from randomly leaving a message on your talk page saying “Got your message, happy to help save your article. David is here with me and in addition to voting we'll make a couple extra copies of the article so they can't get them all”? Also, if you’re not Michael L. Vincent how did you get the rights to that photo? You’ll forgive me if I find your messages denying knowledge of such canvassing slightly improbable. . . --S.dedalus (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok this is getting very negative, and feel like I am being victimized here. I got the picture from this page : http://www.last.fm/music/Michael+Vincent. Trolls are in in to start havoc and get off on stuff like trying to frame people. Think about it, who would write me a message like that on a pubic page where everyone can clearly see it... TROLLS. If you look at my record, you will see I have been arguing for this article using only the facts. That is all I need. Perhaps it was you?Gregg Potts (talk) 23:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that’s where you got the photo from then it appears to be a copyright violation anyway (WP:IUP). I’ll tag it as such. --S.dedalus (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now deleted as a copyvio of http://www.last.fm/music/Michael+Vincent/+images/4236691 - Alison ^❤ 00:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Passing evidence of notability, most of which is notability by assertion (which, unless things have changed here recently, doesn't count). Also, I posted a notice on WP:ANI - here // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 23:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry[edit]

I was asked to run a checkuser here as there's some very obvious disruptive sock-puppetry going on. For the AfD reviewing admin, the following accounts are Confirmed as being one editor:

Storyrates1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Unitdealt1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Mainquick1985 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Clubtaken1985 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Girlgirlgirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

- Alison ^❤ 23:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All except Storyrates1987 have been indefblocked for violating the sockpuppet policy. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly. Girlgirlgirl was blocked indef. for vandalism back on February 19. Corvus cornix_talk 23:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And User:Yeargyro1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another sock. Corvus cornix_talk 23:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me state clearly here now, as there has been some confusion; Gregg Potts (talk · contribs) is Unrelated to the confirmed socks above and has not been implicated in any abusive sock-puppetry whatsoever - Alison ^❤ 18:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing?[edit]

Per these discussions, it appears that User:Greg Potts has been canvassing for votes. Corvus cornix_talk 23:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, see the discussion above. :) --S.dedalus (talk) 23:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

response -Myself and this article delete debate have been victimized by a TROLL(S). The offending message was written on my public message page, for it to be found, and my subsequent accusation. I find this very troubling, and feel helpless to fight against it. The only person I contacted was Eastmain, and asked him to take a look at it. THAT IS ALL! I have been arguing for the merits of this article, against a huge deluge of negativity, accusation of bias, ownership, and now canvassing. I am quite frankly tired of it. This stops now or I am leaving this debate.Gregg Potts (talk) 00:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- response - I feel Gregg has made a strong case for himself. While I feel his arguments in this discussion have been both stubborn and wrong, I also feel that the witless vandalism, like the grotesque "racism" accusation made by an IP some while back, do not sound like him in any way. I say we assume good faith and go on about the discussion without accusations. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While the socks are disappointing as they could ruin the future of this article altogether, I don't think the socks are Greg at all. It seems Greg has had a level head throughout this whole debate. Although, and no offense, but I am curious to know who GregPotts was before this article creation, just seems very knowledgeable of wiki jargon and guidelines for this being his first and only article edited after opening the account on Feb 22 -- maybe just edited as an anon before which is fine of course, but I can't help but wonder. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 00:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- response Actually I'll take that as a compliment. As a contemporary music nut, this is my first crack at writing a wiki article and I took the time to figure out how to do it. There was a learning curve, but all the information is there, and I have been learning as I go. I decided to add this page because wiki seemed to be missing many (IMO) notable living Canadian composers and performers. After adding the article I was certainly not expecting this huge debate, not to mention being FRAMED as a Jim Henson of 'sock-puppeteers', (a wiki term new to me). You'll are a lively bunch I'll give you that!Gregg Potts (talk) 01:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad, because it is a compliment and I hope this ordeal doesn't discourage you in editing. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 01:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well, I have very grave concerns about how this debate has progressed; however since the sock puppetry and personal attacks seems to be resolved for the time being there is no harm done. To be fair we have no reason to believe that Gregg has personally used sockpuppets at any time. Unless there are further incidents I suggest we place our focus back on the article. --S.dedalus (talk) 01:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Irrespective of GregPotts' past incarnation (or lack therefore), his account is currently a WP:SPA. His first action was a spurious tagging of Michael Vincent (with a clear claim of notability) for speedy deletion [23] (presumably to make way for the creation of this page, his second edit [24]) and pretty much every edit since has been defending his article. That said, if he or anyone else has a good reason it should be kept, then that should be heard, whether it is his first of 10, 000th edit. I suggest we let those who wish to express an opinion do so (as long as they do so politely) and leave the closing admin to draw his or her own conclusions about the motivation of the contributions. If it is deleted, Gregg can put this down to experience. Rockpocket 01:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Week delete. Sadly I think this article should be deleted as there really aren't enough reliable and reputable sources that actually mention Michael Vincent. My suspicion is that the information presented on the page is accurate and true but as there are no verifiable references (other than the composers own website) that directly link the composer to the works mentioned than really wikipedia can't include the information. I would also like to say that I am somewhat appalled at the behavior of several people in this debate. Sock puppetry by new users is often a result of disrespectful and unkind behavior by over zealous and rightouesly superior wikipedia editors, which in this case I think sums up the behavior of several of the above mentioned comments. A little kindness and care in the way you phrase your arguements can often prevent other users from resorting to desperate measures because they feel victimised.Nrswanson (talk) 02:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sign of actual real-world impact or notice. --Calton | Talk 14:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Voceditenore above. His Looking Further comment did not demonstrate enough significance. Canuckle (talk) 00:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lauri Dalla Valle[edit]

Contested PROD, 16-year-old player who is part of Liverpool youth system. The PROD was contested under the claim he played with JIPPO (a Finnish second division team I strongly doubt to be fully professional), and extensive media coverage (despite the fact many of the given sources come from a Wordpress blog, and others does not cover solely the player in detail, as it is requested by WP:N). Angelo (talk) 11:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Angelo (talk) 12:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the article's creator - sources given say he has played for JIPPO, he has an entry on the Finnish wikipedia which, although I don't speak Finnish, mention appearances in the "Suomen Nike Premierin" and the "Pohjola Cupin". He has many mentions in the media from non-blogs - Helsingin Sanomat, Karjalainen, Plaza, Ilta-Sanomat and MTV3 (all which appear to be Finnish newspapers), as well as the Times in England. GiantSnowman (talk) 12:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And he also has an entry on the Swedish wikipedia. GiantSnowman (talk) 12:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. No evidence that JIPPO is a professional club. The fact that there are entries on other wikis is not a reason for keeping. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and what about the multiple, reliable third-party sources? GiantSnowman (talk) 12:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Quite clearly passes WP:BIO#Basic criteria through having multiple independent reliable sources. Even if he hasn't played in those competitions failing WP:BIO#Athlete doesn't matter if the basic criteria are met. John Hayes^talk 13:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly just another non-notable youth player--Egghead06 (talk) 16:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment and what about the Basic criteria? John Hayes^talk 16:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment the three HS sources share the same date (8 dec 2007), and they were part of the same report, so they must be considered as a single source. All the other sources cover simply his signing from Liverpool. I don't know why, but this case reminds me of Rhain Davis, who was deleted despite the "sources". Being featured in the news is not enough to establish notability. --Angelo (talk) 18:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that JIPPO are fully-professional, no appearances for Liverpool. Fails WP:FOOTY/Notability English peasant 01:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable sportsman by any stretch of the imagination. Fails WP:Athlete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luna Aeterna[edit]

Seemingly non-notable band. Prod was removed by someone suggesting it should be kept to allow the band to gain more fans, but i respectfully suggest they're supposed to get the fans first and the page later. tomasz. 11:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Wikipedia isn't here for advertising - if the band isn't notable, as this one is (not notable), then they don't get an article until they are. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 12:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertizing. Blast Ulna (talk) 08:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:29, 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 Merge. It appears that this article may be a content fork with copied & pasted material from List of Big Brother 2006 housemates (UK). For GFDL concerns, I've merged their histories. I am protecting the resultant redirect for a time to ensure that the article is not restored against the consensus of this and the preceding AfD. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Adams-Short[edit]

AfDs for this article:

It appears that this article was previously voted as a redirect, but this has been recreated a number of times, my nomination for delete, then merge is because she is not notable other than that of being in a reality TV show and very little since. Another reason to delete is most of these are about her time in BB and none of these contents are relevant for its own articles. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the relevant Big Brother article, as notable only for one event, all further appearances are trivial. ^anemone│_projectors 22:08, 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. Although the subject-specific notability guidelines do not trump the general notability guideline, they do provide a convenient means of treating a subject when sources are expected to exist but are not currently available to the discussion. They do not provide an additional hurdle that the article has to pass just because the subject of the article matches the subject of the guideline, but rather provide additional inclusion criteria. So from that standpoint, the first keep argument in this discussion had the chance to outweigh all of the delete arguments, as the subject is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Upon inspection of the sources provided in the article, however, of which there were three:

The first one, although very brief, does focus solely on the subject. It provides basic listing-type information (trivial) along with critical commentary "The right-back captained Liverpool to victory", and "with some attacking displays from his defensive position".
The second one, covers the subject of this article as just one player in a game, but does provide a scosch amount of critical commentary, "Stephen Darby surged forward to fire a dangerous ball into the area", making it a stretch as a borderline source for WP:N.
The third one provides only a trivial mention that he was on the roster of a game, with no critical commentary or statistics.

taken collectively, the depth of coverage is not substantial. Therefore when we consider the general notability guideline, we find the criteria is not met, and as everyone here seems to agree, the subject-specific guideline is also not met. My decision therefore is Delete. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Darby[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Has not made an appearance in a fully professional league, so fails WP:ATHLETE. robwingfield ^«T•C» 09:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. robwingfield ^«T•C» 09:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The previous AfD only closed three days ago, is a new one really appropriate.....? ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That AfD was withdrawn - it wasn't allowed to continue to a normal close. The basis of the nomination is sound, hence why I've renominated. robwingfield ^«T•C» 09:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO#Athletes as he has never played in a fully professional game. Consensus is that youth caps do not confer notability. He can have an article when he actually plays a game! Until then there is the possibility that he won't actually ever appear for the first team and slides away into obscurity. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 10:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO#Athletes. If that's where the line is drawn he is not notable. --Egghead06 (talk) 10:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Maybe there is an argument for keeping the article based on the reasoning behind the non-deletion of Danny Welbeck - he has a squad number with a 'big' club? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egghead06 (talk • contribs) 11:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per conclusion of previous debate. Continual relisting is gaming the system. Catchpole (talk) 10:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

