< February 5	February 7 >

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

The result was Keep/No Consensus to delete - . Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oliyum oliyum[edit]

Delete. Non-notable movie. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 14:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Do not delete] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vcubemax (talk • contribs) 16:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC) This is not a movie and was a much sought-after program in ints hey day. Ask any tamil person.[reply]

Content is really misleading. Could you please explain or expand or add some citations at this article? Cheers. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 16:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've wikified the page, hopefully it will provide some context. -- RoninBK _{T C} 16:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Thanks. It looks really nice now, at least, easy to get the idea. Well, I think few third-party reference will strengthen its existence. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 17:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

vcubemax: I think we can change the status of this article to Stub. Is the issue settled? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vcubemax (talk • contribs) 21:18, 5 February 2008

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anthøny 21:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced. Notability is unclear at best. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Commentary such as this blog entry leads me to believe the show may actually be notable. Considering that the article is very new, and English language sources for a Tamil show may be hard to find, I think that giving more time for sources to be found would be appropriate. I've tagged it as TV stub and tagged it as unreferenced. -- Whpq (talk) 22:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability established in sources. Sestertium (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- needs expanding and referencing, but could be salvaged and as a TV programme will probably be notable. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 21:48, 10 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--JForget 00:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hearn's Guard[edit]

The creator of the article states he/she is a member of the organization that the article is about. (See article's talk page). The creator has included a large amount of information based only on personal experience. Lastly, the notability of the organization has not been demonstrated. An internet search shows that the only information about the organization comes from the official school website. Pesco (talk) 00:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not pass notability guidelines. --Beloved Freak 19:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an article on a small honor guard that is a part of the marine Corps of Cadets at Texas A&M. About as not-notable as one can get. the articles consists almost entirely of a letter naming the Guard after a non-notable local figure. Borderline G11 as promotional. DGG (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability. Sestertium (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet notability standard. BowChickaNeowNeow (talk) 20:56, 8 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 Dreadstar † 00:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yacht charter greece[edit]

Contested prod. The content of the article is not related to the title, and the article appears to be a coatrack to link to a website. The author appears to be advertising for a company he or she may be affiliated with. A ecis^Brievenbus 23:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page:

Delete. Spam and, when the external link is removed, travel guide. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 00:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Per G11. This is blatant advertising. Gromlakh (talk) 00:30, 7 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) 14:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Key Result Area[edit]

Contested prod; removed by author without explanation. Article is a WP:COATRACK for Michael Ludlow's writings. Ludlow is a COI as he has created this article. Aside from that, article fails WP:V and WP:RS. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete User:HelloAnnyong nailed it; agree with all of those reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BowChickaNeowNeow (talk • contribs) 20:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, and apparently unsuccessful attempt to coin a business neologism by repurposing a common English phrase to stand for something so obvious it needs no definition. The article is completely unsourced and its content entirely unencyclopedic. It reads like a poorly-written jacket summary of a self-help book. Wikidemo (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unencyclopedic, has no WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:04, 13 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PageLens[edit]

I originally DBed this, not realizing that products don't fall under A7. I propose this deletion because it's an unsourced article about a nonnotable extension. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 23:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete. it's still in Beta testing! Kingturtle (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable and unsourced. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 15:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 22:33, 7 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. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Landon Palacka[edit]

PROD removed by author. This looks like a hoax - schoolboy mis-spellings, Google provides nothing to confirm, author's user-name suggests autobiography. JohnCD (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete non-notable person. Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 23:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete db-bio. Also note author has removed AfD tag. JuJube (talk) 23:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy as per WP:CSD#A7. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as blatant copyvio of this site. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign against missile defence[edit]

Looks like a Soapbox. Also seems like a WP:COI. see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U.S. missile defense also. Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 22:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

cleanup. It is definitely POV right now, but with work it can be salvaged. Maybe it can even include criticisms of the movements. Kingturtle (talk) 22:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete. I looked at the edit summary of the article, saw that it didn't have very many edits in spite of its enormous length. Usually that's an indication of cut and paste copyright violation. I found one of the sources for the copyright violation, and I put the appropriate tag on the article. Kingturtle (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined towards deleting the article. As it stands, the article is somewhere between a coatrack, a soapbox and original research. I think it would be better to rewrite it from scratch, than to attempt to clean this up. A ecis^Brievenbus 23:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
neutral. This article is a crap article, primarily because of its POV, but it is the only useful article about the latest anti-American comsymp movement, and as such, there should be an article on it, and there seems to be useful material for such an article. Argyriou (talk) 01:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copy-Vio Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 01:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 07:09, 7 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 National missile defense --JForget 01:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. missile defense[edit]

Looks like a Soapbox. Also seems like a WP:COI. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Campaign against missile defence also Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 22:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup. That article is definitely a mess. But it is a valid topic. It should be tagged for cleanup. Kingturtle (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete. I discovered that this article was cut and pasted from a URL. Copyright violation. Kingturtle (talk) 11:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV fork of National missile defense. Argyriou (talk) 01:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 07:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to National missile defense. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete copy-vio Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 19:06, 7 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 (nomination withdrawn) Non-admin closure. Whpq (talk) 22:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Master Control (Cartoon Network)[edit]

There is already a section in the Cartoon Network page labeled "Master Control". Delete thisatricle, or the section?

Wikipedia:Anything_to_declare?: I am the biggest contributor to this article and received a barnstar for it as well. Two One Six Five Five ^τ_ʃ 21:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind! Never mind! Two One Six Five Five ^τ_ʃ 21:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does that translate to "speedy close"? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I daresay it does. So do we? Two One Six Five Five ^τ_ʃ 14:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 15:40, 7 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, rename ad possibly reorganise. Tikiwont (talk) 10:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Previous Warped Tour bands[edit]

This is basically a directory listing and as such not encyclopedic. Entries in the list have no encyclopedic text regarding them. Per WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory.

It is also completely unreferenced. _(1 == 2)^Until 19:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to List of Warped Tour lineups by year and reorganize as such. There is ample precedent for such lists. See List of Lollapalooza lineups by year; many others are incorporated into the festival articles themselves but are obvious breakout candidates. --Dhartung | Talk 05:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move as per Dhartung. Great idea. Kingturtle (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I can see keeping this information, but there is most likely a better manner in which to do so then this current article. --T-rex 06:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Andrew c ^[talk] 21:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move' per Dhartung. That seems like the best use of the information. matt91486 (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move per Dhartung. Doczilla (talk) 09:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move When I created it, I was pretty much just to move the information from cluttering Warped Tour's page. Dark jedi requiem (talk) 00:50, 11 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 --JForget 01:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tournament of Death[edit]

Original PROD rm'd because of being a "notable indie tournament". I beg to differ _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{round of applause} 21:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. According to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, at least by a very logical extension of something I found on that page about small wrestling leagues, this isn't notable. This is neither the highest level of amateur wrestling nor of professional (kayfabe) wrestling, which leads me to the same conclusion from a different direction. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Asserts no notability outside of its own group; no news coverage or anything of the like. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete CZW may pass the notability test (although just barely), but there is no indication that this tournament does. It also has no sources and no indication of what makes the tournament notable. TJ Spyke 01:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. - DrWarpMind (talk) 02:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Delete Non-notable; atrocious article that stands little chance of being improved Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 15:57, 7 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ernie W. Webb III[edit]

Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline Arthur Ford Dent (talk) 20:12, 30 January 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 21:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Judging from the username of the creator, this is an autobiography page and is in any case non-notable. Ham Pastrami (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable person; COI bio created by author. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - main claim for notability is awards, however the awards are local in nature and not significant enough to pass the notability bar. -- Whpq (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - no reliable sources used to establish notability. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:52, 10 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 hopeless trainwreck where no consensus can be found. This page will be immediately renominated for deletion. Will ^(talk) 16:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Round Table[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)).

Oxford Round Table (ORT) is a minor business venture that involves a conference organised by an American company but convened in an Oxford college. Some Oxonians are incensed by this, and there has been a small amount of brouhaha on forums as a result, but the sources do not indicate that this is actually notable or significant, only that it exists. A short piece in the TES, for example, but that does not establish the supposed notability of the company. Most of the sources are either primary (business registration data) or not independent (the company's own website); much of the article reads as orignial research (e.g. the linking of the for-profit and non-profit companies, and the statement that they are members of the same family, which has no source; it's not an especially uncommon surname); and most of the substantive edits, including initial creation, have been made by single purpose accounts on one side or other of the external dispute, most of them heavily conflicted. Add to this a new twist: a complaint to the Foundation, discussing legal action being taken against one of the activists pushing in the direction of criticism and negative material. In my opinion, this article is more trouble than it is worth, given the marginal notability of the subject and the fact that the article itself exists, per present evidence, almost exclusively as a battleground for an off-wiki dispute. Guy (Help!) 21:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appeared that we were close to consensus among all parties (including one representing the ORT) until the Oxford Round Table came in yesterday with apparent legal threats. As Tony Sidaway points out on the talk page for this article, what you describe as a "new twist" is actually an ORT person's description of something that happened in May 2007, prior to the filing of the lawsuit. You do not specify whether a legal threat has been made to the Wikimedia Foundation; I would be interested to know if that is the case.

Meanwhile, I have begun working on sourcing for the family connections, as you will see on the article's talk page. However, I doubt that the ORT can seriously be disputing that Kern Alexander III is the son of Kern Alexander, Jr.Academic38 (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No threats were made, as I understand it there is legal action in process against one of the individuals who appears incidentally to be editing this article. Inserting content and then "working on sourcing" it is a bad idea; source first, then add it. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you saying that Sloan Mahone is working on this article? I think that would be a very dumb thing for her to do. As for content, I agree that sourcing first is correct, but I had not imagined that asserting that XYZ III is XYZ Jr.'s son could be controversial. While "Alexander" may be a common name, all of the men in it have K's in their name: Kern Jr., Kern III, King, Klint, and they all appear as directors in various combinations in over 20 corporations the Alexander family has established in Florida, Kentucky, and Illinois. Not even anyone on the ORT side has objected to these assertions of relationship.Academic38 (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Weak keep - Contributors to this article, while many operate as WP:SPA, do seem to be steadily improving their approach towards editing the article, working towards achieving consensus on the talk page and avoiding continued edit warring, which demonstrates that even editors with a clear conflict of interest can be brought together to work towards improving content on Wikipedia. Neither COI nor SPA are grounds for article deletion; both are only guidelines, they are not policies. As WP:SPA specifically states: "such accounts are permitted". There also appears to be little disruption to the encyclopedia as a whole, as a result of COI activity on this one article. The disputes and edit warring between involved parties (aside from it quietening down now) are limited to this one entry. In terms of notability; the organisation itself does seem notable: Oxford colleges hosting ORT events have noted as much on their websites (e.g. here), it is reported in valid secondary sources (e.g. here, here and here), and notable academics have been in attendance at ORT events (e.g. Michael_Beloff and Norbert_Lammert). It seems as if it's notable within academic circles. These are just a few cursory references dug up from a Google search: I haven't taken part in any searches for citations but I am certain that if those are to be found in ten minutes there are more fitting and solid references to be found. What this article needs is improvement by way of neutral editors working to establish WP:NPOV. The article is not irredeemable. In addition, I don't recall legal threats to Wikimedia Foundation being grounds for article deletion, per WP:CENSOR and WP:NLT, but if I'm wrong on that then let me know with some examples. Coldmachine^Talk 22:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to the question about legal threats: Probably the closest analog are the BLP standards. Of course the context is different, but I think the spirit "marginal notability => respect wishes of the subject" may be appropriate to follow over to this case.--Nilf anion (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've switched my !vote to delete: really, I had been trying to help the SPA editors come together to reach consensus, and it seemed like progress was being made: I posted on ANI to request help but the community ignored this; some neutral editors did finally come along and again it looked like progress was being made. This AfD has merely drawn everyone into partisan lines once more, and I am offended by two accusations which fail to assume good faith about my editing intentions on this entry. I am recusing myself from the article, switching my !vote to delete, and don't wish to be contacted about this entry. It's really not worth the energy I've been expending. Coldmachine^Talk 09:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment This is very unfortunate, but it demonstrates the effect that the ORT's bullying has. I suggest it is wrong for Wikipedia to let itself be bullied.Academic38 (talk) 06:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete - I worked on this a bit sometime back, and found that there are very few reliable sources to establish notability of the company. It likely fails a strict interpretation of the company notability guideline. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - I've been reading through the CHE forums and this page. (I have been researching the topic trying to decide whether or not to attend the conference). Although I understand many of the concerns raised, it appears the only solid source of evidence in support of the controversial components of this page (which sadly seem to undergird most of the page's existence) is an article summing up the claims made in the forum. I'm not sure why this particular venue is so polarizing, but as a journalist, I would never consider a summary of an Internet forum as an authoritative source worthy of inclusion in a publication, physical or electronic. This entry was of little help to me, and seemed based more on conjectured and unanswered (unsupported, anyway) questions than sourced information. Jrichardstevens (talk) 23:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep - I am one of the SPA accounts (I gather it is important to be up-front about that). My opinion probably won't count for much, but I will offer a bit of data for your consideration, in relation to notability: a search for "Oxford Round Table" on Nexis produces 147 hits in the category of newspaper articles. Entirely normal newspapers, such as the Philadelphia Inquirer and the Cleveland Plain Dealer. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Part of the notability of the ORT is the infamy itself, that is, if they are visible enough (which seems to be the case) then readers will in fact look here to research them, e.g. in deciding whether to submit a contribution or to attend. So even if ORT were outright fraud, it would be disservice to delete the article. However, note that Oxford can summarily dump them at any time for any reason; it's not like landlords wanting to break a lease with a troublesome tenant. The mere fact that the conference continues to be held at Oxford, when some object to their use of the name, suggests notability. Believe me, if I held a KKK rally by renting Duke's gym during the off-season, and called it "KKK, Duke Chapter" they'd throw me out in a heartbeat. It looks like the article has serious difficulties with numerous concerned editors (concerned one way or another) but our difficultly presenting the material correctly is not in itself a reason to dump the article. The article subject seems both notable and useful, even if the article presentation is quarrelsome. Pete St.John (talk) 01:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The infamy, what is that being based on? We have one reliable independent source that actually gives us info. That one source hardly proves that ORT is a evil organisation, it doesn't even demonstrate that ORT is all that controversial - merely that contributors to the forums object to it. (They may be evil, but no reliable source actually demonstrates that).--Nilf anion (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a researcher who found this page as I was trying to decide whether or not to attend, let me offer my refutation to the notion that this article is a valuable device for people in my position. It does not appear many (if ANY) of the critics driving this "controversy" have actually been to the gathering. The discussion forum widely cited appears driven mostly mostly on speculation and snarky comments (and some admittedly crack online research, though mostly focused on resolving specious claims and questions). How can a venue be "infamous" only in the eyes of those who haven't attended? Why do their voices (whether first hand or second hand) warrant the authority necessary to justify this "controversy's" existence? I see little difference between this event and the myriad of conferences that promote their venues as an attractive component of the package. I am not an editor for this article and will not become one. But please don't venture to speak for me or those in my position on such flimsy pretense.Jrichardstevens (talk) 06:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only a marginal demonstration of notability, and the organisation doesn't appear to meet the relevant guideline. The news articles I checked all refer either to ORT in passing, not as the article's subject, or to a different organisation entirely (fireworks?). The external dispute boiling over to Wikipedia isn't directly relevant, but doesn't help with the article's quality at all or make the subject any more notable.--Nilf anion (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – 147 newspaper articles (as per Nexis search on “Oxford Round Table”) – how on earth does this not meet the guideline on notability? Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, February 20, 2000, “Superintendent To Join Oxford's Round Table”; Albuquerque Journal, September 8, 2004, “Pastor Attends Oxford Meeting”; Charleston Gazette, April 25, 2003, “State native goes to Oxford forum” – I’m sure no one wants me to go extend this list further here, but it could easily be done. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These articles are about the various individuals, not the organisation. They don't establish that the organisation is notable, merely that people go to it (which is obvious), we need articles about ORT to establish notability.--Nilf anion (talk) 11:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the articles are about the participation of the individuals in the event organised by the organisation. The reason for the writing/publication of the articles is (participation in) the event, not the attributes/qualities of the individuals. A reporter or editor who writes/publishes an article about someone going to ORT does so because participation in the event seems significant. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would anyone like to buy an Oxford round table? It's cheaper than attending the seminar...--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a person who found the ORT Wikipedia page on the web because a professor thought the conference was very informative and interesting, I am a bit disturbed how individuals can come on this forum and gloss over the conference itself, but highlight the 'controversy'. I have been viewing this page in silence, sometimes, and it just seems so pointless. More people are attempting to cover minor gossip, than have an informative article! I can see everyone's prospective, but I just think it make Wikipedia look very unreliable when the article acts more as a gossip column than a strictly fact-filled article. Just my thoughts!! LAstride (talk) 03:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)— LAstride (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Strong keep It is admitted on all sides that there is notable controversy over this organisation; therefore it is notable and should have an article. Argument over the content of the article belongs elsewhere. We do not delete articles because the might contain unsourced material if it is not removed, because people threaten legal action over it, or because different entities dispute the status. We edit it in a neutral fashion. I have no knowledge or interest with respect to this organisation in particular. i do have a very strong feeling that we must never let outside influences dictate the contents of wikipedia, or make sufficient inconveniences that we abandon our own neutrality. Editors who despair of getting their own way on an article often propose to delete it: they should be ignored. DGG (talk) 04:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a notable controversy? We have just one source on that subject. The editors involved on both sides have strong feelings about the dispute, but that does not mean that their fight is worth our time to document.--Nilf anion (talk) 11:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Another SPA here. I would like to second DGG's comment that editors despairing of not getting their own way vote for deletion. That seems to be the case with ORT people here. As for the relevant guideline, there is one article specifically about the controversy that is independent and quoted all sides. Moreover, that guideline says that being a national or international organization is grounds for considering in notability, and the ORT certainly meets that criterion. Then there is the article by Richard Margrave in The Times of November 1, 1993, specifically discussing a meeting of the ORT. The article does get demerits because he was a participant, but a quick Google search turns up plenty of evidence that he is an important person in UK education. So, I would suggest by the guideline Nilfanion cited, the ORT is already notable. Also, what if the THES does a follow-up piece (for example, when the UK lawsuit is resolved, as it will be one way or another) or the ORT people produce the independent sources they claim to have on the article's talk page? Notability will be even more strongly established, and all the work that has gotten close to consensus would be wasted, if the article is deleted.
BTW, I am sure Nilfanion is correct that the fireworks organization named Oxford Round Table is a different organization. It appears to be based in Oxford.Academic38 (talk) 06:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - the challenge is that the reliable sources are not available to establish notability. There are notable people involved with the conferences, notable people object to them on internet forums, summaries of internet forum discussions are published in ordinarily reliable sources. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 06:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment The 1993 article in The Times that I mention does not fall into this category. It is a story about educational change in the former Soviet Union, focusing on an Oxford Round Table devoted to this issue. I can supply it to you if you do not have access.Academic38 (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely Strong Delete I agree with the Guy. Nomoskedasticity, Academic2007, Academic38 and the extremely transparent "neutrality" of Coldmachine all have personal stake in the issue of Oxford Round Table, it shows because some of these people post apparently to a blog which defames the ORT. I have information regarding the organization that is true, and to some people, may be seem as positive traits. I have gotten shot down, called a 'marketer' and an "insider." All I want to do is highlight the purpose of the ORT, since I know what it is and can cite sources. When more time is spent creating and maintaining a 'controversy' section as opposed to the subject of the article, there is indeed a problem. The above message has soon ridiculous quote about neutrality; I mean, seriously, have you ever read the talk page or seen the history of the article? Well, you probably have since you've never posted before (yeah, right) on the ORT article and decided today to assume a different identify to weigh in on keeping the page. You speak of not deleting articles with unsourced materials, but what about people who are so wrapped you in ridiculousness that they delete cited materials because it didn;t highlight the controversy further; but rather ACTUAL (cited)INFORMATION about the subject. I'm not buying your argument DGG or Nomoskedasticity or Coldmachine or whoever identity you assumed tonight. As you can see, I am frustrated at this non-sense. Best Obscuredata (talk) 06:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)— Obscuredata (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please comment on content, not on contributors. (regardless of how you feel about them). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 06:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.. Let's be clear: 1. I don't have a blog, so how can I be posting to one about the ORT (which, by the way, I don't, but if you have proof then please display it for everyone to see); 2. I came in to the ORT article when the University of Oxford article, which I nominated and worked on to bring it up to GA status, mentioned it and the controversy (I think a link was included or something). I saw the debate, saw the problems, and tried to work towards bringing editors towards a consensus on the changes being made. I posted on ANI requesting help with this. I am extremely offended by your casual throwaway remarks about my involvement being biased; you have no grounds whatsoever for this accusation and I consider this a personal attack. Coldmachine^Talk 08:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I consider it a personal attack when I am accused of having a conflict of interest and that was never confirmed. Stop your personal attacks Coldmachine. Thank you. Obscuredata (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Add-On!! Academic38.. Why must you keep talking about the controversy?!?! All I want to do is get accurate information about the organization of it and post it; not one aspect that developed probably 3 or months ago. I have wanted to talk about updating the paper so it contains more information on ORT and you all shot it down as marketing. In Wikipedia terms, is accurate, truthful information marketing? I hope not! As I understand it, the organization has existed for 20 years and the 'controversy' section is longer than the opening paragraph!! You are biased and have something against ORT; I don't believe the article has any validity in its current state and if it continues, it will be nothing more than a power struggle in which all of you gang up on me. How is that productive to Wikipedia and the people that rely on it for information? It's not, and the article should be removed! Obscuredata (talk) 06:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability is established when secondary sources report on a topic. As you will see above, I pointed to two such secondary sources, one from 1993 in The Times that discusses an ORT session on education in the former Soviet Union, and one from 2007 in the Times Higher Education that discusses the controversy. FYI, the ORT thread on the Chronicle began in November 2006, and it was only in December 2007 that THE decided it was worth reporting on.Academic38 (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, but when truth is compromised, I get frustrated. Obscuredata (talk) 06:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~WP:SPS states that forum postings are not reliable sources.~~ --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Forum postings are not being used as sources - which version of the article did you look at? Pairadox (talk) 07:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response I miss-read the URLs. I still think that this article should be deleted as the organisation isn't notable - the only claim to notability is for a single dispute which seems to have been limited to a relatively small audience, and I don't feel that this is enough to meet WP:N --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as a marginally notable corporation. I'm not sure that controversy, by itself, makes a group notable. Take my discussion with a grain of salt, as I was one of the contributors to this article whose edits have been deleted. I attempted to remove the cruft and stubbify it. My actions, ultimately, were not successful. Comment: my understanding of libel law (which I teach, BTW) is that, under NY law, a corporation can not be a plaintiff in a libel case, but I am not certain of FL law (which applies to WP, being incorporated in that state). After a year at WP, this is one of the few times I've been truly conflicted about a discussion. Bearian (talk) 14:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is clearly a content dispute, rather than a a dispute about whether this is a notable subject. Plenty of press articles have been cited which are about people attending, or being invited to, this conference, meaning that reliable sources have recognised this as a notable subject, as well as the Times Educational Supplement article about the controversy. User:Obscuredata, who !voted for an extremely strong delete, said that (s)he had cited information which could go in the article. That this information exists is a demonstration that this is a notable subject which should have an article. Deleting articles because they are controversial would be a breach of the spirit of WP:NPOV. Discussion about content should continue on the talk page. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had cited information, but because others decided it was 'marketing' and not worthy of being in the article, I guess it does not count; so therefore it must not be notable for Wiki standards. Article should be deleted. Obscuredata (talk) 23:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is absoulutely a content dispute, but the reason to delete is not related to that. There is talk of reliable sources that establish notability, but they really don't seem to. If you look at the references in the article the TES one is likely fine for the controversy (moderate for establishing notability), there are a number of primary sources about the company and it's officers (not good for establishing notability), lots from the companies website and related websites (not good for establishing notability), and several from reliable sources about notable people going to the conference (doesn't seem to me that these establish notability of the company/conference). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP! The ORT is certainly notable within academic circles. OrionClemens (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC) — OrionClemens (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment I was accused of being biased; while I agree that I may be looked upon as that, I can't understand how truth is compromised. If this Wikipedia page is kept, it will be nothing but a power struggle that does not serve the individuals that look to Wikipedia for help or information. Tepid1 (talk) 01:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC) — Tepid1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KEEP!!! There are many press articles and college websites that say that faculty members have attended ORT. Many faculty list talks at ORT on their CVs. Most academics receive invitations from ORT to attend their conferences. So it is helpful to have a source of information about ORT on the web. Yes, there's dispute about the academic credibility of ORT, and Wikipedia is no stranger to such controversies. It has its own ways of dealing with those disputes. It looks very much like the proposal to delete the entry comes from people who want to shield ORT from criticism, and so if the entry is deleted, this will be a clear sign that Wikipedia is subject to commercial pressures. The dispute about ORT is all about content and it should continue. --Slintfan (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)— Slintfan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