Keep per my arguments in previous AfD. Sebisthlm (talk) 10:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - So, what's the plan to incorporate the previous debate into this? Or is this how it will go down when you don't get the result you want - withdraw the nomination and let someone else come up with a new one the next day? Let's say this discussion is about to end in a 'no consensus'; what's there to say that Robwingfield don't withdraw his nomination on Friday with Number 57 coming up with a new nomination Saturday? Now, I'm not saying that this is the reason behind this second nomination, but this is certainly inappropriate, as ChrisTheDude points out. Sebisthlm (talk) 10:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's certainly not what I'm going to do - please don't cast unfounded accusations. If the AfD goes against WP:ATHLETE and decides to keep the article, then so be it. Neither am I "gaming the system" - there is no AfD that has run to completion on this article... this is the first. robwingfield ^«T•C» 10:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You misunderstood me - I was probably not making myself clear. I'm not at all saying "gaming the system" is your motive, nor Number 57's; (on the contrary, I am totally convinced that it isn't). I was speaking hypothetically, pointing out the inappropriate in nominating an AfD so shortly after a previous AfD on the same article has been withdrawn and taking this nomination as an example of how a procedure like this could be mis-used. Even if there doesn't seem to be missing too many people from the old nomination, perhaps it would have been better to have opened up the previous AfD and to have continued where we left off. Sebisthlm (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO#Athletes, WP:FOOTY/Notability. No professional appearances, no notability: it's so simple... --Angelo (talk) 11:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per the reason for my withdrawal of the original AfD, while he doesn't pass WP:BIO#Athletes, WP:FOOTY/Notability, he does pass WP:BIO#Basic criteria which overrides those two anyway, in that he has a profile on the UEFA site, which is reliable and independent. If UEFA finds him important enough to mention then so should we. John Hayes^talk 12:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Playing devil's advocate here, doesn't the policy require coverage in multiple third-party sources........? ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ideally yes, but it's not required, If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability, there are other sources, though they aren't independent. I will look for more. John Hayes^talk 12:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've added a reference to the ESPN site, and an external link to his BBC profile, that's now three independent reliable sources. John Hayes^talk 12:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous AfD. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For the sake of clarity, could at least someone advocating a deletion adress the point of the general WP:N criteria. Are you saying the additional criteria (professional football) overrides the basic criteria (significant coverage in reliable sources), or that the coverage isn't significant enough? Sebisthlm (talk) 23:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep - this is just simply not enough time between AfDs. matt91486 (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per John Hayes -- while he may not meet the guideline for athletes, the overriding basic bio criteria has been satisfied. Let us try to see the forest for the trees. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If satisfying basic bio criteria is enough maybe someone could explain just what is the purpose of WP:FOOTY/Notability because it seems to have no merit? --Egghead06 (talk) 18:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment personally I don't agree with people saying WP:BIO criteria is satisfied, I don't think enough substantial and reliable sources have been provided. For instance, a BBC profile with a load of zeros is not a reliable source covering the subject in substantial depth. --Angelo (talk) 09:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'll agree it wouldn't be enough on it's own, but in combination with the others... (If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability). John Hayes^talk 11:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - However all these profiles do not establish notability on their own, since they do not say anything about the subject, other than his full name, his club and other statistical-only info (e.g., height). So I wouldn't even consider them as "reliable sources". --Angelo (talk) 13:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would say "substantial coverage" and "reliable sources" are two different concepts. Lack of depth in the coverage doesn't affect the reliability of the source, in the same way as an obvious bullshit source doesn't become more reliable just because it's thorough. However, I understand your concern; it doesn't exactly seem clear how insubstantial sources can be to, bundled together, confer notability. My view (as always) is that if a single League 2 game is notable, why wouldn't a player profiled by UEFA's official site be notable? Sebisthlm (talk) 13:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - All players which are part of UEFA list for a European club are listed by the official website. As you probably know, a minimum number of players who come from the club's youth system is mandatory. As clubs are not always able to provide these players, they usually fill the remaining spots with youth team footballers. This seems to be the case, as it is for Matteo Darmian of AC Milan (who is however notable only because of a couple of minutes in a domestic cup match). I don't really think a single mention of his name in the UEFA website is enough for ensuring notability, I'd rather instead to see an article from an independent secondary resource talking in depth about the subject. --Angelo (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah I know all about UEFA's squad registration rules. And I didn't mean solely a profile at uefa.com confers notability, but it might together with other sources. I think your example of Darmian is telling, he's a youth player for one of the World's biggest clubs, he's a youth International at U-17, U-18 and U-19 level. He has actually played in a league game for Milan in one of the World's biggest leagues, as well as a handful of cup games, and he turned 18 in December! Of 25-30 players in Milan's primavera squad, which should be one of Italy's absolute best, they chose him to be included in the CL squad. To me he's already more notable than half of the players in League 2. Sebisthlm (talk) 14:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        AC Milan's primavera team didn't win a single domestic trophy in years, so I am unsure it's one of the best in the world. Darmian, however, managed to become a professional football player (he made his Serie A debut), even if he is not part at all of the first team. But what if tomorrow Stephen Darby decides to retire from football and work in a bakery? Would he be notable yet? --Angelo (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You have raised this rhetorical question before, although it's a question worth asking. I will give you the same answer I gave before. If Darby were to quit fotball tomorrow I would agree that he wouldn't go down in history as one of the greatest footballers of all time. On the other hand, I would say he wouldn't be less notable than Robert Grant (who since you and I had our first discussion in May 2007 have doubled his League 2 games to two), a player who clearly satisfy the notability criteria. Sebisthlm (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per John Hayes -- Alexf⁴² 23:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet the notability criteria as set out in WP:FOOTY/Notability and WP:ATHLETE. Surely the notability of a professional footballer can only be judged by whether he has actually played professional football? The article can be recreated at a click of a button when he does make his professional debut, keeping the article just serves to encourage other editors to create more clutter on non-notable youth footballers. A problem highlighted by the fact he is included in Category:Liverpool F.C. players, how is this sensible when he has never played for the actual team? English peasant 01:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per John Hayes. This without question passes the Mzoli's test, as well as our own biographical guidelines. (jarbarf) (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:Athlete by a margin. Not a notable sportsman by any stretch of the imagination. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 15:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PowerPlay Manager[edit]

Article about a web based game that hasn't released a game yet. The article has ited its notability by being on the fr and sv wiki's as well however the sv article was created by the same individual who created this article and the fr has also been tagged for lack of notability. There are no secondary sources illustrating notability. –– Lid^(Talk) 09:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:N and WP:WEB. By the way the speedy request could have been reinserted as the author removed. --JD554 (talk) 12:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why suddenly there is a warning for deletion of the English version, while the French version a warning it should be verified and there is nothing at the Dutch version. Why is every admin deciding so differently in those different languages while the content of all the texts is the same. Maybe it should be open for discussion with other admins before just adding a deletion mark on that page. If you don't like the content, we shall be flexible in some way. And I ask myself the question why we should be commercialising a product that isn't yet ready/selling?

This page will be translated into 35 languages and I am sure all the admins will react differently. Make one discussion for all the languages. It would be stupid to block 10 and let 25 be online. These pages are being translated as I speak, I hope you can reconcider your thoughts or at least help us by pointing out the parts that are Over The Top.

Thank you--Vjeetje (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe the English version of the article should be deleted because I don't believe the game is in anyway notable as there are no reliable secondary sources to assert any notability and it doesn't meet any of the criteria for notability as WP:WEB. --JD554 (talk) 09:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why all the fuss about PPM? There are many games who have page on wikipedia. For example Hattrick, online soccer manager,...--81.83.226.52 (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 17:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so if we delete all the dates and numbers; then all information is reliable right? And you can verifie everything on the powerplaymanager site! Thank you--81.83.226.52 (talk) 13:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of media coverage - not sufficiently notable for inclusion. Addhoc (talk) 16:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We try to write this article as neutral as possible and all data can be verified at the homepage! I really don't understand why it is so hard to add this game with more than 35.000 players to wiki. P.S.: we had a general check and changed some parts to be more conformable.--Vjeetje (talk) 16:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be applying your own definition of of "notable". Please read WP:N for Wikipedia's definition. --JD554 (talk) 19:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the article. If you consider those rules, the Hattrick page on wikipedia is full of violations of these rules: http://en.wikipedia.org/Hattrick I quote the first paragraph: "Hattrick (also known internally simply as HT) is an online, browser-based, football management game (MMOG) developed in Sweden. Currently the game contains 118 different countries, each with its own league pyramid, and 42 different language versions (Since October 20, 2007). As of August 2007, the game had over 960,000 users, each with their own team.[1] Hattrick is in its 34th season and has been running since August 30, 1997.[2] Most users cite Season 11, which began October 15, 2000, as the beginning of Hattrick as it is today."--Vjeeje (talk) 21:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because there may be some rubbish on Wikipedia that needs deleting doesn't mean we should allow more. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS --JD554 (talk) 22:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone give me a specific tip that can help me further to approve the content. Or does the content doesn't matter but the project PowerPlay Manager, that can not be included into wikipedia. I'm really eager to help to keep this article alive, thx!--Vjeetje (talk) 22:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Appears to just about scrape through WP:MUSIC Black Kite 09:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Dalla-Vee[edit]

Non-notable musician. Has not received coverage by reliable sources unaffiliated with the subject. A web search only turns up 931 web pages and one news article, none go beyond trivial coverage. Only notability he may pass is music criteria eleven by being placed in rotation by a national tv network, but nothing to substantiate that, and the only info from the network's site is the same brief info.[25] and ( Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL ) Optigan13 (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I've never heard of Mick Dalla-Vee, but Google'ing him brings up 1,070 web pages. Yahoo has 930. He's also been a member of various bands and worked with various people who are in Wikipedia, so my opinion is to keep the page. Scoty6776 (talk) 15:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Of all the Google search results, none of the pages that aren't made by Dalla-Vee or someone he isn't associated with. The number of WP:GOOGLEHITS are not a criteria for notability in most instances. I don't see any notable bands that he is linked to. The only notable acts he is associated with is by sharing a common manager, which is a very tenuous association. It says he has contributed to a Motley Crue album but does not explain how he specifically did, and I can not locate any information to verify this. The only credible thing that can be verified from the numerous hits is that he released an album entitled A Whistler's Christmas. -Optigan13 (talk) 04:09, 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, --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately much of the article remains unreferenced, but I have now added five references to articles in major Canadian newspapers, including one about his daughter's death (and how his fellow musicians came together to fundraise), some examples of mentions of him being part of Randy Bachman's band, one that discusses his songwriting in a CD review, and one that is about Revolver, another band he was in. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and clean up. Between the references, awards and participation with Juno, it looks like there is enough here to just meet the notability guidelines. It appears the subject himself started the article, so clean up is needed if it's kept.--Kubigula (talk) 23:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Wrong venue. For now, this title will redirect to Halimah bint Abi Dhuayb. If that is not a valid redirect (I'm no expert), then that is a discussion for WP:RFD. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Halimah bint Abdullah[edit]

Halimah bint Abdullah is not the correct name for the person. It is rather Halimah bint Abi Dhuayb(cf. Halimah bint Abi Dhuayb, Encyclopedia of Islam, or search for Halimah bint Abi Dhuayb in Encyclopedia Britannica ). Be happy!! (talk) 08:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As you've already moved the article, what you want is redirects for discussion, down the hall a couple of doors. Are we certain that this is not a valid alternate? There are many ways to transliterate Arabic names into English. --Dhartung | Talk 09:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For example. "Halimah was the daughter of 'Abdu 'llah Abu Zu'alb" --Dhartung | Talk 09:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. I think the previous name is not factually correct. None of the encyclopedic articles I can get access to, do not mention this. I can not see the content you are referring to in your link. --Be happy!! (talk) 09:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These are all links to "Halimah bint " in books.google.com [26] - None of them mention it as "Halimah bint Abd Allah "--Be happy!! (talk) 09:43, 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. I don't believe there is enough here for WP:BIO. He's an attorney; sometimes attorneys talk about their job to the press. A few "this attorney says" soundbites and a vague wave towards authorship do not convince. No prejudice to recreation with more convincing sources, though I note this article has been re-created an number of times. Black Kite 09:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Minns[edit]

Autobiography of Non-notable subject. The same article appeared earlier at least six times as Michael Minns and Michael minns and was speedily deleted on each occasion - see also User_talk:Michael_Minns and the Edit summary with which the article was created. Ros0709 (talk) 08:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment/concern - User:Roughhauser, who is now editing the Minns article, may be a sockpuppet of User:Michael Minns (who has been given the usual notices about COI and autobiography); look at Roughhauser's sandbox! --Orange Mike | Talk 18:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After the article was repeatedly speedily deleted on grounds of notability, and Michael Minns told of the problems with creating autobiographies, Roughhauser was newly registered and created the near identical article we now have, using the edit summary cited above which clearly references the article's previous history. I have no doubt it is the same editor but as the Michael Minns incarnation was not banned and has not contributed since this can be legitimately allowed. As an attempt to circumvent any accusation of WP:COI it's pretty lame and as the Michael Minns incarnation was at final warning for recreating the article (and would therefore likely be banned if he had created the article this time) it could be considered an attempt to circumvent policy. However, this nomination is about the article itself: if the editor had a conflict of interest it may have impaired their judgement on notability when they created it but it can still be reviewed objectively on that basis by everyone else here. Ros0709 (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It appears to me that the article for Michael Minns was just recently created by a new editor named "Michael Minns." The article was deleted by another editor, and was repeatedly re-created by editor Michael Minns. The article as originally written just came across to me as blatant advertising. Other editors deleted the article, and Michael Minns continued to re-create it. After the re-creation tactic did not work for Michael Minns, Roughhauser came on the scene and re-created the article yet again.

Is the subject notable?

The material in the article cites to court cases involving Michael Minns as legal counsel. Minns' clients won in some cases, lost in at least one other -- Richard Hatch. A relationship with a well-known person (e.g., Hatch) does not confer notability. (See "Invalid criteria" under WP:Notability (people).) Being the lawyer for Richard Hatch in Hatch's criminal tax case does not in my view support notability for purposes of Wikipedia. Similarly, being the lawyer in the other cases mentioned also does not support notability, no matter how important or historic Michael Minns or Roughhauser feels the cited victories are. Michael Minns and Roughhauser (and I, Famspear) are Wikipedia editors, not independent, third party sources. This is in no way a denigration of the subject of the article as a tax lawyer, etc. Rather, the Wikipedia concept of notability for an individual relates in my view more directly to the following Wikipedia concepts.

from WP:Notability (people):

Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity", although these may positively correlate with notability.

And:

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.

Has the subject, Michael Minns himself, received "significant recognized awards or honors"? Has the subject "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record" in the field of tax law? It looks to me as though Minns has been quoted as a legal expert in a few articles on topics such as the recent tax convictions of actor Wesley Snipes. Again, merely being quoted a few times in the national media -- even in the New York Times -- does not in and of itself support Wikipedia notability. Further, the articles in question were not about Michael Minns.

I don't think I could come into Wikipedia and say, "Look, these are all the important things I have done, these are the important cases I won for my clients, so I want an article about me here" and get an article about me, say or "look, I was quoted as a legal expert a few times in the national media, so I want an article about me here in Wikipedia."

For purposes of an encyclopedia, the notability of a person is assessed not on the basis of how important that person believes his accomplishments are. Neither is is based on how important his friends believe his accomplishments are. Notability is based more properly on what previously published, independent, reliable, third party sources have already written about that person or about what that person has accomplished. Famspear (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete and Salt the earth.~~ References given do not provide a convincing case of notability. This article has been recreated six times (!); there is strong evidence of WP:Conflict of interest, sockpuppetry, etc. Time to drive a stake through its heart.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you guys really talk this way about people? That seems a bit too funny for words...How ridiculous. I'm not a sock puppet of anyone. The article stands on its own merit, and as such if you have questions, you should and can just ask them. If you don't understand the merit of the cases mentioned, please be intelligent enough to ask questions and they will be answered. You're kind of being ignorant nazis with guns here. I will reprint the reply to Famspear here, but I will keep going if you shoot me down for bad reasons as I am seeing purported here...

Well, I don't think the implications you set forth are particularly fair or appropriate. I am not Michael Minns. Michael Minns never asked me to write an article about him. I wrote it because it's notable phenomenon in my view and in the view of the tax law media and the major media that I have checked out. As to the more legitimate issues of notability and neutrality, I will address those...The answer to all your questions on notability is an emphatic "Yes". Awards: Yes. Published materials: Yes, of course, part of which is already cited. Contribution historically to field of tax law: Most definitely...Yes. If you want more specifics on anything not already cited in the article, or on the Internal Revenue Service article, or on the Richard Hatch article, or any of the other articles that probably exist including his name, or from the major online media articles like NewYorkTimes.com, perhaps you can go take a look there first and then ask me. Your mention of Wesley Snipes is not even mentioned in the Wikipedia article. And the article does not state that Minns is notable for merely being a media commentator on such famous cases, nor was the fame issue ever stressed, but rather states (or stated originally before you edits) that his cases are historic. And historic means just that: historic (ie., "notable"). Aside from the two landmark cases listed...Doesn't it stand to reason that if the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, MSNBC, Fox News, the Associated Press (not to mention previous articles on Wikipedia) all think Michael Minns is notable enough to have already had him on their shows and to comment on law cases and to write about him and his accomplishments, and reprint the material on their websites for anyone to find with so many stories, that he must be notable enough for a Wikipedia article of his own? ...especially seeing as how he is already mentioned by name as a significant critic in Wikipedia's Internal Revenue Service article, in the Richard Hatch tax trial article on Wikipedia, and from what I am being told as I inquire further, probably many other articles on Wikipedia? You are questioning the article and there seems to be a question of whether or not this article is neutral, or if there is a conflict of interest on MY side...what about a tax lawyer Wikipedia editor who takes a sensitive approach to another tax lawyer being written up? As for the media cited above and in the article, are the main major media suddenly not "independent, reliable, third party sources"? If not, then who is? The two cases cited are two of the most notable tax field cases in relation to the IRS and to the field of tax law in the recent past, and the reason that these two were singled out was their newsworthiness and notability. Moreover, Minns wrote two books on his IRS cases and on the tax code and on the nature of notable tax trials which Ron Paul coauthored. These do not sound to me like facts associated with a non-notable person. When you ask me notable enough, I am thinking that perhaps you are just not familiar enough with this level of detail on the history of the field to see that the references are pointing out the notable aspects, maybe not as famous as Aaron Russo or Joe Banister, but in terms of the field of tax law, this stuff is very significant. The Morans case alone is the biggest clear win on all counts since the 1960s, which says that it either had become much more tough to do, or else much more unlikely to be possible to do. Either way, that is very significant. The article is not a huge one for the reason that it does NOT seek to overexagerate Minn's importance unduly. That is also why Hatch was only now mentioned, as a sidenote that would be of as much interest in his article as it would to those who fund your existing Richard Hatch article's mention of Michael Minns...

I did some additional research and got the following... See the following list of accomplishments that support notability in addition to what has already been set forth in the article:

1983 Arkansas vs. Norma Ginter Capital Murder Trial Not Guilty. co-def. Husband was convicted.

1983 US vs. Irene Udey (Harbouring of Tax Protester Gordon Kahl) Not Guilty. All five co-defendants were convicted. (see millions of papers and a movie and a couple of books)

1989 or 1990? Johnston vs. Daughter largest counterclaim on a divorce in US history. 18.3 Million dollars. Johnston was indicted on the evidence and disbarred. (Texas Lawyer) (appellate court reduced Judgement to 6.1 mill.

1989 US vs. Buford 889 f2d 1405 Largest numbers of aquittals for tax preparer In US History.

Pilot case. 1300 pilots on refund. (not just from American Airlines) Largest Test Case Petitioner reversal in US history.

Led to disbarment of two lawyers for IRS on the pilot case.

US vs. Morans 2007 Largest number of complete sweep aquittals on off shore tax Charges in Us history.

Roughhauser (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

pgagnon999: You have not actually provided ANY evidence as yet. Please do... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roughhauser (talk • contribs) 21:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your rhetoric here is an unusually close match to that of User talk:Michael Minns, let alone your singlemindedness. Sockpuppetry and conflict of interest aside, if any of the above mentioned claims to fame are true and notable, then it should be fairly easy to provide a newspaper article that extols Mr. Minns' fame as a lawyer. Keep in mind that this is not a court of law; as the person who created this article, it is up to you to provide the proof of notability if you would like this article to survive. It would also be worthwhile to familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia definition of WP:Civility, yet another social norm here that may not always hold true in the American courtroom. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 21:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, how are you qualified to even be discussing this issue? I already said that I created the Michael Minns account, because I was already following his cases, and that is still as accurate now as when I posted it before here before it was deleted (by you?...). I never said I wasn't the same person who originally created the Michael Minns article. You have been saying that. I am trying to learn how to use Wikipedia, but finding it intensely unfriendly to new people (I am one of "the people" whom it presumably serves?) And you also have been deleting my posts and I have already notified some other editors on Wikipedia about that. Now, as for sources that state the "fame" of Michael Minns...the sources are linked to the story in question and to another IRS article, and to a Richard Hatch article. What more can I do for you on the point of verifying what's already been verified?... Just ask, and like I said in the comments you just deleted by me, I will provide them. I can back up anything you want, just have to ask. Glad to! Did you read the sources? Did you check the above facts? Have you done anything besides claim that this article needs to be deleted? You don't seem to have any evidence of your own as to why the subject is not notable or I am somehow acting on behalf of Michael Minns in writing it. He has not asked me to write it. I wrote it on my own initiative, because I thought it belongs there, because it does, if you know tax law cases.Roughhauser (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Dear Roughhauser: I assume from your comment here [27] and your comments just above -- that you are admitting that you are also Wikipedia user "Michael Minns" (but not the actual person Michael Minns), and that you are saying you created the "Roughhauser" account as a second account to "try again" to get the Michael Minns article back into Wikipedia. (Correct me if my assumption is wrong.) Whether you call this procedure "sockpuppetry" or not, this would not be considered acceptable by most Wikipedia editors. Thanks.

Regarding your other comments above, I suggest that you are straying off course, and I would again encourage you to concentrate on looking for previously published, reliable, independent third party sources that have commented about Michael Minns. Again, Michael Minns and lots of other people are quoted from time to time as experts in various media articles; that does not make those people "notable" for purposes of having a Wikipedia article about them.

And, for purposes of notability, we are not here to make our own determination as Wikipedia editors as to whether the cases in which Mr. Minns has participated are "historic" or "important" in the world of tax law. Let's even assume for the sake of argument that the cases were so significant as to be "historic": Now, see if you can find previously published, reliable, independent third party sources that show that Michael Minns himself is notable for purposes of Wikipedia.

And regarding your comments to editor Pgagnon999: "Just ask for whatever you [Pgagnon999] need and for god's sake, give me [Roughhauser] ample time to respond, like more than a single day or hour. Preventing the article from being recreated is totally censorship of the most vile kind, so I hope that is not what you are intending to try and do." [28] -- I am sensing desperation in your "voice" here. Please take a deep breath and relax. I don't think anyone is rushing you here. This is not a "speedy delete" process. I don't remember what the time frame is on a "regular delete", but I think the process has only just begun. And "preventing the article from being recreated" is not "vile censorship." You are overstating your case. Yours, Famspear (talk) 22:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, how are you qualified to even be discussing this issue? I already said that I created the Michael Minns account, because I was already following his cases, and that is still as accurate now as when I posted it before here before it was deleted (by you?...). I never said I wasn't the same person who originally created the Michael Minns article. You have been saying that. I am trying to learn how to use Wikipedia, but finding it intensely unfriendly to new people (I am one of "the people" whom it presumably serves?) And you also have been deleting my posts and I have already notified some other editors on Wikipedia about that. Now, as for sources that state the "fame" of Michael Minns...the sources are linked to the story in question and to another IRS article, and to a Richard Hatch article. What more can I do for you on the point of verifying what's already been verified?... Just ask, and like I said in the comments you just deleted by me, I will provide them. I can back up anything you want, just have to ask. Glad to! Did you read the sources? Did you check the above facts? Have you done anything besides claim that this article needs to be deleted? You don't seem to have any evidence of your own as to why the subject is not notable or I am somehow acting on behalf of Michael Minns in writing it. He has not asked me to write it. I wrote it on my own initiative, because I thought it belongs there, because it does, if you know tax law cases.Roughhauser (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Famspear, noted that it is not speedy delete headed. That helps somewhat, though I hope I have enough of a chance to address. I am posting here what I had just tried to post...(SEE BELOW)

I don't think I have been anything less than civil thus far, have I, Pgangnon999? Can you show me anywhere I have not been civil? And since I am not a lawyer and I never said that anyone was in a "court of law"...I guess it doesn't matter what you think of my "rhetoric" since my speaking is no more "rehtoric" than is your own, right? Now, I have already proven my case on the notablility of this article, but more is repeated below. I let it rest unless anyone has a better or more specific question to put to me not already answered before. Why don't you call Minns directly to ask if he is me or I am him. Then call me and see what I say about it. My number is 713-454-9995. The content is all true and documented, otherwise I would never have posted it. This information is good enough for the New York Times and all the other major media, but not for Wikipedia? (some of these are already quoted IN THE ARTICLE and/or elsewhere in the IRS and Richard Hatch articles already on Wikipedia: http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?query=michael+minns&srchst=nyt There are a ton of NYTimes stories there alone, click each of them if you want. Then do the same for Fox News. Then do the same for Associated Press and MSNBC. Lots of articles with his name in them tied to important/notable tax cases, and yes also to celebrities. That should only help, though, not hurt the argument for his being "notable".