DELETE I should probably note I've been listed as a single topic contributor on the Oxford Round Table article talkpage. I have argued ever since the advent of this article that it constitutes a form of attacl page and should be deleted on that account. Though recent edits have lessened that effect of the page, it still seems to me to fail notability guidelines and the talk page clearly illustrates that this article has become a battleground for external ideologies which are using Wikipedia as a soapbox. So please DELETE it and restore the dignity of all parties. (Coligny (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)) — Coligny (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

DELETE!!!! for sure. Wiki has been duped by the contrivances of anonymous posters, Dr. Stones, LarryC, Untenured et al. and UKProf (Sloan Mahone) all of the Chronicle thread that is devoted to closing down the ORT. A review of the Chronicle thread clearly reveals the conspiracy of these bandits, with malice aforethought. End the thing.Billingsworth (talk) 16:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC) — Billingsworth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Very Strong Delete: It should be deleted because the entire site was created to cast calumny on the Oxford Round Table. The anonymous posters daily enter, directly and by implication, scurrilous biased information about the ORT. The incorporation argument pretends that there is something sinister about the ORT, when in fact it is almost a carbon copy of the Wikipedia incorporation in Florida. Drop the whole thing and do a service to everyone.Apprec8coetzee (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC) — Apprec8coetzee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Most of the damage is being done to Wikipedia. All of the 'talk' merely indicated that Wiki is an unreliable source for anyone interested in accurate information. As a result of my following this circus about this entity (The Round Table), I have warned the freshman at my university, where I teach two classes of 200 each, to never cite Wiki for anything. Deletion of articles that minimize information related to a subject and maximize one's personal attacks, may restore a modicum of credibility to Wiki. InformationKey (talk) 17:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC) — InformationKey (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Amazing how the Oxford Round Table creates brand new accounts to vote delete. InformationKey comes to mind. Then, of course, Apprec8coetzee, Billingsworth, Tepid1, and Aristotle13 were all created just when we about to reach consensus on the "controversy" section. They all attacked the consensus; Obscuredata then said he had meant to oppose it and voted for it by mistake. And now all of them (except Aristotle 13, who hasn't posted on this page) vote delete. On the other side, only Slintfan is a new account voting keep.

Notice how none of the ORT posters I've just named has claimed that it isn't notable. Of course, they'll probably all state that now. :-) Academic38 (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A suspected sockpuppet report has been filed at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Billingsworth‎. Pairadox (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wikipedia's reliability has been raised again, and trashed again. I teach at a two-year college. I do not allow my students to cite a tertiary source, such as Wikipedia, unless they had exhausted primary and secondary sources. I encourage them to use WP as a first step in the research, or as a quoted synthesis. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 02:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. How is the ORT site different from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirectBuy? If you look at this DirectBuy page, you'll see that, on one side, you have a company that thinks it has a good business model and offers a valuable service to its customers. On the other side, you have critics that think the company is not straightforward with its offerings, and charges rates that are too high. The edit history and discussion page of the site show much conflict, including legal threats by the company. I don't know if the DirectBuy site was ever proposed for deletion, but it is still posted, providing a useful resourse to anyone who gets a solicitation from that company. Likewise, an ORT article, balanced through the consensus process that was developing on the discussion page, can provide information without being either a puff piece for the company or an attack page for critics. Isn't that the point of an encyclopedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Athoughtforyou (talk • contribs) 02:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC) — Athoughtforyou (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. Appears to fail WP:CORP; very few reliable sources are cited in the article. The SPA/sock circus isn't really a reason to delete, but it's sure not helping. If by some mischance the article is kept, it needs serious work; it reads like an advertisement, and there are too many citations to questionable sources. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify your views on corporate noteworthiness? ORT hosts about 30 conferences a year, with about 40 participants in each, thereby involving over a thousand people a year. The page cites to many press releases issued by the employers of the invitees, all of which indicates their belief in its noteworthiness. The Times Ed. Supplement found the topic noteworthy, and this journal is within the focus of people that ORT caters to. I certainly understand that Wikipedia may not have the funds or stomach if ORT decides to sue, but can it honestly delete this article on noteworthiness grounds. Finally, I would note that, in its current version, there aren't as many reliable sources as their used to be. I believe this condition can be remedied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Athoughtforyou (talk • contribs) 03:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases aren't useful sources for establishing notability. What we need is substantial coverage in secondary sources; and I don't see enough in this article. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Press releases can be fine for establishing notability if they are independent of the subject, which, if they are issued by the employers of invitees, they are. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The number of SPAs involved in this debate is amazing. --Nick Dowling (talk) 05:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Akhilleus, plus possible BLP issues. Orderinchaos 17:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What BLP issues? I can't see any statements in the article about living people which are not supported by reliable sources. And even if there were any such statements they could be removed by editing; deletion wouldn't be required to fix the problem. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - many of the accounts editing this deletion debate (AfD) have been blocked as disruptive single-purpose accounts (SPAs). Some of the accounts were not SPAs, but some do appear to have been created solely for the purpose of editing the article and this AfD. This is being discussed at Wikipedia:ANI#Is it just me... and the following subsections (permalink as of time of writing). This may explain why some of the questions to the SPAs go unanswered. And according to User:Krimpet, "#2008012410015146 is the associated OTRS ticket". Carcharoth (talk) 06:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Drstones (involves most of the editors involved in this, and then some more uninvolved ones - there has indeed been sockpuppeting going on here, or at least people editing from the same IP address). Carcharoth (talk) 12:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (with no prejudicce for careful recreation) - This article was clearly started to bring an off-wiki dispute on-wiki, and it never really recovered from that. If there needs to be any article at all, it would benefit from a clean start, though not, obviously, by the same editors. Carcharoth (talk) 12:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a lot of valuable material in what already exists. Pairadox has already created a clean start on the "controversy" section. Guy's initial complaint was that the "corporate history" section included a lot of original research, but it was actually primary sources whose use complies with WP policy on primary sources, i.e., their interpretation is self-evident. Finally, I dispute the view that none of the previous editors are capable of writing from an NPOV. Only one side was sock-puppeting.Academic38 (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article creator (User:Drstones, currently blocked) has indicated his latest thoughts here, here and here. I am noting these comments as they may be relevant to the deletion debate. Carcharoth (talk) 20:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will admit upfront that I was asked to take a look at this page by someone that has been blocked! After reading all of the information and seeing the page this AfD stemmed from, I don't see how Wikipedia (and its 'administrators') can accept such a page. It is obvious that someone is using Wikipedia to defame an organization. And this whole business of people being blocked because they have 'interest' in the page is obsurd; those are the individuals that should be able to vocalize their opinion (either pro or against deletion). I hope I don't get blocked for stating that Wikipedia should be a bastion of honesty. TwoLove (talk) 03:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From your use of the term "defame," it is obvious that you were contacted by a blocked account from the ORT side. I'd like to point out they were the only ones using sockpuppets. There is nothing false, and hence nothing defamatory, in the article as it currently stands.Academic38 (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete This isn't very complicated. First, it isn't obvious that this is notable per WP:N. I do not see multiple indepdent, non-trivial reliable sources. There is exactly one linked to in the article, Melanie Newman's piece in the Times Higher Education Supplement. There seem to be mentions according to google news [1] but most seem to be local press announcing that someone has been invited to the ORT. Furthermore, many of the google news hits don't seem to be actually about this institution at all. As per Carcharoth, I don't object to careful recreation that doesn't have the host of problems this has and demonstrates suitable notability. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Recreate It seems to me that this has caused quite a debacle. Upon reviewing the article, I have to agree with a couple of JzG's assertions, namely the big problem with the sourcing. Carcharoth has made some great points; this article was clearly started to give ORT a bad name. My opinion, then, would be to delete the article and start entirely from scratch. GlassCobra 05:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep There is some serious bamboozling going on here. There are thousands of articles on wikipedia on less notable subjects. Proposed deletion here comes from the prospect of legal trouble, not lack of notability. Obviously the editing process needs to be brought under control - but deletion is inappropriate, least of all on grounds of notability, when a web search turns up dozens of news stories. True, they aren't referenced on the article now, but they could be. Some sources aren't available on line, but WP:V refers to secondary sources, not on-line secondary sources. Seems to me that far too many people here are willing to roll over in the face of lawyerly bullying. Get rid of the disruptive accounts and improve an article on an obviously notable subject. 66.84.37.52 (talk) 13:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notation - I thank Carcharoth for bringing my thoughts to the table during my block. Those thoughts support deleting the entry, which has become unmanageable and has devolved from my intent to create a stable and objective entry. Should someone desire to create a new entry, feel free, but I suspect the same road will be followed again and again. I am through with this entry and apologize to the community for ever bringing it to the project. Drstones (talk) 15:00, 11 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G. D. Buss[edit]

Non-notable person, appears to be an autobiography. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{round of applause} 21:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BIO - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 23:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability established Sestertium (talk) 17:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Sestertium. No notability established, as per WP:NOTE.