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2193245548714102001&q=michael+minns&total=12&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=michael+minns&um=1&sa=N&tab=wn

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DEED8163EF932A1575BC0A9629C8B63&scp=3&sq=michael+minns&st=nyt

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A05E7D81630F930A15750C0A9629C8B63&scp=5&sq=michael+minns&st=nyt

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DEED8163EF932A1575BC0A9629C8B63&scp=3&sq=michael+minns&st=nyt

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,257942,00.html

http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2007-03-08-hatch-appeal_N.htm

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/biz/5557039.html

I am not a tax protester (though I think it's a very, very interesting idea), I am not Michael Minns (though I think he's very interesting figure), I am not asked by Michael Minns to write this article (though that might have paid well now that I consider it), why am I being treated as if I am assumed to be doing something under the rug? I've been asked for sources. Fair enough and I gave them. It seems that someone has a beef with Michael Minns thinking that he is a tax protester or something...he is a trial lawyer who is notable for his role in historic cases. He's notable for having represented celebrities. He's notable for having authored books with Ron Paul. He's notable for the way he is influencing the IRS and their legal tactics. He's notable for having authored work on the concept of "willfulness" as it pertains to such cases which has been published by a law journal (it's not that easy to get such things published no matter who you are).

Roughhauser (talk) 23:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roughouser, your incivility is all over this page; to quote one of many examples, "please be intelligent enough to ask questions and they will be answered. You're kind of being ignorant nazis with guns here." This kind of insulting and combative rhetoric is discouraged on Wikipedia. Also, you claim that I have been "deleting" your posts, which is clearly not the case, as anyone can see from my edit history. Please stop making accusations that have absolutely no merit. It also seems that you are attributing all the comments made here as belonging to me, which is not the case. Please note the signatures beneath the posts. As for this "how are you qualified to even be discussing this issue?" you evidentally are not familiar enough with Wikipedia to know that all users (except those that are very new) are "qualified" to contribute here. These rants are not helping your case; please calm down, take a step back & reapproach with a cool head. As for your references above, I'll be glad to look them over when I have a chance; if they offer enough notability, I'll gladly replace my "delete" with "keep."--Pgagnon999 (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have refactored the above text to make it more obvious who said what and when. With indentation all over the place and signatures missing and/or duplicated before, I could not follow who said what and had to check against the edit history. I have not used leading bullets because they indent differently to other indents (and, with IE, all the indenting is different depending on whether you are viewing on-screen, print previewing or actually printing!) Ros0709 (talk) 07:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The aim of the discussion is to make succinct points which support keeping or deleting of the article. An administrator will make the final decision according to the Wikipedia policy, guided by the points made. I fear any such guidance will be lost in the noise above. Ros0709 (talk) 07:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment & Keep Roughhauser I've reviewed the references you provided above; the Mike Barnacle interview as well as the co-authorship of books with Ron Paul demonstrate, in my opinion, enough notability. A few pointers with regard to this mess left on Talk: Michael Minns.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 03:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that these references belong in the article but its author has indicated that he will not be doing it. Ros0709 (talk) 08:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete can not find any third party sources about the subject, just cases he has been involved in. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 19:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the MSNBC Mike Barnicle debate between Michael Minns and an IRS spokeman (and former IRS Commissioner and Chief Counsel) Sheldon Cohen a relevant third party source? And didn't Pgagnon999 mention that same Mike Barnicle debate in the discussion just above? See a video of this debate on Google Video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2193245548714102001&q=michael+minns&total=12&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1 Also, I will be happy to edit the article if if I am actually allowed to do so. If the end result is that the neutrality flag is left on the article until other users edit it and thus "cleanse" it, then so be it. Forgive me for not looking at the page for the past few days, but I have been a bit disappointed and feel a bit "set up" by the proceedings here, in general, thus far. I think some editors go WAY too far with their "duties" on this site, legitimate or otherwise... If the air is "cleared" I am happy to edit it further if neeeded. If so, would anyone make clear to me what is actually needed to make it more WikiKosher? Thanks... Roughhauser (talk) 03:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Dear Roughhauser: Notice editor Gtstricky's comment: "can not find any third party sources about the subject, just cases he has been involved in." I haven't watch the entire debate between attorney Michael Minns and former IRS Commissioner Sheldon Cohen that you linked (only the first few minutes), but the subject of the debate appears to be "incompetency, etc., at the Internal Revenue Service" and NOT Michael Minns himself. Further, I respectfully disagree with the opinion that editors here are going "way too far with their duties" here, and I would say that you should not feel that you have been "set up." A new editor cannot reasonably be expected to know all the Wikipedia rules when you begin to edit, but that does not mean that other editors will not enforce the policies and guidelines, even with a new editor. I encourage you to re-read the main policies, etc. Recognize that everything you and I write in Wikipedia is subject to being edited mercilessly by other editors -- all Wikipedia editors are essentially subject to the same restrictions. Yours, Famspear (talk) 03:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 10:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doosraful[edit]

Delete neologism, only source is some forum chat. Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per above. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 08:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen Turner (talk • contribs) 08:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Google search reveals no results outside Wikipedia and the banglacricket.com forum. Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: until the use of the term is substentiated by other notable media. Arman ^(Talk) 08:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above reasons. Could probably make a case for it being speedily deleted. Andrew nixon (talk) 09:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable. Johnlp (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It warrants a note on both players' individual articles, and probably on the tour page, but definitely not on its own. Delete. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 08:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination. I got a small chuckle out of reading this "article", but not the good kind. (jarbarf) (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 15:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Klokshopkids.com[edit]

Does not meet our criteria for notable websites. No independent, published sources are provided, so there is no way to verify the contents of the article. Appears to be self-promotion by someone associated with the site. Proposed delteion notice removed without comment, so bringing here for discussion Gwernol 07:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons provided --Enric Naval (talk) 09:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, concur, and note also the presence of strongly non-neutral language: each story is a wonderful adventure that you wouldn’t want your child to miss. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:WEB, prod removed, never asserts notability, no sources to prove notability Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}_{Strange Frequencies} 16:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Bardcom (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination was disruption by blocked sockpuppet. Feel free to discuss merging, but that is an issue for another time. EJF (talk) 12:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dogtown, Oakland, California[edit]

Not notable, not references, opening line states its just the nickname for a portion of West Oakland, Oakland, California but its formatted as if it where a neighborhood. Merge any content with West Oakland and delete. Icamepica (talk) 07:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-per aboveIcamepica (talk) 07:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please note nominator currently has an open sockpuppet investigation against them. Nate • (chatter) 10:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close until investigation is concluded. No discrimination against renomination later. 23skidoo (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with West Oakland article; Dogtown, Ghost Town, Cypress, etc., are all too microscopic in size and in stature to be considered real "neighborhoods". West Oakland is a recognized division of the city. All of these micro-articles and stubs should be subsumed into the West Oakland article. This would also automatically avoid a lot of the disputes over marginal material being included in these articles. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: though the article is decidedly small, dogtown actually has quite a bit of historical significance to the settlement of the bay area...particularly the irish and later african-americans of the late 19th century. a stub's gotta start somewhere. --emerson7 19:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close - per 23skidoo and Mrschimpf. There has been massive sockpuppetry connected with this lately. No legitimate AdF result is possible under the circumstances. Wikidemo (talk) 03:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also without prejudice to possibly merging it as suggested by ILike2BeAnonymous, above, something we do not have to decide upon closure of AfD.Wikidemo (talk) 02:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment this article does not assert its own verifiability nor does it provide any substantive data on anything besides the streets which supposedly define its marginally established boundaries. The location is not even mentioned with a link, there are no links. I think it could have a decent place in the West Oakland neighborhoods within a neighborhood section. Or else this article needs massive expansion.Cholga^talK! 00:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

isn't that the very definition of a ((stub)) article? --emerson7 07:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Cholga is one of the suspected sockpuppet accounts in the investigation.Wikidemo (talk) 02:53, 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. While there may be good arguments to merge this, merge can be decided outside of AfD space through a merge proposal. The only argument for deletion is issued by the nominator, a now confirmed sockpuppet. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acorn, Oakland, California[edit]

Does not assert its notability. It is an irrelevant public housing project. Merge any useful information into West Oakland, Oakland, California which really is a neighborhood. Icamepica (talk) 07:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-per above —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icamepica (talk • contribs) 07:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note re. sockpuppetry - nominator is a ~~suspected~~ confirmed sockpuppet of a disruptive editor that was deleting sourced material from Oakland, California-related articles. See [[29]], WP:AN/I#Boomgaylove II. This is clearly sourceable,[30] and notable among other things for being one of the first integrated housing projects in Oakland and the location of the murder of Huey P. Newton, founder of the Black Panthers. This nomination should be speedily closed without prejudice, and nominated if at all once we have a handle on the user:boomgaylove sockpuppet situation. Wikidemo (talk) 08:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Huey Newton claim is unreferenced, also where someone died does not make that place notable. There is only one source. This is not a neighborhood. Regardless of the sockpuppet accusations this nomination is in good faith and was suggested to me by another editor.Icamepica (talk) 08:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I referenced it. Who? Wikidemo (talk) 08:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's referring to my comment [31] from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cypress Village, Oakland, California, I guess. cab (talk) 14:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I agree with the general sentiment that it should probably be merged somewhere but that this outcome would be better as a calm group editing decision instead of an edict from a problematic AfD. Wikidemo (talk) 04:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability is clear, article should be expanded, but that can happen in time. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 09:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close until investigation is concluded. No discrimination against renomination later. 23skidoo (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this indicates that the house where Newton died on 1454 9th Street was near but not actually part of the Acorn Housing Project, but since this is an article about the neighborhood, that would seem to apply. Mandsford (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC). I would add that there are about 40 articles about neighborhoods in Oakland, California, which is its own category. Most of these, not surprisingly, are stubs. My preference would be that these should be consolidated into one article called "Neighborhoods of Oakland, California", but it appears that there's a policy in favor of keeping separate articles. I'd add that the Acorn project seems to have more people than a lot of small towns that have articles. Mandsford (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with West Oakland article; Acorn, Dogtown, Ghost Town, Cypress, etc., are all too microscopic in size and in stature to be considered real "neighborhoods". West Oakland is a recognized division of the city. All of these micro-articles and stubs should be subsumed into the West Oakland article. This would also automatically avoid a lot of the disputes over marginal material being included in these articles. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close per 23skidoo. Wait for the socks to be blocked, then we can start a serious discussion. Bash Kash (talk) 03:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mandsford and SPEEDY CLOSE due to the confirmed sockpuppet infestation regarding this and related nominations. (jarbarf) (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, with no prejudice against re-nomination. Arguments both to keep and delete have been advanced by Wikipedians in good standing. Given that at least two respondents have elected not to discuss the merits of the article under the circumstances of its nomination and that any future debate here will potentially be tainted by the history of the nominator, it seems most prudent to draw this debate to a close and allow it to be renominated if users believe the article fails inclusion standards. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Campbell Village Court, Oakland, California[edit]