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agaskodo Teliverek[edit]

Non-notable band. Does not assert notability requirements of WP:BAND, and no reliable sources found. JERRY ^talk _contribs 12:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep featured by drownedinsound.com and have played the BBC Electric Proms. [2] Catchpole (talk) 15:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --PeaceNT (talk) 20:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I'm still not impressed. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 15:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A Google search turns up at most 5 hits, a myspace and a couple blogs. No notability has been asserted, therefore, it should be deleted. American Patriot 1776 (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 16:33, 9 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Underdog Records[edit]

Delete fails notability, released (apparently) some records by local Chicago bands, none of which appear to be notable (with the possible exception of Oblivion (band)), fails wp:corp. Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to fail WP:CORP; one (possibly) notable band doesn't a notable label make. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:35, 26 January 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 _contribs 02:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --PeaceNT (talk) 20:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 23:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable record company. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has more than one notable band as evidenced by the article itself - also Screeching Weasel used to be on this label. The fact that it's independent and obscure doesn't preclude notability. Delete per below Wisdom89 (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does it meet wp:corp ? -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 00:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it doesn't - you're correct. It does not have any significant coverage (not even a modicum) in secondary sources. Wisdom89 (talk) 00:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Team Tejas. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity (Team Tejas)[edit]

Non-notable, in-universe character. Mh29255 (talk) 04:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge to Team Tejas. Rsazevedo ^msg 23:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --PeaceNT (talk) 20:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Team Tejas. Any worthwhile info on this page should be copied over to the main article. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 15:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or keep, whatever the closing admin feels is more practical. This is similar to a Pokemon character. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:25, 7 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 DGG. Black Kite 12:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Cave[edit]

Fails WP:PROF. No indication of awards, expert in any category, well known body of work, etc. Rtphokie (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Racepacket (talk) 18:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Lquilter (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there does not seem to be sufficient coverage by third-parties that would allow the article to grow beyond a permanent shortish stub. Pichpich (talk) 15:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep based on Google scholar citation results. I also found a couple news stories where he is mentioned, but only in a trivial way as supplying a quote on someone else's research, so I don't think that helps much. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability and WP:PROF - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:45, 6 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, --PeaceNT (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cave is a full professor-- at a significant research university, with numerous publications; the publications and the citations to them establish the notability. Professor become notable by dint of their research and the recognition by the community as given by peer review and citation is the external RS for that. Notability is judged by the standards of their profession. So, what are his papers and their citations? He has 36 peer-reviewed papers in Web of Scienc, which is good, but not exceptional. But his most cited paper, in JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-HUMAN PERCEPTION AND PERFORMANCE Volume: 15 Issue: 3 Pages: 419-433 Published: 1989 is cited 645 times and his next most cited, ins cited 303 times. This is notability by any standard for a researcher. DGG (talk) 04:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 00:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. DGG's analysis is persuasive.--Kubigula (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, so default to keep. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heptalogy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

A nonce word/ neology created by analogy with "trilogy". My original AFD nomination for this page was approved unanimously and by a relatively large number of people. Shortly afterwards the page was recreated in much the same form. The article is prohibited by WP:NOT, which says "articles about words formed on a predictable numeric system... are not encyclopedic". The purpose of this rule is obvious; it is to stop articles whose titles contain numbers being expanded indefinitely and to the point of silliness. It is the reason that there are no individual articles on octuplets or triennial or bicentenary or quadreme or even (far more saliently) hexalogy. Citations certainly exist for all of these things and the one improvement the user who recreated the heptalogy article made was in providing citations for that word. The fact remains that this word is not an established concept like the iambic pentameter or the hexadecimal system; rather it is a word that is coined from time to time as an answer to the question: "if a trilogy is three things, what is the word for seven things?". The nature of the citations is fairly revealing. Most are so old that they predate the establishment of online editions of their newspapers. If one searches long enough for a word that is formed on a predictable system it will inevitably be found. This is not the same as being "genuinely in use", the only exception to the rule quoted above. I would be happy to see the page being replaced by a redirect but in its current form it looks indefensible Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 20:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete again I'm surprised that this not only came back, but that it came back with the same title as before. I'd wear a disguise if I was sneaking back across the border. "Heptalogy" is easily confused not only with herpetology (study of snakes) but also hepatology (study of the liver). As with a suggestion that six things be a "sexology", there are reasons why the word isn't more common. A search of Google books brings back 28 hits. There's no reference to any studies of literature (though some of these are apparently to newspaper book reviews); I have a feeling that the author ain't no lit major. This is a mild improvement over the last article, which described the Police Academy movies as a modern day seven-part masterpiece. However, just as there's a difference between a literary trilogy and a movie series that stopped at "III", not every group of seven things would be a "heptology". The author obviously has some sources... my suggestion would be that if you're really wanting to make this work, then you include a quotable quote in each of your footnotes-- it may well be that Michael Wright's review of Marcel Proust's series included the word "heptology", as in "Marcel Proust wrote one helluva heptology in the form of Remembrance of Things Past". Give us something more to go with than counting to seven. Mandsford (talk) 23:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They include the word "heptalogy" (not "heptology"). :-) I've added quotes for each citation included for those lit majors who can't verify offline references. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article re-creation is not "sneaking". I addressed the citation problems raised in the previous AFD. Indefinite series is not proposed here (and citations would not exist for whatever the word is for a series of 19 anyway), so that concern is not salient. I'm also surprised that having "old" citations (in addition to current citations) is raised as a problem alongside accusations of neologism -- citations do not have to be online to be valid. And 3 of the 7 citations are from 2007. The citations given as genuine and show the word genuinely in use across multiple years. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With the citations, the article shows that there are certain seven-part works of literature that are considered by literary critics to be true "heptalogies". For anyone who remembers the prior article (which not only included original research, but really bad original research, Police Academy, e.g.) don't judge this one by that prior disaster. Moreover, this one has the criteria for inclusion spelled out sufficiently that it's not likely to become a dumping ground for things like (when they eventually happen) "Terminator 7" or "Oceans 17". Mandsford (talk) 02:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A lack of sourcing wasn't the only reason for the original nomination. The fact is "heptalogy" isn't an established idea. It is a word that will inevitably be formed independently a handful of times and that can be made up by anyone with a basic knowledge of English. Of course it will turn up very occassionally if one conducts an electronic search of tens of thousands of newspapers. Nevertheless, a word that appears in printed form about once a year must not have an article because the precedent it sets is quite dreadful. The word enjoyed a brief surge in popularity late 2007 (from almost unheard of to extremely rare). The reason for this is that the word briefly appeared in the opening line of the Wikipedia Harry Potter article. It has now sunk once more into oblivion. What JHunterJ must explain is why, when we do not have articles on septuplets or octopeds, we ought to have this article. What makes heptalogy stand out over hexology or pentalogy when it seems to be accepted that articles about large numbers of things do not deserve their own articles? Is heptalogy an established genre or have these authors described their works as heptalogies or does it even appear in any dictionary? Is there any evidence that this is more than an article on a nonce word (albeit one that has been coined more than once)?--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 19:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Sorry, why do I have to explain the absence of other articles again? Can Wikipedia articles only be created after all other related articles have been created first? The explanation remains the same: this is not an article in a series of numerical articles; it's an single article on a single concept with proper citations. What Lo2u must explain is why that's insufficient for this article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, you do have to explain the absence of these other articles. The fact that words formed on predictable numerical systems are not encyclopedic, and not a lack of sourcing, was the basis of the original AfD, and something that was not remedied by the provision of sources. I repeat, this is not an established word and it is not a word that is in use by anyone. It is a word that can be easily coined and that has been coined a minute number of times but that has never appeared in any dictionary and was only sourced by an electronic search of vast numbers of newspapers. It is a shame that we have an article on heptalogies which mentions only one seven part work that has ever been called a heptalogy by more that one person. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 20:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid I can't take your word for it. What policy or guideline states that an article should be deleted if the absence of other articles cannot be explained? I added addition heptalogies to the list (with journal and web citations, not newspapers), with multiple references each, so there are now three that have been called heptalogies by more than one person. You contradict your own claim of "not a word that is in use by anyone". -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - What part of my previous answers do you want me to repeat? The fact that other words formed predictably by the substitution of different numbers do not have articles and are not encyclopedic per WP:CBALL was the basis of the original AfD and something you disregarded when you recreated the article. I will ignore the last sentence because I think it's basically pedantic and I've explained that point elsewhere. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 18:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      This isn't an article about a word formed predictably yada yada. It's an article about a genre concept with citations. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Who says it's a genre? That's what the original AfD decided it wasn't and something that you didn't address when recreating the article. It's an extremely ambitious claim that giving books six sequels is more of a "genre concept" than, for example, giving them 11 chapters. If you're right, and the word is notable as well, you will be able to point to sources that have discussed heptalogy as a genre and that say it is a concept common to several books. If not, why not admit that it's "a word formed predictably yada yada" and explain why it should be kept in spite of that. Seriously, can you honestly say that you'd heard the word before you read it in that excruciating first line of the Harry Potter article and that you didn't then go to extraordinary lengths to find other cases in order to prove a point? If so, I'd be interested to know where you'd heard it considering that a search of the Times, Telegraph and Guardian websites turns up only one result and that that result coincides, of course, with that Wikipedia article. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 20:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#CBALL and WP:NEO. Although the word has appeared in print, it is not in actual use. Dictionary.com doesn't have any dictionary search results and the only encyclopedia search result was this article. Jay32183 (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would also point to one pertinent sentence in WP:NEO, "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term."--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 20:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If so, then this article falls into the same lack of citation as Duology, Trilogy, and Tetralogy, right? Actually, the Canberra Times citation is an RSS about the term, not just a citation that uses it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. It's an article about the number seven. Other articles not being cited isn't a reason to keep this article, it's a reason to delete those articles. Jay32183 (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article doesn't have to be about the topic; the citation is about the topic, not just an example usage of the word. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is fairly straightforward. WP:NEO says "we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term". "77 things about the #7" is an article (or series of bullet points) about seven that uses the term. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 13:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's fairly clear: "77 things about the #7" is an article (or series of bullet points) that includes a bullet point about "heptalogy", not just one that uses the term. The other citations are different (and do not meet NEO) in that they just use the term. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. You need to find a genuine discussion of the subject in question. Two sentences in a newspaper's list of trivia can't be the basis of an article.. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 17:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. The article needs to be expanded (and it's tagged as a stub). Other citations may be needed as well, because the two-sentence one forms a very small foundation. But those point up the need for article work, not article deletion. With the citations on individual entries, I've addressed many of the incorrect points brought up (and perhaps made its current form better suited for List of heptalogies) -- nonce word, false; neologism, false; WP:CBALL, false, since it's genuinely in use; lack of citations, fixed; lack of non-newspaper citaions, fixed. Additional work will be useful, but I don't think the need for deletion has been carried. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the sources you cite must be "heptalogy". The subject of the source you are citing is "the number seven". That source is, by definition, a source that simply uses the term "heptalogy". "Heptalogy" is, therefore, a neologism. You've actually already proved it yourself, you're just refusing to admit it. Jay32183 (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source must be include information about "heptalogy" and not just use it (one does), but the policy does not demand that the entire article be about "heptalogy". -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The fact that the neologism is being used occasionally might justify its having a Wiktionary entry. But there is no encyclopaedic topic here. Grafen (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, it's not a neologism. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep: not a neologism. A heptalogy is different from, say, a hexalogy because for cultural reasons a series of seven is more satisfying than one of six. People don't write series of novels that just happen to add up to seven volumes (at least not in most of the cases given); these things are planned - and it's no coincidence that the largest cluster of works in the list is of fantasy novels. --Paularblaster (talk) 11:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In order for an AfD vote to count, the editor is obliged to give a valid reason. The above is original research and the information the editor supplies is rightly not incorporated into the article. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 19:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand you being upset at being contradicted, but the fact remains that this is not a neologism, therefore the nominator's rationale for deletion fails: I can explain it again even more explicitly if this doesnt satisfy you. Since you seemed to think that the non-existence of hexalogies was somehow relevant I sought to explain the difference, little realising that AfD comments needed sourcing now: perhaps you can explain to me how this or this constitutes original research? --Paularblaster (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a synthesis of published material, once more I would direct you to WP:OR. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 22:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for repeating your helpful reference. Having reread WP:OR again I still fail to see its relevance. One bunch of people say that there are seven Harry Potter books because of number symbolism; another bunch say there are seven Narnia books because of number symbolism; you say that there is no significance to seven-part series because seven is just the number that happens to come after six. Ah, perhaps WP:OR is relevant after all - kindly allow me to direct you to it. --Paularblaster (talk) 00:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a neologism because it does not appear in any major dictionary and there aren't any books are articles devoted to "heptalogy". The cultural significance of the number seven is not relevant. Jay32183 (talk) 07:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The cultural significance of the number 7 is relevant to the assertion (and controversian) of the genre-specific importance of the heptalogy: works that are planned to consist of seven parts (whether all seven get written or not) are with very few exceptions either (children's) fantasy or high- or post-modernist works, in either case deliberately making heavy use of various types of culturally entrenched myths and symbols at the deepest levels of the structure of the work. Take a look at this, for instance, to see something of Proust on the number seven. It's true that from the perspective of a dictionary heptalogy can be satisfactorily reduced to general entries under "hepta-" and "-logy", but this is not a dictionary: it's an encyclopedia discussing culturally notable things, which include works of art consisting of seven parts (but not of six parts, eight parts, fourteen parts, etc.: the spectre raised in the nominator's rationale). --Paularblaster (talk) 11:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place. You're new to Wikipedia and I suggest you go back have yet another read of WP:OR. If you have trouble understanding it, try asking at the Village pump or put you ideas on talk:heptalogy and I will gladly explain why they can't be included. This is an AfD and you're trying to discuss things that aren't even in the article.--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 18:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all the regard that your six months' seniority as a contributor demands, I would suggest that the stringency of your interpretation of the "OR" rule is unhelpful, and that this is a case for WP:COMMON: here we have a word that is recorded in highly-regarded sources dating back almost a century (so "genuinely in use" as well as being, as you admit, the obvious word for works in seven parts), and we also have an abundance of sources saying that seven is a non-trivial number for the parts of many works of art (not only including current massive phenomena in popular culture such as Narnia and Harry Potter, but also work by Proust and Stockhausen). Your main concern at nomination was to prevent "articles whose titles contain numbers being expanded indefinitely and to the point of silliness", but that concern has been sufficiently addressed: as it stands, heptalogy has almost as many footnotes as Aeschylus and is far better sourced than tetralogy. You can rest free of fear that it will somehow make an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS case for pentalogy, hexalogy and all the rest. Anyway, I've had my say and should really be doing other things (not least sleeping), so I'm unwatching this discussion and you needn't expect a response before the AfD is closed - but if you would like to discuss it further at greater leisure, feel free to do so on my talkpage. --Paularblaster (talk) 03:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't expect any response, but it should be noted that the above explanation demonstrates the user's lack of understanding of both WP:NOR and WP:NEO. All indication is that "heptalogy" is not genuinely in use, nor are there any reliable sources devoted to the subject. Interpreting the importance of the number seven for this purpose is the exact reason WP:NOR exists, so WP:COMMON would suggest following the policy regarding original research. Jay32183 (talk) 03:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word is genuinely in use -- see the citations on the article. The word is not a neologism -- see the 1911 citation on the article. It is not a nonce word -- see the citations on the article, ranging from 1911 to 2008. There is no original research on the article -- see (again) the citations. You are correct that there are no cited sources "devoted" to the subject, but sources need not be "devoted" to their subjects to be used. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, are we still here? I thought an admin would have closed this by now, one way or another, a full week after things kicked off. Anyway, it has suddenly struck me why Lo2U and Jay32183 kept referencing WP:OR in ways that seemed utterly irrelevant: they have failed to take account of the fact that there is considerable overlap between the sources using the term heptalogy and the sources stressing the significance of seven as the number of parts in a series; they therefore think that this is a case of the "synthesis" explicitly banned by WP:OR, but that is a mere trick of the light: far from saying "sources say A and B, therefore C", JHunterJ and I are saying only "some sources say A (heptalogy is the word for 7-part works), some sources say B (the number 7 is not a random or trivial aspect of these works), some of them say both A and B, therefore it is perfectly acceptable to discuss B under the heading A". I would go on to say, "even in cases where B is attested but A cannot be directly sourced (such as Stephen King's Dark Tower series)", but have refrained from adding that to the article until the issue is settled. Hopefully that clarifies the WP:OR issue; as to WP:NEO and WP:CBALL, they prohibit articles discussing an invented term or an extrapolated word (the example at CBALL is "septenquinquagintillion") that is not discussed elsewhere; but this is a signifier/signified confusion: the article in question isn't about a word or a term, it's about a sourced phenomenon (works of art with a highly symbolic number of parts, namely 7) and even the nominator here admits that the term used is the "predictable" one - he simply refuses to admit that it's also the sourced one. Granted it can't be sourced to a dictionary, only to a wide variety of other reliable sources, but if WP:COMMON ever applied it was here. Still, it's hard to fault Jay or Lo for insisting on ignoring WP:IGNORE - opening that one up would no doubt keep us here forever. --Paularblaster (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how JHunterJ feels about being invoked as an ally in this. The mini-essays you keep publishing contain many, many layers of original research and synthesis and WP:COMMON could not possibly apply. Anyway, none of this is even in the article. You certainly haven't understood WP:OR. You seem to be claiming that something is so obvious that it doesn't need a source but that by using several you can get there anyway. If you get your arguments published in a reputable journal they might one day appear on Wikipedia. I've written a short response at Talk:Heptalogy --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 18:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word does not appear in any major dictionaries and there are no sources devoted to the subject. According to WP:NEO that is explicitly the requirement for a word getting an article on Wikipedia, as being recently coined is not the operative part for determining inclusion. "It's old, so it's in" is not part of the inclusion criteria, old things are just more likely to have appropriate sources. This article fails WP:V by means of WP:RS and WP:N. This talk used by Paularblaster is the original research. You are not allowed to put any personal interpretation on the sources you are using. The synthesis proposed here is that "source A uses the word "Heptalogy"" and "source B discusses the cultural significane of the number 7", therefore an article on Heptalogy is deserved. That is the exact opposite of how you should make Wikipedia articles. Based on that set up, there should be an article on the number 7 with a small discussion, probably two paragraph max–WP:WEIGHT–, about published works in a series of seven without necessarily saying "heptalogy". Jay32183 (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You refer to WP:NEO as if it applies to all words, but it only applies to neologisms. Since heptalogy is not a neologism, it does not appear to me to run afoul of WP:NEO. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either you didn't read what I wrote, or you don't understand the word operative. Either way, you don't have a valid point. Jay32183 (talk) 07:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either you didn't read the intro to WP:NEO or you don't understand "recently coined". Either way, you don't have a valid point. WP:NEO: "Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, ...", and WP:NEO then goes on to explain how articles on such recently created terms might merit inclusion. It does not address, at all, merits for inclusion of terms that were not recently coined, and your use of "operative" does not so expand the policy. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did read and understand it. I already told you that it is not the importnant part of WP:NEO. You're using age as a technicality to allow using something that isn't actually a word that appears in a dictionary. Although to be called a neologism it must have been coined recently, but any made-up words that haven't caught on don't belong in Wikipedia. "Operative" means the same as "functional". There are still no valid sources to justify a an article, no matter what policy its based on. Jay32183 (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree. I feel that "neo"-ness is an important part of WP:NEO, from which it derives its name and everything else follows. Trying to apply the U.S. Constitution to the UK on the grounds that the geography is a technicality would be about as accurate. If there's a policy or guideline against articles on words that are neither in the dictionary nor neologisms, I'll throw my support behind moving the list portion of the article to a list article.-- JHunterJ (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason NEO is important and the reason people keep referring to it is that it makes pertinent observations about articles on words that are not in common use. It points out that one common mistake people make is creating articles listing lots of examples of unusual words while failing to find any cases of people writing about those words. WP:NEO confirms that such a practice constitutes original research. However old this word is, WP:NEO is relevant here.--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 00:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it is meant to apply to words not in common use instead of just to neologisms, it should be rewritten and moved so that it applies to words not in common use instead of just neologisms, IMO. One of the cites includes a note about heptalogies, not just using the word (even though the entire article the cite references is not about heptalogies, and needn't be). The rest of the citations are not there as a "common mistake" but as a redress of the issues raised in the first AfD. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Looks rather like a well-referenced List of heptalogies to me. There is also a citation for the definition, and the word is logical and sufficiently frequent to be also used in wikipeadia, but I don't see how this amounts already to it being an article topic. So what about considering it a list and linking to List of film heptalogies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tikiwont (talk • contribs) 11:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, if there is consensus for deletion, I also suggested "List of heptalogies". [3] as a possible move target. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see that now. So, I am in favour of moving with a redirect as alternative to deletion and but also to keeping as is. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a tough one, and I feel for the admin who closes this discussion. Reading over the discussion, I find there are compelling arguments on both sides. Still, I would tend to rely not so much on the Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms guideline, given the cited evidence that this is not a recently coined term. The article does not provide much discussion of the term, so what I think we have here is a well-cited list. Keep and move to List of heptalogies. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think moving this to List of heptalogies is a very good idea. The lack of any source that discusses heptalogies is a problem that is unlikely to be overcome. My vote doesn't count but I too would say move to list of heptalogies. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 19:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why does your vote not count? --Paularblaster (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to ask the same question. I believe I've voted in discussions I've launched before. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely; at present it seems the only way of reaching consensus. --Paularblaster (talk) 00:30, 15 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 Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prospect (punk rock band)[edit]