Non-notable housing project, formatted as a neighborhood which it is not. Mini-stub. Merge any useful content with West Oakland, Oakland, California if which i see none. Icamepica (talk) 07:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per aboveIcamepica (talk) 07:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Housing projects fulfill the same function to many city apartment dwellers that neighborhoods do in the burbs. They identify with the project as where they're "from". Given that, housing projects shouldn't automatically be deleted on sight, as appears to be the case here. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 09:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please note nominator currently has an open sockpuppet investigation against them. Nate • (chatter) 10:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close until investigation is concluded. No discrimination against renomination later. 23skidoo (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^Delete Non-notable. Izzy007 Talk 23:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close per 23skidoo. Wait for the socks to be blocked, then we can start a serious discussion. Bash Kash (talk) 03:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ed Fitzgerald and SPEEDY CLOSE. Closing nominator please take note that the nominator has been blocked for socking and disruption. (jarbarf) (talk) 20:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --slakr^\ talk / 10:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Staine[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Hoax. Deleted yesterday per G3 as hoax/vandalism. Author repeatedly removing CSD tag. Reported as vandal active after block. DarkAudit (talk) 07:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article deleted while TW was processing the page for attaching the template and author indef blocked. DarkAudit (talk) 07:05, 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. Fram (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generic tabletop game[edit]

Seems to be a nonnotable game, WP:MADEUP, also unreferenced Vivio Testarossa^{Talk Who} 06:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no Google hits at all. Obviously something made up one day, and technically a game guide to boot. --Ig8887 (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; a case of WP:NFT. Marasmusine (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - could probably have been speedily deleted Bardcom (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 10:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sailor Moon Dubbed Fandubs[edit]

Non-notable, article consists primarily of a list. Aseld ^talk 06:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as self-promotion. --Farix (Talk) 16:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hellafied coatrack. JuJube (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, unverifiable (source is 404ing), (self?)-promotion. Shiroi Hane (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coatrack and COI indeed. The main contributor seems to already have had several similar pages speedy deleted for lack of notability. Bikasuishin (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-not worthyCholga^talK! 00:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbob.C. (talk) 19:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC) I made this page, I don't think it should be deleted, This is not self promotion, since it isn't me. It contains good, news about very good and popular Fandubber who i think deserves a Wiki Page. I'm going to add More And More information up, so that it won't get Deleted, I Know this is good stuff and i hope it doesn't get deleted.[reply]

Delete nn, poss. copyright violation. Doceirias (talk) 23:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Perhaps there is a Wikia space for this type of stuff, but it doesn't belong here. (jarbarf) (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KTLA logo history[edit]

This article includes non-free images which are either duplicated, both here and in another article, or whose use in relation to the subject cannot be verified. Rollosmokes (talk) 06:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, they are non-free (being logos of a currently-operational television station), however, they can be verified as KTLA's logos. I know that some do look similar, but they are not the same thing. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 06:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete gallery of fair-use images, which runs against WP:NFCC, a key policy. Reso lute 15:52, 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 per demonstrated notability and further improvements to the article since the start of this discussion. Non-admin close. --jonny-m t 02:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atsushi Okubo[edit]

No way to verify any claims, no sources, and vaguely notable. Tiptoety ^talk 05:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems notable based on extensive Japanese language article, that version is very anal about notability.Icamepica (talk) 11:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails WP:N and WP:V as there are absolutely no references or verifiable and reliable sources to assert notability. nat.utoronto 12:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it takes only three clicks (two, now) to reach the sources of the Soul Eater (manga) article which establish his authorship of a notable work. Which is trivially easy research, of the sort that should be done before nominating an article. The statements of assistantship take a little more digging, admittedly, but can be found. There -- verification. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am not sure that quite verifies the claims in this article, for one the article states he is the author of the manga while the source says he was a staff member. Also I am not sure that that source alone provides reliable secondary sources. Tiptoety ^talk 15:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Contrary to the nom, it's actually quite easy to verify that he is the author of notable works. PC78 (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Maybe my investigating before i nominated did not come up with all of the sources that are out there. If you would not mind providing those sources, it would be greatly appreciated. Tiptoety ^talk 19:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are already plenty of links in this discussion that verify he is the author of the works mentioned in the article. With respect, it doesn't appear that you have done any "investigating". PC78 (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Creator of Soul Eater (manga) Over 81,000 hits for romanization of Name (Atsushi Okubo)[32] 55,000 hits for his Japanese Name 大久保篤,[33].A couple of Japanese Language News articles that at a minimum mention his name. An editor with Japanese language skills will have to review these closer to see if there is any useful info.[34][35]. Also involved in work on the Get Backers manga. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not sure that most of the hits relate to him writing any type of manga, most come up with someone involved in computer animation and graphics [36]. Tiptoety ^talk 19:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Computer animation runs closely with Animation and Manga drawing, articles may refer to the same person. I can't be sure since I cannot read Japanese. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 20:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They don't. Doceirias (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Author of a very successful manga about to be turned into an anime. Unquestionably notable. Doceirias (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Of Soul Eater presumably? Have links to support that there will be anime adaptation? AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[37] - The Official Anime website?Doceirias (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, hey, would you look at that. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 20:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are discussing the notability of the person, not the manga. Tiptoety ^talk 20:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Authorship of a notable manga means the author himself is notable; this is the standard means of determining notability across the project. Doceirias (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Tiptoety. Well, Yeah. That's pretty well understood. We're discussing his works for which he is notable. It would seem if an persons creation was syndicated, and then adapted for television airing and it featured some big names like T.M.Revolution for opening theme, that it's likely he is notable. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure the work is notable, but can we verify that he created it? Claims that he is the author of a notable work are nothing without proper sources. Tiptoety ^talk 22:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His name is on the cover. [38] If you insist on having an independent source to support such an obvious assertion, though, this Mainichi article refers to the original manga as "Atsushi Okubo's popular manga". Bikasuishin (talk) 23:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep -- This is the author of a notable work in the manga genre. Good references in the article, but they could be improved by incorporating the references brought forth here and in the article on Soul Eater. The article asserted the subject's notability, the references and wikilinks bore it out. Why was this article sent to AfD? And why was a redirect to this article tagged under WP:CSD#R1 before this article was even deleted? This isn't adding up. --SSBohio 01:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 10:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although I understand that the original state of the article differed from the current one, the sources establish the subject as the author of a notable manga being released as an anime. WP:BIO states that a creative professional is notable if they've created a notatble work that has been the subject of independent reviews. At this point, I believe he clearly qualifies. Xymmax (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just realized I never got around to actually saying keep: verified creator of a notable work is notable, per WP:BIO. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as revised. While I can appreciate the original concerns of the nominator, they appear to have been resolved. (jarbarf) (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 15:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bornholm official football team[edit]

An amateur football team that doesn't appear to have any notability TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 05:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing notable about it. Punkmorten (talk) 15:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A not notable amateur club. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 15:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Powtils[edit]

Website that does not meet our criteria for notability of websites. Does not have any independent, published sources that would allow readers to verify the information contained in the article. Disputed proposed deletion so bringing here for discussion. Gwernol 05:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Research Please

Use your fingers and a tool called Google Gwernol. You marked the page for deletion within 20 seconds while I was creating and updating it, which means mathematically that it was impossible for you to have done appropriate research before your nomination. Powtils has several third party verifiable sources as listed in the external links, including SourceForge, Google Code, Freepascal Wiki, Lazarus Wiki, Z505. If you look further you will find PasForum, PasWiki, Simple-Wiki, Simple-CMS, Code Pastie, and several other websites discussing Powtils. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LFiveZeroFive (talk • contribs)

Please assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. The problem is none of the external links are independent, published sources. Such a source would be something like an article in a newspaper or on a reputable website. Notability is established by other people writing about you, not by the fact of your project existing on Sourceforge or Google Code. For the purposes of Wikipedia these are not reliable sources. Please read our guidelines on notability of web sites and our policy on verifiability. By the way, I nominated the article for deletion 20 minutes after it was created, not 20 seconds. Thanks, Gwernol 05:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - although I don't see the personal attack or assumption of bad-faith (a misguided unfounded accusation of incompetence perhaps) but incivility at worst.
Back to the article... nope this fails WP:V and WP:RS. EJF (talk) 17:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete So called references here are fairly non-descript download sites or very brief byline mentions. Nothing substantive. Without solid indie refs, it smacks of WP:Spam.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 20:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Bullshit, this feels very like envy... The stated reason for deletion is "The issue is not whether Powtils exists, but whether it meets Wikipedia's criteria for the notability of web pages."

Unfortunately for this envious low life form, powutils is not a webpage, it is a PROGRAMMING TOOLSET.

"It appears to me that it does not, since there is no evidence that Powtils has been the subject of multiple, independent, published articles. I have opened it to the community to discuss whether it should be deleted."

This is a tautology. The project will be deleted because it doesnt received "suficient" (In who´s sense ?) review, but, if important webpages (Like sourceforge, wikipedia, etc) keeps denying the possibility for exposure, how can it be known and reviewed ? Its a tautology.

AND, being very sincere, who, from those envious detractors, is a real life programmer ?

Because i dont feel that some guys from other academic areas are really suposed to judge the usefullness of a programming tool...

13:30, 28 February 2008 (BRZ-East) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.70.92.164 (talk • contribs)

Actually, I'm a real life programmer, not that this is particularly relevant. The issue is whether the article meets the standards of Wikipedia, so the necessary knowledge if Wikipedia's rules. Wikipedia is not a place where software is promoted to achieve notability. It is an encyclopedia which records subjects after they become notable. If Powtils is as strong a package as you claim, then it will achieve notability on its own, and Wikipedia can then have an article about it. Until then, we won't. This is not a matter of "envy", this is a matter of maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia. I suggest you start by reviewing our core policies, then go on to read our guidelines on notability, which will give you greater background on these issues. Thanks, Gwernol 16:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please also note that from comments on User talk:189.70.92.164, it is highly likely that this IP is also User:LFiveZeroFive Gwernol 16:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Delete Per Pgagnon999. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 16:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of independent sources beyond the above listed wikis and project sites.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Scooter (stand-up), this meets both the delete and redirect suggestions, as well as provide a useful link to the Wikipedia material on Evo Powerboards for any reader. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 16:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evo Powerboards[edit]

non notable company Excariver (talk) 19:30, 10 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 00:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not establish WP:Notability ~~for a company~~ via reliable, independent references.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 03:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "Powerboard" is used in about a million contexts. In this, it's supposed to be a skate board (why would they make boards out of fish?). However, there is no evidence that the "revolutionary" and "fastest" claims are backed up by market position at this point. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge notable non-advert info into Scooter (stand-up). --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:48, 18 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, Djsasso (talk) 05:04, 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 per improvements in the article during AFD. Davewild (talk) 08:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Dwire[edit]

Thoroughly non-notable individual on his own, the third husband of Bill Clinton's mother. The article has scratches of information that we would never consider encyclopedic for people who are not tangently related to a famous person, and does not have enough content to be balanced in a way that is required to be NPOV. As he is deceased, and nothing has been written about him aside from being mentioned (like every other minor family member, business associate, neighbor, friend of the family and casual acquaintance) in Bill's book; we will likley never get the kind of balancing encyclopedic content that would be needed to make this article acceptable. Of course, it would likely still not be notable then, either. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability is not inherited. He has no notability outside of having once been married to Bubba's mother. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete He was married to Slick Willy's mom. Notability is not inherited. Undeath (talk) 04:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Dgf32 (talk) 04:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, close enough to Bill Clinton that someone might want some information on the guy. He is mentioned outside of Bill's book [39], and I'm sure some other information could be found with a little digging. Zagalejo^^^ 05:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, aside from inheriting notability from Bill Clinton, mentioned in a published book, Time Magazine, on CNN, etc. Even a car he bought played a visible role in the 1992 election and is on display. Anyway, I began an expanded reference section: [40], [41], [42], [43], etc. Will look for and likely add even more. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not in herited. Being "mentioned in" does not count. The sources have to be "about" him. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 05:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The cnn source about the family bio is just that, a family bio. I don't see anything in any of the sources that constitute notability for Jeff. Undeath (talk) 05:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see anything in deletion votes that mock a historical figure ("Slick Willy" and "Bubba") as academic or serious rationales for removing information about a relative of that subject that obviously some editor thought worthy enough to create an article for. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I and many others believe that notability can be inherited (hence the link, so it's clear that it's not just my take). A stepfather of a president, whose wife is currently running for president, is a potential subject that researchers will be interested in reading about. I'll see if I can find additional sources. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Bubba" and "Slick willy" are nicknames for Bill Clinton. There is nothing bad about stating the names. It would have been a different story if Bill's article was up for deletion, in which the nicknames would be in bad taste. Undeath (talk) 12:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are critical nicknames of him, which suggest a dislike of him and could be perceived as a reason to want articles associated with him removed rather than a legitimate policy based reason. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You say they are critical, I say they are funny. Just wondering, how is "bubba" critical? Undeath (talk) 23:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Critical or funny...they are not serious and weaken arguments. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we can cull enough information from various sources to write a reasonably informative article, then it shouldn't matter if he hasn't been the primary subject of any particular source. He was the president's stepfather, not some random schmuck, and it's very likely someone could want this information. Zagalejo^^^ 05:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as creator: Significant figure in two notable biographies: [44], My Life (Bill Clinton autobiography); frequent mentions in news and books, including giving advice to both Clinton politicians, e.g. [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54]; note that the mother's name is often emphasized as "Virginia Cassidy Blythe Clinton Dwire Kelley" (esp. by Hillary Clinton, e.g., [55]) and the current article provides additional info. on the reason for a part of that lengthy sequence. JJL (talk) 05:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- JJL, I strongly urge you to incoporate some of these references into the article. I added a few myself, but the above references could help. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Those articles still do not assert notabiliy. The car link is the stangest one to me. How does a car make someone notable? He didn't invent it. Also, just because Virginia included his name into hers does not make him notable. The sources given do not write directly about him. They give passing information about what he did and who he was, but none of them make him notable under the guidelines. Undeath (talk) 05:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Appearance in multiple sources demonstrates notability and if his car played a major role in a presidential election for a security council, nuclear armed, G8 country and is even on museum display, it's worth noting and an article can be built from these sources. The article prior to nomination had problems that I believe Jerry reasonably expressed in his nomination, but since nomination and in the course of but minutes, the article has expanded with additional references and information. Let's give JJL a chance to use those other references he pointed to above to see if he can improve the article even further and I would have to say that in a worse case scenario information should at least be merged and the article redirected without deleting as someone reading the books may want to learn more about this man and come to our site doing a search. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. From the comments above and article references this article scrapes through the WP:Notability criteria. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the rationale expressed by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, the material available collectively satisfies our biography guidelines. RFerreira (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability isn't biggest or best, its noted by the media, and having all the facts come from reliable multiple sources. This meets the test. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability has now been clearly established. As a general rule of thumb, US Presidential Biography is a subject of interest to many academics, journalists, political observers. As such, there's an extremely high probability that the parents of presidents will have multiple independent reliable sources that have detailed their lives and in fact, multiple texts have been written on the significance of presidential families, etc. The second-guessing of reliable sources, with regards to presidential relatives, reflects badly on the project. It makes us look ridiculous to people interested in this subject matter. When we can be nearly guaranteed that multiple, independent reliable sources exist, it is best to tag for clean-up (or quickly find the sources yourself) rather than send to AFD. --JayHenry (talk) 06:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JayHenry, with whom I could not agree more. Subject is overwhelmingly worthy of encyclopedic note, and we do our readers a huge disservice to second guess them in this way. (jarbarf) (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 08:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Brown (martial arts instructor)[edit]

The book exists with a 72,000+ ranking at Amazon and they charge a sourcing fee, which means they don't have ready access and a search with his name and title don't turn up any notability. The company's website doesn't work (cache here) and searching for his name in connection with the company turns up 38 (it goes down from 150 when you get to p4) pages of nothing. He doesn't pass WP:BIO, nn instructor of a nn company. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as NN, one tenuous source dose not an article make --Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nate1481 RogueNinja_talk 10:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: http://www.wmaw.us/Instructors.htm#Terry_Brown The article looks like a copy of this web site. jmcw (talk) 13:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed it does, but since it's not verbatim I don't know that it qualifies under speedy. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 15:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not a copy & paste, it is the same info but in different words so as their talking about the same guy it's kind of inevitable, also this debate is looking towards deletion so may as well leave a boarder line case.--Nate1481(^t/_c) 15:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep author of a notable and well-reviewed [56],[57],[58] and recognized and quoted [59] book. Recognized expert [60] on a narrow subject. JJL (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Recognized expert on a narrow subject. The article could be improved with the citation mentioned here. jmcw (talk) 10:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JJL, the subject appears to be notable within his niche, verifiable through third party sources. (jarbarf) (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted and salted --Step hen 04:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello...Shovelhead![edit]

Non-notable comedy troupe. This article has been speedy deleted four times by three different admins, and the COI editor has been blocked once for repeatedly recreating it. Corvus cornix_talk 03:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt, not at all a notable comedy troupe; hasn't been covered in any reliable sources it seems. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability and sheer insistence on re-creation. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. Dgf32 (talk) 04:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - per nom and ugly history. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Blast Ulna (talk) 08:24, 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. -- Longhair\^talk 10:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bronte O'Brien[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Bronte O'Brien

This appears to be a hoax or fantasy. No Ghits on "Bronte O'Brien" and "Dolly Magazine". Grahame (talk) 03:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as likely hoax per nom's evidence. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 03:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This probably qualifies for speedy delete. Dgf32 (talk) 04:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dolly Magazine is a real and popular magazine aimed at young women in Australia, but the lack of Ghits for someone who won a major award at a very young age for writing in major daily papers such as The Australian and Sunday Telegraph strongly suggests that this is either a hoax or that Ms O'Brien doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I wasn't implying that "Dolly Magazine" was a hoax, just that there were no ghits for the 2 in conjunction.--Grahame (talk) 12:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, I miss-read your message - where you had 'and Dolly Magazine' I read as 'or Dolly Magazine'. My mistake. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There does appear to be an award of this name ([61]), but there is no list I can find on their site that has the past winners on it. Given the above, I'm inclined to agree that this is a hoax. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Seems reasonable for this to be a hoax. Twenty Years 11:24, 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. Wizardman 19:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forum for Elite Students of Cost Accounting[edit]

this is a social club at a university, and is not notable per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 03:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability or meeting WP:ORG. JJL (talk) 03:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local in scope, fails WP:CORP TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Blast Ulna (talk) 08:23, 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 per WP:BLP1E. Davewild (talk) 08:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrone Luther Hadnott[edit]

I helped created this article, but now I wonder if it is just news, or if it is still notable after it has left the news. What does the community think? Keep or Delete? Chetblong^{T C} 02:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be in violation of WP:BLP1E -- no news coverage outside this event that I can find. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definite delete. Potentially libelous biography of a living person. No sources verify claims of article. This should be speedily deleted. Dgf32 (talk) 04:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I brought this article to AFD, it was not because it is/was a libelous BLP. It is in fact sourced to verify these claims and there are many more sources that could be found to verify the statements made in the article. Therefore it does not qualify for speedy deletion as you have stated. A quick Google News search shows that the article is verified. --Chetblong^{T C} 05:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only briefly notable. Snowfire51 (talk) 04:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reuters has a piece on it [62] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.115.6.240 (talk) 17:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because it's not so big in the US doesn't mean it's not HUGE in Japan. It's a big deal there. English language Wikipedia caters more than just to Americans last time I checked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.213.108 (talk) 00:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mims' second studio album[edit]

Even though there were some sources of the upcoming album, it fails WP:MUSIC. Like the deletion of the article II Trill, the album is not as much sourced. Dunno if the sources make it notable because they're just forum threads. Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 02:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Crystal-balling right now; only sources are forums as nom points out. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Crystal balling with no reliable sources to back it up (2 are forum posts, one provides a 404 error). Recreate if and only if a tracklist and specific release date can be proved through WP:Reliable sources independant of the artist and record label. -- saberwyn 03:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crystalline, can be recreated when it exists. tomasz. 11:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be deleted because the album will be released in June and there are plenty of sources to back that up and plus the album isn't out yet how do you expect a tracklist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Signshare (talk • contribs) 22:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no WP:RS, as indicated above, ultimately no verifiability. Recreation supported only when a reliable source can be provided. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, people seem to want to be the first to create articles, end up jumping the gun. Blast Ulna (talk) 08:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nearly all the sources sources are forums. It should be recreated if there's more reliable sources. Spellcast (talk) 06:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Kubigula (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meeresforschung[edit]