Non-notable band; has 1 self-released EP, no media coverage to speak of. Fails WP:MUSIC. Prod removed without comment; article was hijacked from the metal band now at Prospect (Slovenian band). Also nominating the article for the man behind the band; similarly fails WP:MUSIC. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ——Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 21:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - no reliable sources to indicate notability -- Whpq (talk) 19:02, 8 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. Nomination withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ido Abram[edit]

Non-notable, no real references Ziggy Sawdust (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable for writings on Judaism and indentity. Of course hes not a pokemon so lets delete him.... Francium12 (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It needs a lot of work with sources and such, but it is not an unsalvageable or completely non-notable article. Red Zion^X 20:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Could use some work, but is notable. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable individual. See [4], [5] and [6] - (Mind meal (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Keep, not 100% sure all of the information is about him, but I found some coverage of his writings related to Judaism. Travellingcari (talk) 01:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It was probably a mistake to nominate this article. Now that I look at it more closely, I can see that I was in error. Ziggy Sawdust (talk) 14:21, 7 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 --JForget 01:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

K-Dogg Rule[edit]

Can't see how this is even notable anymore. It was briefly used for a while at the time of the event, but it quickly died off and it's use was not exactly encouraged by Kyle Morris either. The documentary run on TV in the UK 'Lord of the Dance Machine' brought it up again but once again it hasn't caught on. The players of the game either don't know of this 'rule' or simply don't acknowledge it, implementing the spirit of the rule in their own manner without the silly name.

Considering it never even had a big impact in the niche gaming circle that is the subject of the article, it's impossible to describe this as notable for a general encyclopedia. The only reason the original page was created was to troll, if you examine the first revision, and the changes made are simply because fans of a specific game/movie/hobby etc. will extend and flesh out wikipedia articles just because they can.

Indeed, the fact that this article still remains is a good sign that nobody ever views it, because otherwise it would have already been deleted by now. 82.37.10.164 (talk) 09:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kill with a granite maul. Useless. Ziggy Sawdust (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete Beach drifter (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 20:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above.Beeblbrox (talk) 21:09, 6 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 Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Types of restaurants[edit]

This has been tagged as OR, namely because it cannot be sourced in any reasonable manner. Further, all the classes of restaurants other than "other" and Family Style have their own pages, is there a need for (unsourced) duplication? I think anything viable from the introduction could go into Restaurants if it can be sourced, but otherwise this article will always remain Original Research and have NPOV issues Travellingcari (talk) 18:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have the most trouble with this sort of article. Here we have a nice little article, decently written, on a notable subject, not controversial, that could likely be easily sourced. It adds to the project and if someone objected to a bit of it then they can remove that bit or do a better job on the bit (sourced, of course). My "insist on sources "half" (actually about 97%) says delete while my WP:IAR "half" (actually about 3%) says keep. So I will abstain for now and hopefully learn something from the discussion. --JustaHulk (talk) 19:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I struggled as well. Ended up nominating on two reasons 1) as my boss calls it, "Department of Redundancy Department" -- most of the types of restaurants already have their own articles and 2) the "see also" section, most of which are resturants as well -- why aren't they in the main body - I think it's impossible for this to be an all-encompassing list. Would it be better as a category? Travellingcari (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The information in this article would best fit in the restaurant article but it would be too extensive and would then be broken out to a separate article perhaps titled (drum roll) Types of restaurants. Which is pretty much what happened on 2006-12-11, cf. this and this. --JustaHulk (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Excelent example of WP:Summary Style, not Original research and I removed the tag several times but some one kept replacing it. These are all industry terms pretty much, and describe specific facets of the restaurant business. --- Jeremy (talk) 00:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources for this would be easy to find. Here are some examples. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are, as just pointed out, numerous secondary sources about restaurants, so there is not the least trouble sourcing an article like this. OR would have meant writing it out of our own analysis of restaurants directly, but that is not necessary. A perfectly reasonable summary article. DGG (talk) 04:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When I was in Culinary School, we actually had a unit on the different types of restaurants...I'll try to dig out my text book and plop in the ref (But may have sold it) Legotech (talk) 07:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment perhaps I'm not making myself clear. I'm talking about the summary, which is not cited. For example: Historically, restaurant referred only to places which provide tables where one sits down to eat the meal, typically served by wait-staff. Following the rise of fast food and take-out restaurants, a retronym for the older "standard" restaurant was created, sit-down restaurant. Most commonly, "sit-down restaurant" refers to a casual dining restaurant with table service rather than a fast-food restaurant where one orders food at a counter. Sit-down restaurants are often further categorized as "family-style" or "formal". I'm not questioning the non OR of the articles, just that a) most already have their own articles and b) the ones that don't aren't sourced in this one either. It looks like I was wrong here, and I can accept that and would have no problem if this closed under SNOW, but I was trying to make my point clear where I was coming from. Travellingcari (talk) 12:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - This why I stated in my "keep" statement this article is a classic example of WP:Summary style. This article is a main article with the others being subtopics of the main. Yes there are articles about each type of restaurant, but this is the parent article for which all of the others come from. As I see from your edit history you are fairly recent to Wikipedia, we can chalk this up as an unfamiliarity with this part of the WP:MOS. Heck, I am still learning new and different stuff after two years. It really does need to be properly referenced, and I am guilty of failing to do this as a member to the Wikiproject Food and drink. --- Jeremy (talk) 05:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply 2 I think we're on the same page, or at least within a few pages. I've read some of the MoS as it refers to various topics, including this one. My issue has always been with the sourcing, which I see you agree somewhat with and the overly broad generalisations. For example:

Typical examples can include crabhouses, German-style beer halls, BBQ restaurants, hunting lodges. Some normal restaurants will mix elements of family style, such as a table salad or bread bowl that is included as part of the meal. says who? where? I'd bet dollars to donuts this varies from restaurant to restaurant and region to region. Also what's a "normal" restaurant? This may be a poor example because family style doesn't have it's own article, but I'd wager that entire section is OR and short of a culinary manual, which someone suggested above, I'm not sure how on earth you'd (general, not Jerem43 you) source it.
Destination restaurants -- while the citation is a good one, couldn't any of the above 'types' be a destination restaurant? I don't see that as a standalone category but rather something that could be included in a general, sourced, overview.
Others

Most of these establishments can be considered subtypes of fast casual-dining restaurants or casual-dining restaurants. Other what? There are a ton of restaurants not listed here, since I'm not sure it's humanly possible to list every kind of restuarant, which may be why there's the extensive "see also". Nowhere on this list are ethnic restaurants, or whatever the PC term is. Are they other? How do you class other?

I don't think any of us are perfect, and as I work on this I think this is turning into WP:CLEANUP rather than AfD, which was not my goal. While I see the merit in what you and the others are saying, I don't know how to fix this article. Would it be better to have a summary followed by the links to the sub articles (like the see also?) I don't know, but I don't know how to fix the OR or the generalizations. Travellingcari (talk) 06:04, 9 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 redirected to Signe Hasso. If anything really needs merging in, that would be the place. Black Kite 12:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Hasso[edit]

I'm really baffled that speedy was denied on this one. The initial edit summary for the article says, "Harry Hasso was my father I am his youngest daugther Magdalena Hasso/Callmér and his wife Britta Hasso has confirmed that the facts is correct.". Thus, it is quite obviously a vanity article. Flimsy assertions of notability include making documentaries which no longer exist and acting as himself. IMDB has heard of him but it does not appear to be a very distinguished career. Fails WP:BIO, WP:COI. Redfarmer (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete no sources. Logastellus (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wife certainly seems notable since a search of him comes up with references of her having married him, but I can find no sources that he's done anything apart from marrying someone pretty. Travellingcari (talk) 19:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will hold off for now. The IMDB entry cited in the nom indicates probable notability but the article needs sourcing. It is a brand-new article and we can see if any sources appear as the AfD progresses. And he certainly did seem quite competent at marrying pretty (and talented) women. Good for him! --JustaHulk (talk) 19:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a sourcelet to the article. Needs more, though. --JustaHulk (talk) 20:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely needs more sources to be saved. The source you added is an article about his wife's death. If the article's notability were to be entirely based on that article, it would be notability through inheritance. It doesn't matter how notable his wife was; his notability has to be established independently. Redfarmer (talk) 08:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt. --JustaHulk (talk) 12:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non sources are seen, notability may also be the problem here. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 20:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a reference to an article in a German periodical, added to the page today. If the page is not kept, I would suggest adding a few lines on Hasso to the article on his first wife (as she became famous under his surname) and redirecting his name to her. (For some reason, this article was never included in the User:AlexNewArtBot/SwedenSearchResult list of new Sweden-related articles. Could that be because of the listing on AFD?) Olaus (talk) 17:53, 11 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neílson Costa Junior[edit]

A Youth player in regional league Matthew_hk t c 18:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BIO. Punkmorten (talk) 21:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, another footballer without assertion of notability. Peanut4 (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of notability. King of the North East 08:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in absence of further information. --Dweller (talk) 12:49, 7 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 --JForget 01:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mid-core gamer[edit]

Speedy delete declined. Article violates WP:NEO as a non-notable neoglism and almost seems to be spam for the website 8bitrocket.com as that is the entire basis for the article. Redfarmer (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - neologism. May become a more notable term but fails WP:CRYSTAL and the off-topic nature of the article does not help. --JustaHulk (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This looks like blatant advertisement and it fails WP: CRYSTAL. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 20:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Francium12 (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exterminate A blog is not a source. Red Zion^X 20:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is trying to bridge the gap between hardcore gamer and casual gamer. I think all of the articles could be merged into a single discussion such as under Video game#Demographics, if they were cleaned up. Ham Pastrami (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update. I've added more information about being a mid-core gamer based on the news article where I've first seen the concept. Intathin (talk) 02:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC +1)
Comment. I don't see the article as neologism compared to the other two articles that it is compared to: hardcore gamer, casual gamer. Intathin (talk) 02:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC +1)

Comment: New source is an article in a French PC magazine called Canard Plus. I'd be inclined to say one magazine article is still not enough to establish the notability of a neoglism and that the hardcore gamer and casual gamer articles might need to be looked at too and possibly merged and deleted. Redfarmer (talk) 08:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update. I've added another article about being a mid-core gamer from www.joystiq.com. Intathin (talk) 02:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC +1)
Update. I've added another article written at 2005 from www.next-gen.biz. The article uses the term "mid-core games consumer" as a complementary term to the concept "hardcore games consumer". (I've just learned how to sign, sorry) Intathin (talk) 02:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 10:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable neologism which has been making the rounds on blogs. - hahnch e n 17:32, 10 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. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vagson Pacheco Ribeiro[edit]

A regional league player Matthew_hk t c 18:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Article makes no assertion of notability, so delete per WP:BIO and proposed WP:FOOTY criteria. Peanut4 (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of notability. King of the North East 08:31, 7 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. jj137 (talk) 00:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gibberish (language game)[edit]

OK, gibberish indeed gets a lot of coverage, especially related to the Sims universe but searching 'uthag' among others, doesn't return anything. The coverage is about generic gibberish, not a language game -- if indeed one exists by that name. I don't see how this article can ever pass WP:V since it appears to be entirely original research Travellingcari (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Here is a better search gibberish+idig and here is a sourcish thing. The subject is real and the article has value - it just needs some work. --JustaHulk (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Definitely a real topic worth having as the subject of an article in the same vein as verlan and pig latin. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable, and per JustaHulk. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 20:05, 6 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 --JForget 01:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of people killed in bicycle-related accidents[edit]

Loosely defined and arbitrary list. If this were a list of people killed in motor vehicle collisions then the US alone would contribute around 35,000 names a year; no list of cyclist fatalities could ever be complete, the vast majority of cyclists who die (in as much as you can use the term "vast majority" to describe such a relatively small group) are not in any way notable, and most of the entries are uncited redlinks. And the "related" part is also problematic; to what extent must the relationship be established, I wonder? As an example of how problematic this list is, take Tom Simpson. Is his a bicycle-related accident? An accident of overdosing on performance enhancing drugs? Guy (Help!) 18:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but maybe rename List of notable people killed in bicycle-related accidents. I think such lists are interesting. Just look at List of fatal, unprovoked shark attacks in the United States by decade! Kingturtle (talk) 18:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are a handful of fatal unprovoked shark attacks in the US every year. In the UK, there are around 150 cyclist fatalities annually, most of them completely unremarkable (i.e. the result of routine cluelessness, usually by a motorist). The US has seen something over 44,000 cyclist deaths since 1932. This list also mixes fatalities in competitive sport (akin to fatalities in motor racing racing) with non-race fatalities - the risk profiles are not in any way comparable. I believe it violates WP:NOT#INFO for these reasons. Guy (Help!) 18:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be OR and POV by definition, who would decide which people are notable? WP:INTERESTING -- inherently subjective. Travellingcari (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's why we might consider adding the word notable to the article name. Kingturtle (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and who decides who's notable enough to be included? NPOV who you say is notable might be completely irrelevant to others. Travellingcari (talk) 18:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's say anyone notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. Kingturtle (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and that's in a constant state of flux as articles get added, deleted, stay unreferenced for years... I don't think it's neutral enough to avoid NPOV etc. I'm with Compwhizii, category is better. Travellingcari (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't add "notable" to lists - it's assumed that the entries are notable. There's a guideline somewhere, but I don't remember where it is. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The barometer I suggested is the barometer used to determine whether names should be on the Birth and Death listings on day-of-the-year articles. (see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year: "Only the births and deaths of people who are themselves subjects of Wikipedia articles should be listed.") Kingturtle (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and make category possibly? Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 18:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; this is a list and an ill-thought out one. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree, pointless list Beach drifter (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Pointless to you, but why take someone else's interest just because you don't see anything to it? Kingturtle (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Go with Compwhiz II's suggestion --Sf (talk) 20:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Better as a category, and then only for pro cyclists. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but agree to make it a category, but not just for pro cyclists. --Pesco (talk) 00:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I really don't understand why this article is under so much scrutiny. This article can be salvaged - which I think is what our work here is all about, finding ways to build articles. Kingturtle (talk) 01:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The title means by implication, the list of notable people with articles in WP kiled in bicycle accidents. This is apparently not very many. It does more than a category by providing some orienting information about them. DGG (talk) 04:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As JzG says: WP:NOT#INFO Tomasrojo (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that "notable" in implied in the title, but this is entirely unsourced and better as a category. I don't like the "bicycle-related" which is too subjective - a bike zigs, a car zags to avoid it and hits a pedestrian instead? What if the driver says he was avoiding a bike? And what if the pedestrian is merely injured but his or her parents are killed while rushing to the hospital? Everything seems "related" to a bicycle. Why not Category:People killed while riding a bicycle and Category:People killed by bicycles if need be... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking definitional criteria. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 00:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment. rather than delete, can we find a way to save this article through renaming and clarifying? Kingturtle (talk) 01:36, 12 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) 14:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yoman brunson[edit]

Promotional autobiography of a non-notable candidate for the United States House of Representatives in Minnesota. No non-trivial coverage. Fails WP:BIO, WP:COI, WP:AUTO. Redfarmer (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry, but no matter how good his chances, fails to clear the hurdle of notability. gb ^{(t, c)} 20:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable and poorly written. Doczilla (talk) 09:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the discussion was vandalized by an anon ip and I've restored the last usable version, which was when Doczilla voted delete. For the sake of full disclosure, the following text was added after the vandal deleted my rationale and Doczilla's vote:

Non-notable candidate for the United States House of Representatives in Minnesota. This is good, as this will document everyone did run as compared to only the once that won.

The text was added by ips User:151.151.73.171 and User:151.151.73.100. Redfarmer (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Actually, it's even less notable than the nom suggests: he's a candidate for the Minnesota House of Representatives, not the U.S. House of Representatives. Chuck (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE, Fails WP:BIO, poorly written.--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 10:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as non-notable. Black Kite 12:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geraldine's Z100FM[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Geraldine's Z100FM

Non-notable. "Geraldine's Z100FM" -wikipedia retrieved only 9 links. Kingturtle (talk) 18:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: not that I necessarily agree but it seems there is some precedent for notability per outcomes. Travellingcari (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. From searches for Z100/Geraldine/Four Peaks FM, this appears to be a 0.3 Watt LPFM station.[7] Without evidence the signal got out of the building, I don't believe this station is inherently notable per WP:OUTCOMES or proposed WP:Notability (media). • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can't see how it's notable. --Helenalex (talk) 09:38, 7 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 Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incident (Scientology)[edit]

Article consists wholly of primary sources that appear chosen in a POV fashion to cast Scientology in a ridiculous light. The article is POV and original research. There is a list of "References" that appear to be 3rd-party but none of these are linked to the article. This article is analogous to two recently deleted articles that failed to include 3rd-party sources despite their being fundamental concepts of Scientology, i.e. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARC (Scientology) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KRC (Scientology). The vast bulk of these "incidents" have no importance in Scientology but how would the reader know whether that is true or not as there are no 3rd-party sources. JustaHulk (talk) 17:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or scrap and re-write. As you said, a list of vague 'incidents' that I can gather no real information from. Beach drifter (talk) 03:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although primary sources, They can be admited in this article since the writings of Hubbard are the only times these are referanced.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a difference between editing and deleting. I also do not see if there is anything incorect in it, at least at a first glance. AdrianCo (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Isn't the proper thing to do with an entry lacking citations to mark it as needing citations, rather than mark it for deletion? I see quite a few cites in place already... As for "...these "incidents" have no importance in Scientology..." -- they are part of Scientology, are they not? As a disinterested party who came across the Scientology page, and saw these "incidents" listed on the main page, I very much wanted to know more about them. They are relevant and should be kept, in a separate article linked from the main page, as they are. The fact they are in a separate, linked article should make it clear they are not central to Scientology. If you feel they are totally unimportant in Scientology, find a source that says so and cite it!, as I see has been done in a few places. If you wish to challenge more points as needing cites, please do. And re: "Article consists wholly of primary sources..." where else is one to find Hubbard's writings other than in Hubbard's writings?? Here is what Wikipedia:Verifiability/Wikipedia:SELFPUB has to say on "Self-published sources": "Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves..." [my emphasis] Primary sources are also OK to use under certain circumstances, there is not an absolute ban on them. If you wish to re-write the article using proper cites, and citing non-original sources -- if you can find them -- go ahead! It would certainly improve this article to have more cites. Apologies for the length of this post, but I felt a need to answer the various points raised. ACushen (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Any article which accurately summarizes Scientological beliefs will necessarily "cast them in a ridiculous light." <eleland/talkedits> 23:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - One comment from me for the above "keep" votes. They do not address the reason I AfD'd this. The article is original research based on primary materials and violates WP:NOR. I could expand on that but I think it is self-evident and needs no future exposition on my part. --JustaHulk (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See ACushen and Wikipedia:SELFPUB. AdrianCo (talk) 15:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response - You ignore this line from Wikipedia:SELFPUB:
"the article is not based primarily on such sources"
So yes, the article violates that policy, too. --JustaHulk (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, reading a book isn't original research, it is citing a primary source. BJ^Talk 07:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article makes no blatent judgement about the incedents, nor does say anything about the incedents that isn't either a quote or a summery of what LRH stated. There dosn't appear to be any origonal reserch, only quotes from lectures.Coffeepusher (talk) 07:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sourcing is sufficient, and I agree with the various and myriad keep reasons above. Lawrence § t/e 08:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin - If WP:NOTAVOTE#Deletion, moving and featuring ever applied . . . --JustaHulk (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep the Incident is discussed or mentioned or discussed in a variety of other sources. See for example [8], [9], [10]. I think discussion by the BBC and The Guardian should be good enough. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:29, 12 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multi-state CPUs[edit]

A regular google search comes up with a few hits but nothing that indicates any coverage if this product even exists. Travellingcari (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While a few of the ppt presentations that come up on Google indicate that this *might* be an emerging technology, or more likely, a possible future technology, it will need to emerge a bit more before it gets an article here. Right now fails WP:CRYSTAL. --JustaHulk (talk) 18:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 18:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment good someone more familiar with the industry (judging by your screen name) is on the same page as I am. I couldn't tell from the article whether or not it existed and PPTs weren't too clear either. Travellingcari (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Even still, wikipedia isn't a crystal ball Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 20:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This says it all. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 20:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Google Scholar and Google for "multi-state cpu" (sg.) and "multi[-]state processor" give some results.[11][12][13], [14][15][16] I haven't checked in detail; many of them seem to be using the term with a different meaning than the highly dubious "non-binary CPU" (in particular I've seen security and multi-tasking contexts). I'll go for a weak delete, but I'm not an expert on hardware. -- Lea (talk) 04:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and WP:CRYSTAL certainly applies. Seems pretty speculative. -- Lea (talk) 04:46, 11 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nawab of Jhelum[edit]

I'm not familiar enough with Pakistan to call this nonsense, but Google hasn't heard of it in any language apart from Wiki and mirrors. Travellingcari (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - You know, this article has a ring of truth to it but could just as easily be a good hoax article. Anyway, fails WP:V. "Insist on sources" - Jimbo Wales --JustaHulk (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After looking up a few of the mentions in the article, I am leaning hoax. If so, I hope the guy got a few dates out of it. --JustaHulk (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Probably a hoax, could not find any reference to this state. Marjaliisa (talk) 23:53, 8 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. Fails WP:RS, which is part of WP:V, and therefore it will also fail the traditional definition of notability on wikipedia, which is significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Business Motivation Model[edit]

Recreation of reworded copyright violation in apparent conflict of interest; reads like advertisement copy, mostly original research, and is not reliable sourced (the only source is by the original researcher). — Coren ^(talk) 17:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Reworded copyright violation from what source? reads like advertisement copy should invoke an article talk suggestion for changes, not an AfD request; original research -- how can this be as it is an OMG beta standard? reliable sourced -- again see external references ie this is an OMG standard proposal. Coren - can you please expand on your objections so they can be discussed? Thanks. Isvana (talk) 08:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, very strongly. The first impression is that we are dealing with a sort of language pathology. This purports to be a "metamodel" that purportedly "enables stakeholders in an enterprise":

To define the components of governance – what the enterprise wants to be (its ends), what it has decided to do to get there (its means), and how it will govern the means it has adopted.
To record decisions made in response to changes in internal and external influencers, to change ends and means, and to reference which parts of the operational business are affected.
To take account of earlier decisions made in response to the same and other related influencers.

Translating this septic prose into English, this "metamodel" makes it possible to figure out what you're doing, remember what you did, and figure out what you're going to do next. And you paid how much for that? This is classic complete bollocks, belabouring the obvious in polysyllables. As Truman Capote said, "that isn't writing - it's typing." - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because some people don't understand its contents and importance, this article should NOT be deleted! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.77.218.140 (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC) — 83.77.218.140 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Hello, I object very strongly to any deletion. This is a summary of an internationally accepted standard from the Object Management Group (www.omg.org), a group consisting of over 800 companies. The words are taken from the standard, and have been through a process of peer review. Moreover, the standard is being successfully used by companies in combination with other standards mandated by the OMG, including UML, BPMN and SBVR. I suggest you read the standard itself before calling it bollocks, particularly given the effort put into it, and the fact that you clearly don't have any expertise in business modeling.
By all means point our where you think it reads like an advertisement, or where it needs strengthing, but removing it will be a dis-service to the community. 217.155.15.254 (talk) 11:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.194.33 (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC) — 82.47.194.33 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I certainly hope that the BMM entry is not deleted, and especially that it's not deleted because of a misunderstanding of what it is.
The BMM specification does not claim that it “makes it possible to figure out what you're doing, remember what you did, and figure out what you're going to do next”.
It says that if you want to govern your business effectively, then you need (as ongoing activities) to be figuring out what you're doing, remembering what you did, and figuring out what you're going to do next. In particular, it says that you ought to state explicitly your reactions to change and to justify your decisions - and you ought to make the rationale visible to all stakeholders.
The BMM helps in three ways. First, it provides a fact model to help stakeholders communicate consistently. This consists of: (1) about 40 concepts, with definitions, so that when stakeholders talk about, for example, ‘Goal’ and ‘Objective’, they know that they both mean the same things - even if they might individually use other terms in other contexts; (2) fact types that link concepts, such as ‘Assessment judges Influencer’, ‘Assessment identifies Risk’, ‘Business Policy governs Course of Action’, which provide a checklist for making assessments and decisions.
Second, the BMM defines a boundary for governance. One part of this is that there are influencers - things (such as competition, regulation and technology) that affect your business but are not directly under your control. You have to monitor them and assess when and how to react to them by changing things that are under your control (such as your business policies and courses of action), and measuring the effectiveness of your changes against desired results.
The other part of the boundary is that your governance decisions have to be realized. The business policies and courses of action in your BMM need to reference the affected business processes, organizational responsibilities, resources, product/service specifications, etc. – but their detail is in your operational business systems, not in your BMM.
Third, the BMM specification provides the basis for building a software tool in which a business can create and maintain an instance of the BMM for itself. OMG specifications require that any compliant tool must be able to interchange its models with other compliant tools. One important application of this will be distributing reference models within an industry. For example, suppose a trade association reached agreement with a regulator on acceptable interpretation of, and compliance with, a regulation. It could present this in BMM interchange form, and send it to all its members who have BMM-compliant tools. This would be immediately usable, and more convenient than getting the advice in, say, a pdf document.
“And you paid how much for that?” Well, nothing, actually. Object Management Group specifications are available, free, from http://www.omg.org. If you decide that the BMM would be useful to you, you might choose to pay for a tool that implements the specification; several OMG members are software vendors who are developing BMM tools. Or you might decide to implement it yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qioqe (talk • contribs) 09:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - this is a bona fide standard. Just because some wiki editor may disagree with it, doesn't alter the fact that it exists and is therefore a valid Wikipedia reference. Isvana (talk) 07:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - BMM is the product of an open standards activity and represents an area of interest to a broad community. It also represents an evolving area of interest, and Wikipedia can provide a valuable forum for presentation of insights and experiences. I see no justification for deletion.Fred.cummins (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Fred.cummins (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

KEEP - BMM is an important standard to a large and growing community of strategy professionals who create models of business plans, as well as the tool vendor community that supports their efforts. Bridgeland (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Bridgeland (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete. Fails to assert the notability of the subject through independent reliable sources. The only sources cited are either the original paper or the standard. —C.Fred (talk) 17:47, 11 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 despite no one participating, the article has absolutely no reliable sources, and therefore completely fails in meeting WP:V and WP:N. The only possible outcome is delete. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Destroying Divina[edit]

Non-notable bootleg and unsourced; fails WP:MUSIC Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:08, 6 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. Rudget. 17:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smoking in Playgrounds[edit]

Delete as WP:SOAP - article is already up for CSD G12 due to significant portions being copyvio, but the violations are being removed. Mayalld (talk) 17:02, 6 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) 14:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Niclas Tüchsen[edit]

Fails WP:FOOTY notability criteria and WP:BIO as has never played in a fully pro league. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 16:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 16:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Viborg FF seem to be a professional side, I know the article provides no evidence that he has actually played for the club, the question is has he? King of the NorthEast 17:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On the Viborg site it doesn't list appearances, and for some reason he has no profile on Damarks Radio which is used to reference other Danish players' appearances. пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - A word for word translation also appears on the Danish Wikipedia so he may have signed for the club but there are no stats on netsuperligaen for him so I doubt if he's played a game etc. For reference - his profile on the Viborg site is here which notes he's played for Denmark's U19 side. Resident Scandinavian WPF god User:Johan Elisson may be able to help further. 86.21.74.40 (talk) 18:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Article has no assertion of notability and only mentions two U-19 caps, hence presumably fails proposed WP:FOOTY criteria. But I've tagged the article to assert notability. Peanut4 (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete A youth player in a professional club in professional league. Matthew_hk t c 19:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per Peanut. it is quite possible that he has played professional football, but that article currently doesn't assert his notability. If it does I will change to Keep. John Hayes^talk 17:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no assertion of WP:FOOTY/Notability. English peasant 14:31, 14 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. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beyt_Tikkun[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

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 Does not meet notability requirements. Per WP:ORG,

Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources. However, chapter information may be included in list articles as long as only verifiable information is included.

This congregation is a chapter in the larger Renewal movement, has not achieved sufficient notability through reliable sources and, as such, needs to be deleted or merged. Moreover, there have been no reliable sources found in order to establish notability for this article. Bstone (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Michael Lerner (rabbi). I looked for articles about the synagogue, and it is virtually impossible to find it mentioned except in descriptions of Lerner ("the editor of Tikkun magazine and the rabbi at Beyt Tikkun"). I don't see how it can satisfy WP:NOTE or WP:ORG. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Culturalrevival found some sources that seem to establish the synagogue's notability beyond its association with Lerner. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment Yes, I would be happy with merge. Bstone (talk) 00:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC) This establishment is noted itself more of a political organization than a house of worship, but hasn't done either notably. Delete. Bstone (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Why are you voting twice? You already voted delete when you nominated the article above. There is not need for two votes. Culturalrevival (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response I opined exactly once, no more. I withdrew my support of merge and restated my opinion of delete due to lack of notability, etc etc. Bstone (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 01:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because: (a) It's no different than the over 200 synagogues listed so far in Category:Synagogue stubs, (b) the Jewish Renewal movement is relatively small and this article should be allowed to fill that gap, so it's notable as a synagogue of that movement. (c) Generally, it is not a good idea to merge articles about synagogues, which are institutions and outlive those who work for/in them, with personalities such as rabbis and spiritual leaders, especially complex ones like Michael Lerner who is invloved with many other broader issues. IZAK (talk) 01:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The synagogue has to be notable itself. The fact that it's a member of a of a small denomination does not in itself denote notability. It could be that the 200 other synagogues are there but are similar to the dozens of stubs which are not notable. Can you tell me why this synagogue is notable? What has is done or what distinguishes it as notable? Moreover, IZAK, in regard to your (a) point I urge you to view WP:ALLORNOTHING which states, "The status of articles on other similar topics has no bearing on a particular article". Thus, just because there are 200 other articles which are similar in content does not mean they lend an argument why this article is notable and can be kept. In regards to (b), you seem to indicate that it gains it's notability by being part of the Renewal movement. I urge you to view WP:ITSA which indicates that notability is clearly not inherited. If you can respond to my points from above I would appreciate it. Bstone (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Awaiting IZAK's response to my comments Bstone (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We typically don't have articles on individual congregations and similar institutions unless they are independently notable. What makes this congregation notable? What are the sources for its notability? Compare, to pick an example out of a hat, the article on Etz Hayyim Synagogue, which starts with a clear notability claim. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 06:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per IZAK. Culturalrevival (talk) 02:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Important as central synagogue of Jewish Renewal movement. No need to merge, article stands on its own as an integral part of this specific theological movement. Bhaktivinode (talk) 08:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I understand your feelings about this house of worship, but can you explain what makes this congregation notable according to wikipedia guidelines? There are no news articles about this congregation demonstrating it has not achieved any manner of notability. As such it does not pass the test for an article on this project. Bstone (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment More information has been added, with reliable sources citated, which further establishes notability for the synagogue (aside from its relation to Jewish Renweal and Rabbi Lerner). Culturalrevival (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response The political views of this congregation in no way establishes notability. Having Cindy Sheehan attend one service and a related article does assist in establishing a notable event, but the congregation itself is lacking notability. What is the congregation itself known for? Is it the oldest one in the area? Is it a seminary? Does it have a unique architecture? Look forward to your response. Bstone (talk) 18:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I see no evidence of notability, independant from the visit from Sheehan. This, in itself, does not make the congregation itself notable. To use an example, the President of the US visits many, many organizations, however, this does not make these places notable. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A tag has been placed on the article by the nominator, "This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. WikiProject Judaism or the Portal:Judaism may be able to help recruit one." This tag is not needed as the discussion is occuring among the project. Culturalrevival (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response One might assume that putting up additional tags which request additional help for the article might be welcome by those who opine for keep. Color me confused by your rejection of it. Bstone (talk) 23:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response As IZAK stated above, "This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions." Thanks. Culturalrevival (talk) 23:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Clearly notable as shown by multiple independent reliable sources in article. Argyriou (talk) 01:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response There is no clear notability. There are reliable sources, true, but they demonstrate only minimal notability at best. One visit from a political activist does not confer notability. If the President visits a synagogue or church and inspires one newspaper article does it confer enough notability for this project? The answer is no as one single event, according to Wikipedia policies, does not confer enough notability to allow for survival of an AfD. Bstone (talk) 02:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Responding to every single keep argument will not create a consensus to delete. Argyriou (talk) 02:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply I am simply setting the record straight where people err. Bstone (talk) 02:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Now, you're just being insulting. Argyriou (talk) 07:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the importance is sufficiently demonstrated for notability, and sources have been shown to be available. DGG (talk) 05:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response How? Can you please explain how it is notable? Yes there are reliable sources for one singular event, but it does not establish notability in itself. Bstone (talk) 05:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The principle notability claim given so far is "This is the central synagogue of the Jewish Renewal movement." Can we document that, perhaps from Jewish Renewal sources? Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 06:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the synagogue is mentioned multiple times, I don't feel there is significant notability. A Google search turns up very few promising hits; meanwhile, the sources cited in the article are not sufficient. My main concern is that most of the articles, along with the New York Times and SFGate articles, only provide minor mention of the synagogue, and only when talking about Michael Lerner. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 06:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Looks very well sourced, although i can see why the media covers this more then other synagogues we have to live by our standards that an article if it has enough media coverage cannot be deleted.--YY (talk) 12:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable and well sourced. Ism schism (talk) 05:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable enough to be mentioned in several top newspapers, and the founding rabbi is notable as well. --MPerel 07:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response The leader already has his own article. Notability is not inherited per WP:ITSA, which indicates that notability is clearly not inherited. The congregation is notable for one event (visit of Cindy Sheehan, a political activist, not a spiritual activist), which by wikipedia policy a singular event is not enough to maintain notability and the article must be deleted. Bstone (talk) 16:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - significant media coverage - large number of sources mention the synagogue briefly, and a few in depth, admittedly in relation to an event. Addhoc (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Establishes notability with the controversial, in-the-news technique we all know and love... _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{round of applause} 20:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject has received coverage "...by sources [that] address the subject directly in detail" "...in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Mostlyharmless' comments. Culturalrevival (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to meet WP:N. Orderinchaos 05:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Michael Lerner (rabbi) and/or Tikkun (magazine). Being mentined by a bunch of sources doesn't make something notable. The subject must be the main aspect of the coverage. The coverage that this congregation has received has been through Michael Lerner (rabbi) and/or Tikkun (magazine). The congregation isn't notable per se. I find it most amusing that a congregation that doesn't even have a building of its own is considered notable by some editors. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A building doth not a congregation make. This is a radical group. It's like saying the Taliban are not notable because they don't have an "official building" to meet in. IZAK (talk) 06:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The singer is not the song. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