This was originally listed with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biometrics (Journal) which has closed as I withdrew the nom, however this journal still establishes zero notability, nor does a search in any language. This is nothing more than a directory listing. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 02:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No content in article worth keeping. Subject itself lacks notability. Dgf32 (talk) 04:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It was a peer-reviewed scientific journal that was published under this name for 18 years. In my opinion, that makes it inherently notable. It is hard to search correctly for scientific references to it, because its official abbreviation is Meeresforchung, which is a common word in German. However, even the combination Meeresforschung "Reports on marine research", which reaches libraries and databases that include the journal, scores 961 Google hits. --mglg_(talk) 21:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I added a third-party published reference from 1925 describing the early history of the journal. From Google translate, the first paragraph describes how it ceased operations during World War I but then resumed. But it would take someone who actually reads German to extract more useful information from it. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The great majority of long-standing peer-reviewed academic journals are inherently notable as they publish research which is abstracted in indexes and cited in other research, and they are themselves archived in academic libraries. It's best, however, that a journal has only a single article with redirects for all name changes, but in this case the red-linked alternative titles do not yet exist. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I went ahead and moved it to the current name of the journal. Probably best not to create too many redirects unless the AfD ends up a keep, though. I also cleaned up the text and got rid of several of the links that were labeled as sources, as they are not different than what you get anyway from the ISSN. We still need actual sources (primary, secondary, whatever) for most of the history; the only one I have is from very early. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good Idea if people look for this journal, it's far more likely they'd look under the current name rather than the 60s name and this way the re-direct will get them there if someone is pining for their old school days. I agree, we still need actual sources for notability and/or to establish some context TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 04:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. I found several articles elsewhere in Wikipedia that cite this journal, under some of its names. So the present article serves an encyclopedic purpose in helping readers of those other articles verify the reliability of those citations, and helping them untangle the relationship between all these journal names. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am persuaded by the arguments that peer-reviewed academic journals have inherent notability, particularly, as mglg, given a run of 18 years. I also take David Eppstein's point about the usefulness of the article in relation to serving WP:V in articles that cite to it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Adventure (series)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Article fails WP:FICT, is full of unnecessary plot summaries, and regurgitates information that can be found elsewhere on Wikipedia Redphoenix526 (talk) 02:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also most of the games on the list are not even part of that series. --76.66.190.62 (talk) 03:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Just because it is a poorly written article does not mean the subject itself shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. It needs a lot of work but anything within the subject can be easily verified. Anonymous contributor is right to say that many of these games aren't even part of the series, but that is an easy fix. Instead of nominating it for deletion, you should have attempted to clean it up. Hazillow (talk) 06:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per Hazillow. The article should clearly be revamped and that would take quite a bit of work but it should be tagged as such instead of tagging for deletion.--Ubardak (talk) 06:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not the poor writing that's the problem here, it's the fact that it is a regurgitation of articles that already have their own subjects. As I can see it, no amount of work can keep it from regurgitating information that is elsewhere on Wikipedia. If it could, I would try to save it myself, but that's not the case here. Redphoenix526 (talk) 14:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 'Sonic Adventure (Series)' doesn't seem to be a notable term. The article's viability depends on all these games being commonly refered to (by third party sources ofc) under this term. If this can indeed be easily verified (it seems to me it can't), I'd like to actually see it done. The content of the article is redundant: the games all have main articles. There's nothing but plot content (see WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:FICT). Bridies (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs pruning and cleanup. I see trivia, weasel-wording, and speculation, which obviously doesn't belong. That said, it is possible to do an article like this right, see Metal Gear (series) as a much better (though not perfect) example. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Gear series is an obviously recognisable series though. As Crotalus points out below, 'sonic adventure series' seems to be arbitrary and OR. Bridies (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's why we have Sonic the Hedgehog (series). It already exists, and the information is already there. Redphoenix526 (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Arbitrarily lumping these particular Sonic games into one group, while omitting others, is original research. And, since that's the basic subject and premise of the article, it doesn't really have any place on Wikipedia. *** Crotalus *** 17:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Crotalus is quite right; this is blatant synthesis. EJF (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sonic the Hedgehog (series) exists. This article serves a duplicative and somewhat selective purpose. Some information may be salvageable. And Crotalus makes a good point, given the omissions. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - I've had a hand in that article, but I really can't do anything for it (I did have a plan, but it just didn't work out), I just gave up the ghost on it and hoped that some kind soul would pass by and delete it! Doktor Wilhelm 21:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A little bit in the middle Keep given the nom's concerns don't really apply to an article like this (in theory). I understand the point about Sonic the Hedgehog (series), and wouldn't mind deletion in light of that argument. -- Ned Scott 03:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is just info copied from the game articles themselves.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 19:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Fairfieldfencer[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twin City Arts Festival[edit]

An arts festival that is not notable, unsourced and blatant advertising. A prod was removed a few weeks ago hence it is here. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No third party coverage could be found. Lacks notability. Lack verifiability. Dgf32 (talk) 04:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I also have failed to find reliable third-party coverage. I found 32 unique hits on Google (once duplicates had been removed). Most of those were to myspace; none of them that I saw seemed to be to a usable source. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dawson College. I will merge - please insert further encyclopedic facts at the target article. Black Kite 09:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Plant (newspaper)[edit]

Disputed prod. A non-notable student newspaper (a Quebecois CEGEP is somewhere between the last year of high school and the first year of university in other locales) with no references or sources. Accounting4Taste:talk 01:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. RogueNinja_talk 01:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Canadian student newspapers have a long tradition of being the training ground for notable journalists, activists and academics. The paper's coverage of the Dawson College shooting may have made it particularly notable. And it is the largest CEGEP newspaper in Quebec. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 02:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 02:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No google hits, even when combined with college name. Appears to be the newspaper made by a journalism class. Dgf32 (talk) 04:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually got several hits searching the name and the college. Not saying that the hits make it notable, but it certainly does get google hits. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it reads like an ad. I think student newspapers in general are notable. GreenJoe 14:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion here is really on notability (which can't be fixed), not the quality of the article (which can be fixed). Are you saying the subject is notable if someone copyedited the article? Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete student newspapers are virtually never notable, and this is certainly not an exception. The article is dreadful and appears to have been written by someone with no concept of what an encyclopedia is or contains: for example, it lists where and when they meet, as though it were a flyer on a bulletin-board. Even if cleaned up, wouldn't be notable whatsoever anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at Category:Student newspapers, you'll see that there are a lot of Wikipedia articles on student newspapers. I normally don't subscribe to the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument in AfD discussions, but the existence of so many other articles respecting student newspapers suggests that your statement ("student newspapers are virtually never notable") is not accurate. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Category:Student newspapers published in Quebec seems devoted entirely to university level papers, which suggests, as stated above, that CEGEP ("junior college," outside Quebec) don't quite make the grade. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are some articles on community college (the best equivalent to CEGEPs in the rest of Canada) newspapers in Canada, including The Dialog, The Capilano Courier and The Other Press. The existence of those articles does not mean this one if notable, of course, but it does mean that the lack of college papers in Category:Student newspapers published in Quebec is probably not an indicia of lack of notability. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Notability (media), student newspapers are notable or non-notable by exactly the same set of standards as commercial non-student media; they are not uniquely non-notable solely on the basis that they serve a predominantly student population. "The largest CEGEP newspaper in Quebec" most certainly is a valid notability claim. You want independent sources? Here are some independent sources: [63], [64], [65] (secondary mention, but still relevant as a source for expanding this article by touching on the Dawson College shooting). So that puts in in keep territory for me. And even if it doesn't get kept, it's still unequivocally entitled, again per Wikipedia:Notability (media), to a merge and redirect into Dawson College. Bearcat (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearcat & The Plant's apparent status as the largest CEGEP newspaper, therefore notable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per my comments above. Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable student newspaper. No secondary sources that meet WP:N and claim to be largest newspaper of its type is unsourced and fails WP:V. TerriersFan (talk) 02:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep Notability seems established per Bearcat. Being the largest of it's type in Quebec is non-trivial and the sources seem minimal but enough.68.40.58.255 (talk) 05:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, not-notable neologism --Step hen 01:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Single serving sites[edit]

Not notable: definition of days-old neologism; not covered anywhere except a popular blog and a few less-popular ones. I proposed the article for deletion, but the tag was removed. There is significant discussion of this on its talk page already. Dreamyshade (talk) 01:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. RogueNinja_talk 01:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self-admitted neologism: "While the term was not coined until 2008..." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tonywalton ^Talk 23:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a useful article, and in deleting it Wikipedia is making itself less relevant and usable. (By the way, "per nom" votes are discouraged.) Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 07:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. The term exists but the sourcing could be better. I'm near certain we are going to see this article come back to Wikipedia with better third party referencing down the road. RFerreira (talk) 18:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of media coverage. Addhoc (talk) 23:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I simply don't see how this can be reliably sourced. This is not the Wikipedia of old where anything made up on a blog one day can have an article; blogs have very limited utility for notability purposes. --Dhartung | Talk 08:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:CSD#G12 separately from this process as a blatant copyright violation. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 05:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert H. Miller[edit]

Does not appear to meet WP:PROF. Some CoI risk too - the main editor of the page has a user name similar to the subject of the article. AndrewHowse (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ delete. Almost everything on this page is plagiarized from here.Hazillow (talk) 01:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: Maybe not exactly plagiarized, since it is listed as a source, and maybe the editor is very likely to be the subject of the article, but I don't see a way we could independently verify that.Hazillow (talk) 01:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per Hazilow RogueNinja_talk 01:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Medical school deans are very likely to be notable. In this case, a Google Scholar search at http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=author%3ARH+author%3AMiller+otolaryngology&btnG=Search&as_subj=med lists several papers of interest, including two cited by more than 30 others. I have tried to clean up the prose. --Eastmain (talk) 03:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 03:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Medical school deans are almost always notable. He is also the president of a major medical organization. Dgf32 (talk) 04:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This might be moot if it's really a a copyvio. --AndrewHowse (talk) 05:39, 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. John254 00:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ7[edit]

Was PROD-tagged. Listing at AfD to gain consensus. EJF (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the WikiProject Photography talk page. — Becksguy (talk) 01:37, 19 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 01:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable product, plenty of professional reviews. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew. Hazillow (talk) 01:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable product, plenty to source it out there. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 14:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added multiple references, including several from professional review sites, as mentioned by Andrew. I also added that the camera was awarded Editor's Choice by PC Magazine in 2006. Granted that this is not the ground breaking digital camera that the Panasonic Lumix DMC-L1 is, but it has sufficient sources to establish notability. And it does use the legendary and famous German Leica lens, as does many in the Panasonic Lumix series of digital cameras. The article could use some improvement, but that is not a reason to delete. — Becksguy (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge to Lumix which has a list of the cameras in this product line, as was done for Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W30 to Cyber-shot. Just because the vendor sent out a press release when the particular model was released, and several magazines, websites or blogs printed pro-forma reviews, we do not need a separate article for every model in a product line, each of which is quickly superseded by the next model with slightly different features. Wikipedia is not a product catalog, and the existence of a pro-forma review of a new product based on the manufacturer's press release does not prove that the product needs to be represented forever in encyclopedia articles. Notability on Wikipedia is permanent, so any product from any decade by any well known company would be equally entitled to an article. The main article can appropriately discuss the Lumix line of cameras. Edison (talk) 00:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Cyber-Shot merge looks like a pretty bad idea. It's a HUGE range of many types of cameras over many years, many of them sharing virtually no features, from the semi-professional 717 and 828 to the tiny and bizarre U-series novelty cameras. Worst of all, in the attempt to cover a lot of stuff in one article, there's virtually no information in there about any of them. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To characterize the camera reviews as "pro-forma" and based on press releases is incorrect and does a disservice to professional testing and review sites, and to Wikipedia. There are several independent camera technical testing labs that publish full signed reviews with tons of technical data. Reviews from mainstream newspapers don't go into that kind of detailed testing. Also, I didn't use any blogs in the references. And for those products in any company's product line that are notable, yes, we do need articles on them. Notable like this camera, now with two awards and multiple reviews. And I agree with Andrew on merging as a bad idea. — Becksguy (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of sources. Worthy of an encyclopedia article. Fg2 (talk) 10:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Found another award for the DMC-FZ7, a 2006 DIWA Gold award, now included in the article. — Becksguy (talk) 17:42, 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 Non-notable mall --Step hen 04:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scottsdale Centre Mall[edit]

The article does not include anything that could constitute notability. I have searched on Google news, with zero hits here and little in a web search here (an identity theft incident following a theft from a McDonald's Express doesn't do it). Delete. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable mall; isn't the subject of any reliable third-party sources outside of the McRobbery. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Malls can be notable, but there isn't enough in this article to justify keeping it. Dgf32 (talk) 04:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge to Delta, British Columbia. Has a gross leasable area of only 237,000 square feet per [66], so it is probably only of local interest, and seems in general to lack sources to show notability enough for a standalone article, but it would add to the article about the municipality wherein it lies, where there is currently no mention of it. Edison (talk) 01:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added a couple sentencees on the mall in Delta's article; however, given the mall's size, I doubt it's a likely search term, so a redirect probably wouldn't help. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dude, someone just deleated the bit about the Scottsdale Mall you've added to the Delta, BC article. JimboV1 (talk) 00:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now - Possible MAXI award winner [67] and thus notable. (Although I can see there is possible confusion in names.) Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability. So likely just another small mall. If notability is established later, then it can be added back. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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, Google-only terminology. --Step hen 00:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PR0[edit]