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

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

The result was despite no one participating, the article has absolutely no reliable sources, and therefore completely fails in meeting WP:V and WP:N. The only possible outcome is delete. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evermail[edit]

Neologism. No references. Unsupported by ghits. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:55, 6 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 --JForget 01:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Wagstaff[edit]

Article fails to assert Notability, no professional appearances King of the North East 02:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO and proposed football notability. Peanut4 (talk) 02:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as usual. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable youth. GiantSnowman (talk) 12:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Peanut. John Hayes^talk 16:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 18:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete no sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logastellus (talk • contribs) 19:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:BIO. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 20:08, 6 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 --JForget 01:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Maraboli[edit]

This promotional page, apparently written by a member of the organization "abettertoday", hence almost certainly violates WP:COI. It has no WP:RS and hence fails WP:N. Also Looking over the history of this page, tags continue to be removed without the actual issues being addressed. Sethie (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per reasons listed above. Sethie (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No way the information in the article is verifiable. Obvious WP:COI issues. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 20:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources, just press releases -- Whpq (talk) 19:08, 8 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 a7, the assertion of notability is ludicrous on its face, and unsourced. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just the shoe of us[edit]

Delete nn film per WP:NF Mayalld (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Reads kind of spammy as well, possible COI. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:55, 6 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. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probie[edit]

Dictionary definition. Unreferenced for more than a year. Mikeblas (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and add to Wiktionary. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 17:00, 6 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, jj137 (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shorten and move to Wikitionary. Calvin 1998 ^Talk _Contribs 00:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOT#DIC, WP:NEO. ~~move~~ merge with (expand upon) wiktionary [17]. Tiptoety ^talk 01:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, but rename to probationary firefighter to make it more than a dictdef. Google hints that "probationary firefighter" might be a notable term — it's certainly in use, and there might be substantial material to add to the article. -- Lea (talk) 01:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The newbie/apprentice/probationary phase of a particular profession should be covered in the appropriate article for that profession. It's likely that probie could be merged with a term like rookie if that one weren't devoted entirely to the athletic variety. --Dhartung | Talk 04:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Dictdef, and the features of being a probational officer are relevant to the articles on the professions. This seems to be in existence for a lexical purpose -- so folks watching Stargate can look up what the word means -- i.e. the "in popular culture" drives the article, and that's backwards for an encyclopedia article. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This already exists in Wiktionary, but it could be expanded there. – jaksmata 19:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This seems to go considerably beyond a dictdef to me. A dictdef is usually a one-line sub-stub that is nothing more than the title's definition. This is, excluding the trivia section, a nice three paragraph stub article that goes well beyond a dictdef. I'm unmoved by the "unreferenced for more than a year" argument. AFD is not cleanup, and Wikipedia has no deadlines. I don't think this should be merged into firefighter, given that "Probie" is not used throughout the world. Putting it there would introduce a geographic bias to North American firefighters. I agree with LeaW that this could (and maybe should) be renamed to probationary firefighter-- ShinmaWa^(talk) 00:51, 13 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. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Torchwood (series 1)[edit]

Content fork of Torchwood, List of Torchwood episodes and the acompanying episode articles, therefor basically redundant. — Edokter • Talk • 16:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redundant Doc Strange (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant. 23skidoo (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete per above Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 18:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]
Woah woah woah... This article is not redundant. That's like saying History of Scotland is redundant because Scotland has information about its history. Therefore, I say keep and possibly move to List of Torchwood episodes because the current list does not go into such detail. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{round of applause} 18:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and halt all activities per arbcom. Plus, there is currently an RfC at WP:EPISODE, which may very well determine to get rid of non-notability-establishing episode articles in favor of season articles. This article is already ahead of that proposal. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Is it just deleting and undeleting, or are we to halt editing as well? _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{round of applause} 20:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom says no-one (party or not party of that case) is to delete or undelete (or redirect and unredirect) fiction articles related to episodes and characters. There have been no blocks for editing (including trimming and expanding) as of now, but many AfDs and TfDs have already been speedy closed. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with WP:EPISODE or arbcom; this is just a fork from already existing articles with a different layout. — Edokter • Talk • 20:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does indeed. It is an episode related article, if I'm not mistaken. I still endorse the moving to List of Torchwood episodes and just adding the second seasons episodes to the end. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{round of applause} 20:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken; all the information already exists in existing articles. ArbCom's ruling was about deleting existing artilces, not content forks. — Edokter • Talk • 21:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO this is an existing article. For instance, The Simpsons (season 9) is still here, even though all information is in linked articles. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{round of applause} 21:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's barely a month old. List of Torchwood episodes already lists all episodes, and the episode articles already contain all other information. Not to belittle the author, but this is just a glorified list with plot summaries; it adds nothing to the existing list and articles, and with only two series produced so far, Series 1 really doesn't warrant it's own article. — Edokter • Talk • 21:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And to reply to the whole ArbCom case... If anything, this could be construed to derail that whole process in order to sway ArbCom into ruling in favor of season article instead of episode articles. When that happens, a whole truckload of information will be lost. When such a high profile case is under consideration, it is best to leave the current structure intact, and not create content forks. — Edokter • Talk • 22:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that article does list all of the articles, but no more. If I were a regular viewer looking for information, I would like an article like this, without having to click links to access any useful information. On the article, the information is all there ready to be looked at, without unnecessary filtering as is on virtually all of the episode articles themselves. And I don't think your ArbCom conclusion follows. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{round of applause} 22:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(deindent) The only information it adds are the summaries. As it stands, it is a copy of existing information. The episode articles contain so much more information regarding production and such, while the main Torchwood article has all the information that is currently in the lead. A fork is unnecessary and only de-organizes the available information even more. — Edokter • Talk • 22:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not "deorganise" information. I still believe that it could be moved to List of Torchwood episodes to sruce up the existing list. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{round of applause} 18:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to move, except the plot summaries. And the lead is already covered in the Torchwood article. — Edokter • Talk • 19:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The plot summaries are, IMO, better than the current episode articles, as they are all plot and no information otherwise. I still think of the Simpsons example, as the lead for that is covered in other articles, as well as the plot summaries. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{round of applause} 21:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article's plot summaries contain more information, as do the article themselves. They contain information regarding production, reception and continuity. This article is just a collection of short synopsis summaries. — Edokter • Talk • 20:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll agree with StuartDD for the time being. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{it seems the winds have stopped...} 20:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WBOSITG, this should not be deleted. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 20:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep changed my mind Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 20:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This would be a nice article if the episodes articles got deleted, but we still have the articles just now. I think we should wait a bit and see what happens with the new notability rules. Stuart DD _{contributions} 21:55, 8 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. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tearjerker[edit]

On a sourceable level, I can't see this as anything more than a dictionary definition and it's already on Wiktionary. Travellingcari (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agreed, the wikitionary article covers it just fine. What we have at the moment is a horrible piece of OR riddled with opinions. Ryan4314 (talk) 17:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 20:11, 6 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 Human migration. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Push and pull factors[edit]

Original research, no references since 2006. The PROD tag was removed by an anon with no actual addition of refs. Legotech (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lots of Ghits, but I can't this becoming anything more than a definition. In fact, both push factor and pull factor are already in Wiktionary. So that would be a "push factor" outa here. Redirect per Dethme0w. Clarityfiend (talk) 16:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - The term is also used in film sound work, which might account for some of the results. Torc2 (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced OR. Someone removed the ((originalresearch)) tag claiming the subject is covered in books, but after two years with no references (and none from the tag-removing IP), I don't think any are forthcoming. Dethme0w (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Human migration which lists push and pull factors. That article also needs refs badly, but at least it has virtually the same content, in context. Dethme0w (talk) 19:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great solution Dethme0w, looks almost like it could have been lifted from there to begin with. Legotech (talk) 21:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as outcome of AfD, and Speedy delete as copyvio anyway. Fram (talk) 14:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mishmahig[edit]

This is a copy of an article deleted by prod last December by User:The Behnam (since departed). The original prod reason was: "This article is mostly just a copy of a POV article from CAIS. Not only may this have a copyright issue, but this also provides a strong POV in both content and style. Any suitable facts should be relegated to the History of Bahrain article, and this Mishmahig at most remain a stub. In any case, this alternate, POV history of Bahrain should not remain." I'm inclined to agree but since this is a repost it's apparently a (belatedly) contested prod, I'm seeking suggestions here, and appreciate any opinions on whether this topic deserves an article and what it would consist of. Rigadoun (talk) 15:30, 6 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, jj137 (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Bahrain - non-notable (i mean, it's just the geographical area that makes up Bahrain). If anything, should be merged into Bahrain or History of Bahrain —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calvin 1998 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge, but this is an oddity. I gather that this article exists to give prominence to a subgroup? There doesn't seem to be much rationale for the article, which claims to be about "an island" that it says is made up of hundreds of islands. I.e. it claims to be about another name for a particular area of land, but then it's really about the nation of Bahrain. Something very fishy is going on, and possibly a POV fork. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - seems to be a copyright violation. Compare content and observe the copyright notice at the bottom of this page. – jaksmata 19:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - and fast, per Jaksmata above. Calvin 1998 ^Talk _Contribs 02:44, 13 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 --JForget 02:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 8[edit]

Distant future software; any meaning this article will have before 2010?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Full of original research and blog-sourced info. - Josh (talk | contribs) 15:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not delete-although i admit this article needs editing i wouldn't delete it because it is talking about no so distant future...stay futureproof people... Avenger22 (talk) 15:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Avenger22Avenger22 (talk) 15:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and recreate when it actually becomes something, rather than a maybe something. Srpnor (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research, and who knows if this will exist? - Milk's Favorite Cookie 20:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too much original research and speculation (Microsoft had barely touched on the subject) Stephenchou0722 (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless backed up with reliable sources to verify what is claimed. --soum ^talk 14:21, 7 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. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compass (consulting)[edit]

It's an advert, not notable, and neglected. Wikipedia is not a directory. Secretagentwang (talk) 14:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability that would meet the inclusion criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). — Satori Son 15:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Srpnor (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 20:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is clear from the article. Worldwide 400+ employee management consulting firm founded and run by important expert and inventor to ply his trade, a key link in the development of the field. Article is supported by six seemingly reliable secondary sources, they simply happen to be offline. The presence of some unencyclopedic material in the article does not make it an advertisement. Take the material out and the article is just fine. Describing the key organizations that make up a field of business is not creating a directory listing, it's part of being an encyclopedia. Wikidemo (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the article, sure, but to who else? You can't cite the article itself for notability. Can anyone verify the six secondary sources? I'm checking the 2007 Vault guide, and Compass doesn't have an entry. Vault listings aren't necessarily the final word in notability, but they are for many management consultants. BowChickaNeowNeow (talk) 15:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:RS, WP:V, both essential for proving WP:CORP. Bearian (talk) 01:29, 15 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 Salarakkaat. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Salarakas[edit]

non notable song Rtphokie (talk) 01:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Salarakkaat Nakon 01:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect seems ok, aslong as the information is preserved. --Easyas12c (talk) 12:00, 2 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, Xymmax (talk) 14:09, 6 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 with Eli Manning pass to David Tyree. Please note, I'm not completing the merge as closing administrator. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Catch (2008)[edit]

Delete - Same article exists here. Catch is notable enough to warrant its own article as numerous media outlets are calling this the most important catch in Super Bowl history. This article however should be deleted over the other article because the play has not been given an official name (yet). So for now, people are refering to it simply as Eli Manning to David Tyree.

Also, many other important plays have their own article. Even some inconsequential ones. --Endless Dan 14:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into one article. 3 is a bit much. :) We have Super Bowl XLII Manning-Tyree Pass too. Vote on that is here. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 14:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the Manning to Tyree article. That article can always be renamed if and when an official name is given to the play. Note that one of the articles cited by the nominator is for another NFL play called "The Catch" from back in 1982, so having another one with the same name is just confusing (and probably increases the likelihood that the 2008 play will not be given the name "The Catch", since it's already taken). 23skidoo (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although this incident has longlasting notability, this is the wrong name for the article. A redirect isn't even required because it's an unexpected searh term. Eli Manning pass to David Tyree is the best article for this incident. The article name is correct and its well written.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Multiple copies of this topic exist, but that's an issue for merge more than AfD. "The Catch II" has been used in at least one major article, so a redirect isn't a bad idea. Torc2 (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - If an article has multiple listings, it doesn't need to be deleted. It needs to be MERGED with the other articles about it. Being as it is, undoubtedly, the most important play of the game, it should get it's own article (Precedent: Miracle at the Meadowlands, The Catch, Immaculate Reception). The main issue seems to be what to call it, but that's another issue. Merge it, then we choose a name John cena123 (talk) 20:14, 8 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) 15:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LA Wiki[edit]

Tried CSD, was declined, but I think the decline was in error. This meets A7, as the article makes no effort to assert notability. It's likely because there isn't any. I ran several Google searches trying to find anything about it and came up with zilch. I think this paragraph from the site itself says it all: "There are 169 total pages in the database. This includes "talk" pages, pages about The LA Wiki, minimal "stub" pages, redirects, and others that probably don't qualify as content pages. Excluding those, there are 6 pages that are probably legitimate content pages." If that's "one of the 27 largest City Wikis in the world" (as the author claims on the talk page), I shudder to think what the others look like. Gromlakh (talk) 14:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: I missed this when I posted it, but it also appears the author has a conflict of interest. The article lists the owner of LA Wiki as "Andrew Tutt", the same as the author's username. Gromlakh (talk) 14:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's just an advert. Srpnor (talk) 14:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable per WP:WEB. No evidence that there has been non-trivial coverage of subject by reliable, third-party published sources. — Satori Son 14:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:WEB. The LA Wiki is not ready to promote itself anywhere given its extreme lack of content. Furthermore, someone knowledgeable about GFDL should bring to the attention of the powers that be at Wikipedia that LA Wiki's article on Los Angeles was apparently copied from Wikipedia's Los Angeles, California without proper attribution under GFDL. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wikipedia has never enforced GFDL licensing - I think the content is safe. By the time of any sort of suit, the article will likely already fall into the domain of fair use — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.78.87 (talk • contribs)
  - I am not advocating a lawsuit against the owner of LA Wiki, but certainly it should be made known to the relevant parties that most of LA Wiki's substantive content (three of the five articles) violates GFDL. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as current version, it makes several assertions of notability (...LA Wiki is the fastest-growing city wiki in the United States...also runs on the MediaWiki framework, one of the first City Wiki's to employ the scaleable technology behind Wikipedia) but lacks any secondary sources to confirm this. The first point, if well sourced, would establish notability in my mind, but now it's just an empty promise. Level it! WLU (talk) 15:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above and nom. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 20:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment - if it went from 13 articles to the current 169 in one year, it will have had a 1200% annual growth rate, which might well be the fastest-growing city wiki in the U.S., or even the world. That does not necessarily mean it's notable. Argyriou (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If only ... the LA Wiki actually has only five content pages now. [18] Its mainspace consists of those, two redirects, its Main Page, and an empty portal. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - COI or no, substantiated or no, I find it hard to justify the inclusion of articles about any other city wiki that meet the criteria outlined above. Take DavisWiki - page was created by user with COI, and does not cite neutral sources for assertions of notability. Basically, this deletion is the assertion of a double standard. However, since logic does not trump ignorant voting, it will likely be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.78.87 (talk • contribs)
- Comment - WP:WAX; other articles are completely irrelevant to the deletion of this one. Feel free to nominate those articles for deletion. WLU (talk) 11:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - This is not WP:WAX - these articles were kept b/c they make assertions of notability that reference themselves. Comparison is to reasons for keeping them, not that they exist. All LA Wiki has to do is assert notability for itself and it will survive this process Re: other city wikis which do just that. (See paragraph 1 of WP:Other Stuff Exists) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.78.87 (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, the criteria require more than just an assertion of notability. If an article about web content does not even assert a claim to notability, the article can be speedily deleted under criteria for speedy deletion, criterion A7. LA Wiki does assert a claim to notability so it is safe from speedy deletion. However, if the article claims that the web content is notable but the claim cannot be verified through reliable sources, the article may be deleted pursuant to a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, which is what we are doing now for LA Wiki. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:25, 8 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 --JForget 01:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

North Farms Volunteer Fire Department[edit]

Volunteer fire department of Wallingford, Connecticut (45 thousand inhabitants). No reliable third-party coverage. Pichpich (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as insufficiently notable per WP:ORG. — Satori Son 14:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Thank them for their service to the community, but a local fire department is not notable. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and growing precedent. Travellingcari (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN per WP:ORG Doc Strange (talk) 15:43, 7 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:LIST. Bearian (talk) 01:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Radio Mindanao Network[edit]

Article fails WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Wikipedia is not a directory and Wikipedia articles are notDirectories, directory entries or a electronic program guide. For example, an article on a radio or TV station station should not list current program schedules, etc. A list of all the phone numbers in New York would be useful, but is not included because Wikipedia is not a directory. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so many useful things that do not belong in an encyclopedia are excluded. Hu12 (talk) 13:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy keep. Selective application of Wikipedia policy. This is a routine "List of programs broadcast by Foo" article. --Howard the Duck 14:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep same reason with AFD nomination for List of programs broadcast by Radio Philippines Network. -Danngarcia (talk) 14:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Also fails Wikipedia:Lists#Purpose_of_lists "However, as Wikipedia is optimized for readers over editors, any lists which exist primarily for development or maintenance purposes (such as a list of red link articles needed) should be in project or user space not the main space, if the list is not otherwise encyclopedic."--Hu12 (talk) 14:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]
- ~~Philippine sources are hard to find, especially for old TV programs and TV programs that didn't air either on ABS-CBN or GMA. --Howard the Duck 14:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]
Weak delete or merge to DWKC-TV. This station is too minor to be notable. --Howard the Duck 15:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for an individual station., Hu12 is perfectly correct, but we have often kept lists of network programming. It would seem this would be justified if it really is a major network. I cant really tell from the article.DGG (talk) 02:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a minor network. Its channel assignment is in the UHF band. --Howard the Duck 03:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the current scope of the list is the programming for one TV station, DWKC-TV. That makes the list a program guide. The Transhumanist 01:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus for deletion. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Philippine-based music groups[edit]

Article fails WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, Wikipedia articles are not Directories of music groups. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so many useful things that do not belong in an encyclopedia are excluded. Hu12 (talk) 13:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete surely if anything this is a category? Srpnor (talk) 14:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the page itself is in an existing category which does the job nicely! Srpnor (talk) 14:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. This is a routine "List of <place> musical groups" article. See Category:Lists of musicians by nationality. --Howard the Duck 14:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most places don't have a list of mucical groups article and the fact that a few do doesn't mean it's ok for everywhere to have one harlock_jds (talk) 01:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. This type of information is much better handled by a category, which, as noted, already exits at Category:Filipino musical groups. I realize that similar list articles exist, but many of those are not appropriate either. — Satori Son 14:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Categories wouldn't list notable entries that don't have articles. --Howard the Duck 14:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The answer to that is to create the articles. Long lists of redlinks needing articles are not helpful to readers (see Hu12's comment and policy citation below). — Satori Son 15:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, the point is, no one should assume that the red link is unnotable, especially on list articles such as this. Otherwise, important lists that have red links such as Speaker of the Philippine House of Representatives would've been deleted.
    - Not to mention the Philippine music industry is big enough to make this list notable. --Howard the Duck 15:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (Not a directory), so many "useful" things that do not belong in an encyclopedia are excluded or removed. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers.--Hu12 (talk) 15:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        If this is converted to a category then it wouldn't look like a... directory? And the advantage of articles is that it can list red links that are notable, something categories can't do. --Howard the Duck 15:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Also fails Wikipedia:Lists#Purpose_of_lists "However, as Wikipedia is optimized for readers over editors, any lists which exist primarily for development or maintenance purposes (such as a list of red link articles needed) should be in project or user space not the main space" this is mostly contains redlinks and non-article entries--Hu12 (talk) 14:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It meets Wikipedia:Lists#Purpose_of_lists - lists are great for navigation, and this one serves that purpose well, along with all the other lists of music groups. The section in WP:LISTS about navigation uses of lists on that guideline isn't comprehensive, and it doesn't mention that lists are interconnected into a huge navigation system. The "top" couple of "levels" of that system includes many lists of "basic topics" and many lists of "topics", and branches out to include most lists on Wikipedia (the only ones not included yet are those that have been overlooked). This list fits into that navigation system well. The Transhumanist 22:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, then edit. Edit the whole article into a Wikipedia-worthy list. Starczamora (talk) 19:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Edit most groups on this list have questionable noteability and their is no content on this article... it's just a list. A catagory would work better (and would include the noteable bands not list every band that could have ever played in the phhlipines). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harlock jds (talk • contribs) 01:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This list is useful for navigating Wikipedia (as a table of contents or index of Philippine-based music groups per Wikipedia:Lists#Purpose of lists, and that section deals with redundancy between categories and lists). I find lists serve better for navigating than categories do. List contents are included in searches (Wikipedia's search box, Google, etc.), category contents aren't. The formatting on lists is easier to read, each list can handle more information than a single category, and scrolling is faster and more convenient (and enjoyable) than clicking through subcategories. Those waits between page displays in categories add up fast, especially if you are clicking back and forth up and down a category tree. It's better to display this information in lists. Besides, lists are much easier and faster to develop, and the data can be used in ways that is awkward with category data. The Transhumanist 22:41, 11 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of GMA Network affiliate stations[edit]

Article fails WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, Wikipedia articles are not Directories, directory entries or a electronic program guide Hu12 (talk) 13:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - you should also delete this page or this page if you want to delete this article. This is really unfair for those networks that aren't based on United States. -Danngarcia (talk) 14:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Selective application of Wikipedia policy. --Howard the Duck 14:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Also fails Wikipedia:Lists#Purpose_of_lists "However, as Wikipedia is optimized for readers over editors, any lists which exist primarily for development or maintenance purposes (such as a list of red link articles needed) should be in project or user space not the main space, if the list is not otherwise encyclopedic."--Hu12 (talk) 14:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So are you nominating the lists mentioned by Danngarcia above? That'll be a better convention in which all similar "List of Foo affiliate stations" can follow. --Howard the Duck 14:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, Those probably need to be nominated also. The fact that they haven't does not mean Wikipedia is obligation to have this article.--Hu12 (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominate those first, and if those get deleted, I'll even nominate this for a speedy. --Howard the Duck 15:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - To suggest that you would speedy delete vote this article if someone deletes those first is improper and questionable at the least.--Hu12 (talk) 15:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why? If other stuff exists, then if those stuff are gone this one should be gone too. --Howard the Duck 15:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:ALLORNOTHING. The status of articles on other similar topics has no bearing on a particular article.--Hu12 (talk) 15:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Nah, not convincing. It's an essay. Show me the policy. --Howard the Duck 10:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Keep. This nomination glares of systemic bias. We'll nominate the list of affiliate stations in the United States for deletion and we'll see how they react. Sheez... Starczamora (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you feel this is a "us" vs "them" thing, I recommend that you honestly re-examine your motivations. Are you here to contribute and make the project good? Or is your goal really to find fault and get your personal views across? Wikipedia works best when people with opposing opinions work together to find common ground. You obviously perceive your biases as neutral.--Hu12 (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ha! I'll throw back WP:AGF to you as well. As I've said, the nomination reeks of systemic bias. It's funny that I am accused of bias when you don't see that what you nominating for deletion reflects its American counterpart. Who's biased now? Starczamora (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is weird, the television systems in this country are very similar to the ones in America. You know, the whole "affiliated stations with local programming to serve each market" idea instead of just only local news and such. If this is the consensus, you'd have to delete everything else on the same rationale. But the point is, this is clearly NOT a program guide, or a directory. It is a LIST. Also, it does not violate WP:LIST, which states that "Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others." In addition, it is NOT a program guide, and it is like this just because we're trying to keep all of GMA's media properties in one basket. This is like having a page for all media outlets owned by News Corporation. ViperSnake151 02:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ViperSnake151. --Jojit (talk) 03:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's an academic treatment of the subject, and not a directory. The Transhumanist 21:41, 11 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of ABS-CBN channels and stations[edit]

Article fails WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, Wikipedia articles are not Directories, directory entries or a electronic program guide Hu12 (talk) 13:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - you should also delete this page or this page if you want to delete this article. This is really unfair for those networks that aren't based in the United States. -Danngarcia (talk) 14:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Selective application of Wikipedia policy. --Howard the Duck 14:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Also fails Wikipedia:Lists#Purpose_of_lists "However, as Wikipedia is optimized for readers over editors, any lists which exist primarily for development or maintenance purposes (such as a list of red link articles needed) should be in project or user space not the main space"--Hu12 (talk) 14:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You better nominate the articles mentioned by Danngarcia. If those articles exist, then no reason to delete this one. --Howard the Duck 14:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, Those probably need to be nominated also. The fact that they haven't does not mean Wikipedia is obligation to have this article.--Hu12 (talk) 15:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nominate those first, and if those get deleted, I'll even nominate this for a speedy. --Howard the Duck 15:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Uhhhhh no that's not how wikipedia works. If you think those should be deleted then go nominate them. THe fact that they exist doesn't affect this article. please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harlock jds (talk • contribs) 01:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        If this is deleted, I'd nominate those American lists for deletion. Now if those U.S. lists are kept, I'll list this Philippine list at WP:DRV. --Howard the Duck 10:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Though long lists of redlinks with nothing else are not appropriate, this article has additional information which I believe makes it somewhat encyclopedic. References are needed, of course, but probably not deletion. — Satori Son 15:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Danngarcia. It's American-centric to allow a list of the NBC and CBS affiliate articles to exist, but not this one. And, no, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not acceptable as a comeback in this case, as far as I'm concerned. 23skidoo (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither is WP:ALLORNOTHING. The status of articles on other similar topics has no bearing on a particular article.--Hu12 (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. An example of systemic bias. If this list is deleted, we'll nominate the American counterpart for deletion as well under the same argument. Starczamora (talk) 20:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you feel this is a "us" vs "them" thing, I recommend that you honestly re-examine your motivations. Are you here to contribute and make the project good? Or is your goal really to find fault and get your personal views across? Wikipedia works best when people with opposing opinions work together to find common ground. You obviously perceive your biases as neutral.--Hu12 (talk) 20:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Starczamora, please feel free to AfD nominate any article you think should be deleted. Even though I do not think this article should be deleted, I find your comment irrelevant and wholly unhelpful. Policy-based discussion is good, WP:POINTy threats are not. — Satori Son 21:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Isn't this a POINTy nomination too? The nominator nominated and edited only Philippine media articles. At least he could've sprinkled in other articles from other countries too. For the record, I want this article deleted as long as all articles from other nations are also deleted. See a similar deletion discussion: Philippine Presidents by longevity, deleted -> overturned at DRV vs. United States Presidents by longevity, no consensus. --Howard the Duck 10:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - First of all, you should assume good faith. I don't even know what country Hu12 is from, and I don't care. Second, whatever you think of this nomination, it does not give license to other editors to make inappropriate comments on how they intend to retaliate if they don't get their way. This isn't elementary school. Let's all try to stick to a mature, respectful debate based on policy and thoughtful analysis. Thanks. — Satori Son 12:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Still, the nomination is biased on a particular country without considering other countries with the same articles. If there was a blanket nomination on all similar lists, regardless of what country, then THAT'S the true essence of assuming good faith. Starczamora (talk) 13:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'll rest my case. It seems consensus is to keep anyway (unless a deluge of deletes come in the coming days), so to continue this discussion would be a waste of Wikipedia's money. --Howard the Duck 13:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Flawed and inapropriate Non-policy based arguments of regional and ethnic affiliation attacks do not make for exemption of official Wikipedia policy for which this was nominated. WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and WP:LISTS#Purpose of lists.--Hu12 (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Half-truth: WP:LISTS#Purpose of lists isn't a policy. --Howard the Duck 03:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see the difference between this and keeping daily ratings for tv shows. And yes the other mentioned articles should also be deleted. Be bold and do so if you wishharlock_jds (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 21:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments on the GMA discussion and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_DirecTV_channels. This is just regional bias. ViperSnake151 02:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ViperSnake151. --Jojit (talk) 03:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:NOT#DIRECTORY does not apply here. The Transhumanist 21:26, 11 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:CSD#G7 (author requested deletion by blanking the article). —David Eppstein (talk) 16:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SureshNair[edit]

Article does not establish notability; basically a CV (the company may be notable though) EyeSerene^TALK 13:03, 6 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by National Broadcasting Network[edit]

Article fails WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, Wikipedia articles are not Directories, directory entries or a electronic program guide Hu12 (talk) 12:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Selective application of Wikipedia policy. --Howard the Duck 14:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep same reason with AFD nomination for List of programs broadcast by Radio Philippines Network. -Danngarcia (talk) 14:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and WP:LISTS#Purpose of lists. Long lists of unreferenced redlinks are unhelpful to our readers. — Satori Son 15:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Keep. Argument is an example of systemic bias. English Wikipedia is not US/UK/Aus/CA/NZ-only Wikipedia. Starczamora (talk) 20:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If we have list of programs broadcast by The WB then why not have a list of programs by NBN? Keep it if we have to keep other non-US/UK/Aus/CA/NZ lists. --Jojit (talk) 03:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per my Policy based nom. Flawed and inapropriate Non-policy based arguments of regional and ethnic systemic bias do not make for exemption of official Wikipedia policy for which this was nominated. WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and WP:LISTS#Purpose of lists. If solid policy based reasonnig was being discussed, I may--Hu12 (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, your support for deletion is implicit - this is voting twice Vegetationlife (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect, a nominator can explicitly vote under the nomination. "Nominations imply a recommendation to delete the article unless the nominator specifically says otherwise....some nominators explicitly indicate their recommendation" If solid policy based argument discussions were being presented, you cannot assume that I would not have supported a vote of keep, or withdraw.--Hu12 (talk) 19:55, 7 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, nothing really that stands out here which would warrants an article deletion such as WP:V or WP:OR issues. The WP:NOT#DIR criteria can be debated for years without results and it can be subjected to various interpretations, so the result has been defaulted to keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Radio Philippines Network[edit]

Article fails WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, Wikipedia articles are not Directories, directory entries or a electronic program guide Hu12 (talk) 12:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Srpnor (talk) 12:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep If you will delete this page, maybe you should also delete the list of programs for NBC, ABC and CBS and other major television networks. RPN is a major television network here in the Philippines and deleting this page is just unfair. -Danngarcia (talk) 13:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This is a standard "List of programs broadcast by Foo" list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Howard the Duck (talk • contribs) 14:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Also fails Wikipedia:Lists#Purpose_of_lists "However, as Wikipedia is optimized for readers over editors, any lists which exist primarily for development or maintenance purposes (such as a list of red link articles needed) should be in project or user space not the main space"--Hu12 (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest you nominate the NBC and CBS articles first. If they're deleted, I'd happily mark this for speedy deletion. --Howard the Duck 15:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - To suggest that you would mark this for speedy deletion, if someone deletes those first is improper and questionable.--Hu12 (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Now that's systemic bias. Starczamora (talk) 20:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and WP:LISTS#Purpose of lists. Long lists of unreferenced redlinks are unhelpful to our readers. — Satori Son 15:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The red links are mostly local programs produced by RPN during it's heyday (pre-1990s). --Howard the Duck 15:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (Not a directory), so many "useful" things that do not belong in an encyclopedia are excluded or removed. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers, this is neither.--Hu12 (talk) 15:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - So where should notable red-linked articles be mentioned? --Howard the Duck 15:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Recycle bin..WP:WTAF--Hu12 (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        How about WP:N and for those who can't write articles since they don't have sources but it still passes the notability guidelines? (And essays aren't really convincing.) --Howard the Duck 15:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For the same reasons I gave in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by National Broadcasting Network. --Jojit (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per my Policy based nom. Flawed and inapropriate Non-policy based arguments of regional and ethnic systemic bias do not make for exemption of official Wikipedia policy for which this was nominated. WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and WP:LISTS#Purpose of lists.--Hu12 (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- <Discussion as to whether this is "voting twice" by nominator moved to talk page. — Satori Son>