Not notable. All the encyclopedia information in here is inlcuded in Pagerank RogueNinja_talk 01:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or rd to PageRank. JJL (talk) 02:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — not all the worthwhile information in PR0 is in the PageRank article so the premise is false. PR0 is an important aspect of this important algorithm. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I have added references and done a cleanup. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 23:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didnt argue for deletion based on the fact that its not referenced or clean. Its just not a notable term. RogueNinja_talk 23:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This information should be in the Pagerank article.SDSandecki (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ezina LeBlanc[edit]

I can't find any reliable external sources. You'd think that if she was recognized internationally, there would at least be some coverage about her. All I can find is her personal webpage and her Cafepress page. Soxred93 | talk bot 01:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are more Google hits under Ezina Moore. I looked at this earlier today, the article is obviously copied from somewhere else on Wikipedia, but I can't find where. I asked the article's creator (User:Ezinam) if she had copied it from somewhere, but she hasn't replied. There need to be reliable sources, anyway. I'm withholding a !vote for now, depending on how the editor responds. Corvus cornix_talk 03:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A lot of the material in the article just doesn't check out. Likely to be a hoax. Dgf32 (talk) 04:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. So you can probably tell that I am new to this world of adding entries to wikipedia, but I am not new to Ezina LeBlanc (nee Ezina Moore). If you check out the pages of Miss Black USA, you will see that she is indeed listed as the recipient of that title [68]. A more thorough search will find that the other references on this page are all legit as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.139.19.133 (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that's how I found out the Ezina Moore name. But I'm still withholding judgement until you explain where this article's text was copied from. Corvus cornix_talk 19:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no response to my request for an explanation of the source, this swerves too close to a copyright violation. Corvus cornix_talk 00:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harry and the Potters' split 7" with the Zambonis[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Harry and the Potters' split 7" with the Zambonis

The subject "fails to meet the relevant notability guideline" as the article shows no evidence that the topic is notable per WP:MUSIC which states "All articles on albums or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines.", WP:N states "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". There is no evidence of such coverage within the article. Guest9999 (talk) 13:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose / Support if.. Hello. I have submitted this article for a peer review and a second is in the process, I am however considering "merging" the articles into one article, as suggested by User:Ruhrfisch at Wikipedia:Peer review/Harry and the Potters' split 7" with the Zambonis/archive2 but I am waiting for an example of such an article, if you could provide me with one I may be somewhat supportive of this, only if I like the outcome. Thanks! Hpfan9374 (talk) 08:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article shows no evidence of its notability in line with WP:MUSIC. Cloudz679 (talk) 14:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support. Cloudz679, can you please find an example of an article with several albums and EPs on it? If so I may become supportive in the deletion of this article. Thanks! Hpfan9374 (talk) 22:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. PKT (talk) 19:13, 25 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, Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of media coverage. Addhoc (talk) 00:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this subject is sufficently covered in one sentence, which already exists in the band's article. Dgf32 (talk) 05:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Can someone please find an example of an article with several albums and EPs on it? If so I may become supportive in the deletion of this article. I would really appreciate if someone could help this time, so the deletion process can be closed. Thanks! Hpfan9374 (talk) 05:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please help me with my question. I have also asked Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music and am waiting for a reply. Thanks! Hpfan9374 (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or redirect to Harry and the Potters discography. As per the music notability guideline which states that "if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. It's technically not an album per se and there hasn't been a lot of media coverage, so it might not have enough notability to merit an actual article. If so, then a redirect should be sufficient enough.--TBC !?! 20:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the key word there is "may", there is no evidence of notability through significant coverage by reliable, independent sources in the article and none has been presented during the course of this discussion. WP:MUSIC clearly states "All articles on albums or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines", this requires objective evidence. Guest9999 (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hence my recommendation of a redirect.--TBC !?! 22:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per TBC. y'am'can (wtf?) 15:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Guest9999 (talk) 17:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: utterly non-notable fan-drivelly-thing :-) —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 18:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable. No longer in print (according to lead) and not a notable subject in the first place. George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^Help 21:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Mahmoodi[edit]

I cannot find anything to verify the contents of the article. Nor anything to prove that it is notable. BlackDiamonds (talk) 00:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO, WP:N, and WP:RS. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not only is there a lack of context (vice minister of where?), fails to meet WP:BIO, WP:N, and WP:RS. This is also the third thing shown on Google, unsure if the first two are even related. Soxred93 | talk bot 00:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Senior government officials at the level of vice-minister are almost always notable, but without reliable sources, the article will have to be deleted. Perhaps someone who can read Farsi will be able to improve the article. --Eastmain (talk) 03:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 03:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 03:02, 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.

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

The result was Withdrawn with no support for deletion. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vrysochori[edit]

~~This church does not seem to be notable. Contested prod. Captain panda 00:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)~~ As this article appears not in fact be about a church and is instead about a town, there is no reason for me to want it deleted. Captain panda 03:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep not a church. An inhabited place with a significant history in WW2. The place has a church. All inhabited places are notable. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Jerry. Article needs some formatting, but is notable. matt91486 (talk) 01:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - All towns and villages are inherently notable. This one is large enough to have its own church. And prodding an article for deletion within one minute of its creation [69] is disruptive to the improvement of articles and only discourages new editors. --Oakshade (talk) 03:07, 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 Martin the Warrior. Davewild (talk) 08:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keyla[edit]

This character doesn't seem to be notable. Delete or merge it to some kind of Redwall article. Captain panda 00:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Redwall (and merge if anything is of value there). JJL (talk) 03:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR Redirect to Martin the Warrior, the Redwall novel the character appears in. Although important to the plot of the particular book, Keyla is a mid-level importance character within the novel, and has no greater role or importance in the greater series. -- saberwyn 03:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Marginally important role in Martin the Warrior; however, this otter has no out of universe notability whatsoever. Each Redwall book has a zillion characters; Martin and Luke are probably worthy of pages, but I have my doubts about anyone else. (By the way, my otters initially had a bit of bias about this page, but I've since gotten them to agree with me...) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, ok, I'll merge it with some article. I just wanted to make a page on him because you know, Felldoh's pretty much a mid-level importance creature but he has a page! Oh, to Ten Pound Hammer:Keyla's a boy!!!-- Barkjon 22:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Fell)D'oh! Reason #419 not to edit while half asleep! My bad. Also, just because X has a page doesn't mean that X is necessarily notable as well; that basically boils down to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:30, 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 19:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stay Positive (album)[edit]

The title of this album is unknown. The PROD I placed was removed because "references already exist on Wikipedia" - true. They point to a source ([70], which states "it will probably be called Stay Positive " (bold my emphasis)

Per WP:CRYSTAL, this should really wait until the album is actually released, or at least the title is formally confirmed in reliable secondary sources. Fritzpoll (talk) 00:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Listing it in the discography section of the band's main article is enough. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, not that an unreleased CD is even notable enough to survive that requirement. dr.alf (talk) 00:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL; it's too early yet for there to be any reliable info on this album. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, I've heard very little of this from even The Hold Steady's website. I'm pretty sure that when the album is confirmed by either the band or a notable source it can be recreated, but right now its too early. Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}_{Strange Frequencies} 16:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Although other unreleased albums have had preliminary pages (see LP7) before definitive confirmation, not enough information exists at present. For shame, me. Grzond (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting that the above is the original author of the article - Fritzpoll (talk) 19:39, 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 merge. There is clear consensus in this debate that this article does not meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards, though there is some divergence in opinion as to how best to handle it. For GFDL compliance, the article cannot be deleted now unless some of the text and history at Numerology is also deleted, as material from it was merged there on February 26. It could be history merged with that article, but there is considered opinion expressed below that it should exist as a redirect, if some disagreement as to what article is its best destination. On closure of this AfD, it will be redirected to Numerology and placed in Category:Redirects from merges. I do not feel that refashioning it as a disambiguation page adding other potential targets would violate the consensus of this AfD. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical Numerology[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Appears to be an original research synthesis. Previous AfD resulted in no consensus, article has not been improved since, perhaps consensus can be reached this time. Shirahadasha (talk) 03:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. --Shirahadasha (talk) 03:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. --Shirahadasha (talk) 03:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smite as mostly synthesis and original research; very few, if any claims here, could easily be verified. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks like I found my new project. There are very many notable and independent sources about Biblical numerology. It is a subject of some note in Abrahamic religious theology. I am going to completely rewrite it and source everything as I did with John Hick. Hazillow (talk) 04:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Forget it. I can't find anything objective on its history and I know I would probably have to end up citing some crackpot end-of-times website to get the article done. Don't we already have an article on the Bible code? That is all Biblical numerology is, basically. Nothing worth salvaging here, but if there is, rework into numerology or something, I guess. How discouraging. Delete. Hazillow (talk) 05:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have found one reference that may be of use to anyone wishing to salvage this article: http://philologos.org/__eb-nis/default.htm Hazillow (talk) 05:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe Hazillow can turn this into good material, but as it is this is synthesis and original research, neither of which are very well done. Dgf32 (talk) 05:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this violation of WP:NOR and WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. Sounds like a "sermon" gone wrong. (While in Judaism there is a legitimate field of Gematria, this is nowhere any way like it.) IZAK (talk) 05:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOR and WP:SYN. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Save the best bits and redirect to Numerology#Numerology_in_the_Bible. The references - including Britannica - show that this is a verifiable topic. The question is how best to deal with it. Deletion of valid and verifiable topics is inappropriate activity for an encyclopedia. I agree that the way the article is currently structured is not helpful to the general reader - and I understand there is a reluctance by editors to work on this. I will move the best bits to Numerology, and leave it up to the closing admin if the valid search term "Biblical Numerology" is best removed completely from Wiki or used to point to a section in the Numerology article which will deal briefly with the topic. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 11:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to the most relevant location, and merge anything worth merging. Jon513 (talk) 11:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect; I would recommend either Gematria or Bible code as a target. Or this could be made into a disambiguation page that points to both of those two locations. *** Crotalus *** 17:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This could be easily rolled into 'Numerology in the Bible' under the main articles for each, once it is properly sourced. MrPrada (talk) 18:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Notable subject, but as Crotalus pointed out, the content has already been covered in the Bible code and Gematria articles.--TBC !?! 20:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect No reason that "Biblical Numerology" should be a redlink, but this shouldn't exist as an article because of the OR problem. Nyttend (talk) 01:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is not purely WP:OR. This is a genuine theological subject. It is most undesirable to merge it with Numerology to which it is currently a sub-article, as that would upset the balance of that article. Equally redirecting to Gematria (an article related to Jewish theology, not Christian) or to Bible code which is (in my view) cranky. This article is dealing with a legitimate subject, possibly one that some people will regard as slightly esoteric. What is lacking is references and discussion of differing views on the significance of each number. However warrants tagging for improvement, not its deletion. Furthermore, I would suggest that the fact that the article has several times before been subjected to an AFD process without being deleted indicates that it should be retained. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to disambiguation page listing Gematria and Bible code as suggested by Crotalus above, and perhaps Numerology#Numerology in the Bible can be listed as well. --MPerel 03:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR -- Alexf⁴² 22:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As noted above by Peterkingiron, Gematria really has very little do with the content of the article, as it is a completely different religion, so redirecting "Biblical Numerology" there is not appropriate. Bible code is completely different and unrelated to the content here, so that too, is not appropriate. Merging the content into Numerology#Numerology in the Bible will upset the balance of that article and give undue weight to the subject. So really, the only way to settle this is to improve the article by addressing the various issues it is tagged for, as well as referencing the content. I have taken it upon myself to improve the article (I've had the external links open in tabs since the nomination), however, I haven't been able to find time to commit myself to it fully just yet. It's not that I don't care about the state of the article (I do), but more time is needed to undertake something like this. Although the AfD is what brought me to the article, it is not a good approach to do nothing with it and nominate it every 4 months. AfD should be a last resort, and, really, although the article is in bad shape, it doesn't merit one. --Pwnage8 (talk) 00:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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