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, CSD G1 by Lectonar. Non-admin close. Redfarmer (talk) 13:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Janderson[edit]

Non-notable neologism, searching for the name brought up zero references to the content of this article. Possibly a hoax. –– Lid^(Talk) 12:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in fact, speedy or WP:SNOW - hoax Srpnor (talk) 12:54, 6 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. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Love Issshtory[edit]

Prod removed without explanation. Rumors on upcoming Bollywood film not yet in production. Fails WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL. Redfarmer (talk) 12:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Yet another one of these Srpnor (talk) 12:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No WP:RS. Bearian (talk) 01:27, 15 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) 15:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dame Roberta Collard[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Dame Roberta Collard

Non notable article. Describes a prop or McGuffin from an NN internet TV series, ffs Tagishsimon (talk) 12:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in fact I'd have db-notability tagged it myself. Srpnor (talk) 12:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A fictional violin case? Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't be any less notable if it tried. gb ^{(t, c)} 13:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A fantastic article. Well worth reading. Walshywalrus (talk) 17:01, 11 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 --JForget 01:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Osmond's Pyramid of Incompetence[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Osmond's Pyramid of Incompetence

Pure original research. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination - the only people on the whole Internet who mention this subject are... Wikipedia. In this article. Srpnor (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not very compelling OR: a complete mis-reading of the Peter principle. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And at least The Peter Principle achieved wide recognition after being part of a bestselling book. The article has three cites, all of which are to something other than anything that Professor Osmond has published-- assuming he's published anything, that is. Mandsford (talk) 12:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is he a professor? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 13:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article says that he's "of the University of London" but I guess that could mean that he's a student, or a janitor. Mandsford (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, yet another management theory whose chief merit is its catchy title; no notability shown in the article itself. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above and nom. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an essay composed almost entirely of original research. When I saw the article's title, I thought that it was going to be an essay on the Donny Osmond-hosted revival of Pyramid... Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that would make a good game show: Donny Osmond's Pyramid of Incompetence!, with two celebrities and two regular contestants, all clueless. Mandsford (talk) 02:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 01:54, 7 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 --JForget 01:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Express F.C.[edit]

Non-notable football club. Never played above level 12 of the English football league system, when by precedent only clubs at level 10 or above have been deemed notable. Almost all of the other clubs in this division could also be nominated (with the exception of Portslade who have played at a higher level in the past. fchd (talk) 12:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as proposal, not notable. Srpnor (talk) 12:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Club is a member of the "Brighton, Hove and District Football League" which also has clubs like "Master Tiles" and "Brighton Electricity". It's not quite Arsenal. American Express FC-- Don't leave Hove without it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandsford (talk • contribs) 12:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom King of the North East 13:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete according to Tony Kempster the Brighton league is actually level 11, not 12, but the proposal still applies. Judging from the official website it appears to be a very lowly level 11 league indeed with most of the teams playing in public parks..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - no it is level 12, but Step 7. It feeds another Step 7 division (Sussex County League Division 3) at level 11. Confusing isn't it? - fchd (talk) 13:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just the sort of nonsensicality that could only have come from the FA :-) Either way its teams clearly aren't notable, with the one exception you flagged up above..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - despite the completely ambiguous claim regarding level 11 in the article Brighton Hove and District Football League, as a non-notable level 12 club which does not state or prove any achievements, it fails. Ref ^(chew)(do) 13:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. John Hayes^talk 15:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. GiantSnowman (talk) 17:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. And probably prod some more others after this. NB The Master Tiles entry says this division is level 11. Peanut4 (talk) 22:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It errs. It is a step/level mismatch occurring through the method of upward promotion in Sussex (typical). Someone (or some team of people) seems to have carefully pushed the level 11 point in all the articles for that league, if you take a look. Level 12 in truth. Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone correct Master Tiles F.C. and Brighton Hove and District Football League if this is so. I'm confused as to the wording on the latter. Peanut4 (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:48, 6 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 --slakr^\ talk / 11:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Butterfly Wings Make[edit]

Author removed prod without citing a reason. Album is by a non-notable artist JD554 (talk) 11:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw, article has been speedily deleted. --JD554 (talk) 11:36, 6 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Lee Teck Hin[edit]

Non-notable blogger. I did tag it for speedy, but there does appear to be a claim of notability here insofar as being selected a "Youth Malaysia 100 blogger". Still, I was able to locate zero reliable secondary sources on this person, so notability is pretty shaky. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 11:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, although not forbidden per se, the creator and main contributor to this article has been User:Peter Lee Teck Hin. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 11:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: utterly non-notable. Srpnor (talk) 11:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. fails WP:BLP. Sting au Buzz Me... 12:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete utterly nn. Should have been speedied but I'm glad it wasn't as I wouldn't have had the chance to see his hilarious picture. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notablity Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 18:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is the problem here. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He even admits on his own userpage he's a "non-notable blogger" [19], though I have to wonder if he has any idea what he's saying. cab (talk) 04:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Well, looking at the blog itself, he seems to have a reasonable, although clearly not fluent grasp of English. It also appears that he's been blocked previously. There is really something odd going on here. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 04:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 04:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a vanity autohagiography. Bearian (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The YouthMalaysia list he's likely referring to was a web competition organized by a Malaysian NGO. Anyone could list themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.93.152.11 (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn, should be speedied really; the one source for a claim to notability is not really much of a source. · rodii · 21:07, 7 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.--Kubigula (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ICER AIR[edit]

Lombard Street, San Francisco looks like a ready-made slalom course. However when they organised an on-street skiing event in 2005, they use Fillmore Street. Two more events have been held but no one seems to consider them worthy of a Wikipedia article except the organisers user:Icersport. So I ask if it is notable. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs a lot of work, but (despite the first few results being posted by the event organisers) a quick google does suggest that this is a reasonably well-known event. Just about satisfies notability for me. Srpnor (talk) 11:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage in the Boston Globe and NYTimes makes it notable. Travellingcari (talk) 16:36, 6 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 Placebo Effect (talk) 13:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of planets in Invader Zim[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of planets in Invader Zim

Article fails WP:PLOT and the notability guideline. This is a minor part of the TV series that's not likely to have any third part sources about it. ●Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related page for the same reasons:[reply]

Delete as proposed. Srpnor (talk) 12:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nomination. Doctorfluffy (talk) 02:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - into Invader Zim. They help describe the series. The Transhumanist 00:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom tgies (talk) 06:59, 13 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. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gamma Beta Chi[edit]

This article has seen no growth in the past several months, in fact it was created by a drive-by user. Most of the content was removed as blatant copyvio. Google search for "gamma beta chi" only comes up with the "national" page, and a couple of tripod pages (no news articles). Justinm1978 (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 10:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as insufficiently notable per WP:ORG. — Satori Son 15:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable per WP:ORG. BowChickaNeowNeow (talk) 02:49, 7 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) 15:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Gray (composer)[edit]

Non-notable individual. Smacks of self-promotion. Google yields virtually no hits. Ex penumbrae (talk) 10:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as proposal - non-notable Srpnor (talk) 12:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete no verifiable 2nd party sources. Only a blog Logastellus (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:49, 6 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:CRYSTAL, WP:N, and WP:RS, by WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 01:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Fraud[edit]

Prod removed without explanation. Non-notable future film. This one is listed on IMDB but the last release date they had was that it was supposed to have been released in 2007. The article says the release was put on hold due to "date problems." Fails WP:NFF, WP:CRYSTAL. Keywords: "is supposed to," "is almost," "put on hold for a while." Redfarmer (talk) 10:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as proposal - complete waste of bytes ;) Srpnor (talk) 12:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-Notable. Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 18:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is non-notable as above. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:50, 6 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) 18:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amar Akbar Anthony (2008 film)[edit]

Prod removed without explanation. Non-notable future film. Not listed on IMDB. Instead, another Bollywood film of the same name from 1977 is listed. Fails WP:NFF, WP:CRYSTAL. Redfarmer (talk) 09:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as proposal Srpnor (talk) 12:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - virtually no content. Sbowers3 (talk) 00:33, 7 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. Mango juice^talk 04:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Putin and Russian Presidency[edit]

This article is an essay (it's even signed by the author) and I don't see how it can be converted into anything useful which isn't already covered in other topics. As such, I propose that it be deleted per WP:OR and WP:NOT#OR. This editor has created another essay today which is also up for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MIddle East: Shuttle Diplomacy of Bush (Dr.Abdul Ruff Colachal). --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC) Nick Dowling (talk) 09:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom <eleland/talkedits> 10:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination Srpnor (talk) 12:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and as for author's other articles. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Related discussions here, here, and here. Redfarmer (talk) 12:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Contains the text of a newspaper column running today in India (6 February '08), written by Dr. Abdul Ruff Colachal. If there's not a principle that says "Wikipedia is not a host for Dr. Abdul Ruff Colachal's columns" there should be. Mandsford (talk) 13:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the OR. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exterminate per Mandsford's argument and per OR policy Red Zion^X 20:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Speedy Close per WP:SNOW. WP:OR, WP:SOAP, WP:NOT#OR. Redfarmer (talk) 00:29, 7 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. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rise (Dead Season album)[edit]

Non-notable band, unsigned and no significant billboard chart placement. Leonardobonanni (talk) 09:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Band article has been deleted four times for non-notability, and this article should follow suit. Black Kite 12:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Frankly should be a speedy Srpnor (talk) 12:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be if musical albums were eligible for speedy (they should really be added to the criteria for A7 non-notable band). Black Kite 15:15, 6 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. Spellcast (talk) 10:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RegisterGenius.com[edit]

Non-notable domain name registrar. No reason to believe this one is more notable than most. Fails WP:CORP. Redfarmer (talk) 09:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Has already been speedied once. I have a simple mind that assumes "creation by SPA = spam". -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:01, 6 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 from the delete camp much stronger and also many keep voters have had few involvement outside the topic.--JForget 02:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DiskCryptor[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)).

Non notable software. 1,800 Google hits[20], at first glance from typical download sites, is not impressive for this type of product. Few reviews, no news articles, nothing to indicate that this has captured the attention of reliable independent sources yet. Fram (talk) 09:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is the first complete open source full diskencryption software free availeble. It is a fundamental program. The beta stage does mean it is not feature complete, but it is full useable. Similar windows programs would have version 1.0 in this stage. It's even better than Truecrypt 5.0.

It's new and the webpage is in russian that's why google rank it not high!

here you can compare how Diskcryptor competes to other software http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_disk_encryption_software

please have a look at the official website:

DiskCryptors russian website DiskCryptor english (Google Translation)

It's active developed, active user forum

Cakruege (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC) — Cakruege (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - This is the first complete open source full disk encryption software. It is not simply a modified version of TrueCrypt and has been available for longer than TrueCrypt 5.0 has been out. Anyone who believes this software is simply a re-branded/stolen TrueCrypt is quite mistaken and has obviously not compared the two by actually installing and using both. I have and they are quite different. It is quite clear that DiskCryptor had full drive encryption before TrueCrypt did and while it did create TrueCrypt compatible volumes it is most definitely not true crypt. This is groundbreaking software. The only reason it has not yet been mentioned heavily in news sources is that it has only been stable for a couple of months and the little documentation there is exists only in Russian so there has been little publicity. People will be finding out about it and regardless it is notable as being the first open source utility to support full drive encryption on the system drive of a Windows PC. --BenFranske (talk) 06:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DiskCryptor appears to have one author.

"Модификация сделана для повышения стойкости к атакам на предсказание внутреннего состояния PRNG. Modifications made to improve the resistance to attacks on the prediction of the internal condition PRNG." - it reads like he took TrueCrypt source code (apparently 4.3) and made modifications for "better security", and (more recently) whole-disk encryption.

The Wikipedia page for DiskCryptor was created on the same day (5 Feb) as the release of TrueCrypt 5.0 - which incidentally features whole-disk encryption. Considering that he's using TrueCrypt source code, the main selling point of being the "first" program with full-disk encryption is highly suspect.

I have no affiliation with TrueCrypt, but know that it's an old, trusted project. I read about the TrueCrypt 5.0 release on Slashdot, went to the Comparison of disk encryption software, saw DiskCryptor stashed at the top of the list, explored a bit - and have come to the conclusion that at best DiskCryptor is a modification of TrueCrypt trying to steal some thunder or market share, and at worst is malicious.

Even if the software turns out to be worthy of a page, it needs to be completely re-written (the English poor to the point of incomprehensibility, and it has no references to back up its claims). The page is neither notable nor are its claims easily verifiable (who is going to look in his source code and check that it does what he says, and that there are no trojans in the binaries?)

— Winter Breeze (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 17:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it's no modification, it's a new program but compatible. It's like Word vs. OpenOffice both reads .doc-files. There is nothing malicious, the source is open. 88.73.109.102 (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC) — 88.73.109.102 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

wrt the comment "who is going to look in his source code and check that it does what he says, and that there are no trojans in the binaries?" - maybe I'm just pointing out the patently obvious, but: the same can be said for any opensource security software which has only been around for a few months. The fact that noone has written anything like it for Windows before, and then given it away as open source makes this software notable as, on the subject of disk encryption, that's a pretty major achievement! Nuwewsco (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DiskCryptor is a modification of TrueCrypt trying to steal some thunder or market share, and at worst is malicious. Who is going to check that the binaries on his website have no trojans?

The same question you can address truecrypt authors. But it will be a real problem because of non working user forum (3-4 months?). DiskCryptor is an opensource under GPL. (compare with truecrypt with its stupid dubious license?) Feel free to compile source code and check this. --Zmi007 17:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

TrueCrypt has been going for years and has many authors. If TrueCrypt had Trojans it would have been a huge conspiracy and we would have heard about it on Slashdot by now. The same cannot be said of DiskCryptor - you could have anything hidden in the code (but maybe left out of the source file), and probably only TrueCrypt developers would know enough about the code to notice. That will change when you have more authors, users and give it time for people to dig in the code and not find anything.

I've looked up the TrueCrypt license on [[21]], and the "dubious license" is probably a hangover from the ancestral Encryption for the Masses software. They would prefer to make it GPL, but legally they can't. I don't know if DiskCryptor is based on TrueCrypt (it only sounds like it on the [freed0m.org] page). Note that one may not modify TrueCrypt without also including the 'dubious' TrueCrypt license: "ALTERNATIVELY, provided that this notice is retained in full, this product may be distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL), in which case the provisions of the GPL apply INSTEAD OF those given above." — Winter Breeze (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 17:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DiskCryptor not contains any part of TrueCrypt source code. (ntldr) —Preceding unsigned comment added by xxx.xx.xxx.xxx (talk) 17:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC) — xxx.xx.xxx.xxx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

First working version of the DiskCryptor was released in November 2007, when there were no plans stated on http://www.truecrypt.org/future.php to include system partition encryption feature. At that time, DiskCryptor was called "TrueCrypt WDE", and immediately a post has been put on TrueCrypt's forum, to announce this new product. Shortly, however, the post has been deleted, due to the argument that the program cannot bear "TrueCrypt" in it's name, as it is a trademark. In addition to that, the developer's of the TrueCrypt, also noted to the developer of "TrueCrypt WDE" that he cannot use the GPL license for his program either, because if he took parts of the TrueCrypt code, then he has to use the TrueCrypt's license as well.

So therefore the next release of the program became known as the DiskCryptor, and the code that was previously taken from the TrueCrypt project, has been rewritten, in order to be able to use the GPL license.

So it can be argued, that the advent of the DiskCryptor was an initiative for the TrueCrypt developers, to speed up their development of the system partition encryption feature, and announce that on their future plan page.

Regarding malware/trojan speculations, - one is innocent until proven guilty, - this is what an accepted standard is, I believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shtraue (talk • contribs) 19:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC) — Shtraue (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This is proof that DiskCryptor was released earlier of TrueCrypt 5.0 http://freed0m.org/timestamp.txt This is a timestamp created by Stamper service [22] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uiweihr (talk • contribs) — Uiweihr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete promotion of nn product Mayalld (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article has some encyclopaedic material though, but it has no sources to comply with WP:V and WP:OR. If editors can show that they have reliable sources from where they wrote this article, then I'll change my delete opinion. Dekisugi (talk) 15:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original page very badly written and biased, but has since been re-written as an encyclopaedic stub. Non-notable software, and sounded suspicious initially because it appeared on the day of TrueCrypt 5 release, and sounded on freed0m.org like a TrueCrypt derivation. Also stashed at top of comparison chart Winter Breeze (talk) 17:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PGP was originally written by Phil Zimmermann - a single author. Presumably we shouldn't trust PGP either? Nuwewsco (talk) 23:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if it's legit. It's certainly as notable as most of the random stuff Wikipedia has articles on. I rewrote the article to resemble an encyclopedia entry. -- BenRG (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DiskCryptor not contains any part of TrueCrypt source code and been released before that TrueCrypt 5.0. Please view release date on page http://sourceforge.net/projects/diskcryptor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.72.169.246 (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC) — 208.72.169.246 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep DiskCryptor is only one program with boot-time authentication for Windows under GPL--Zmi007 18:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zmi007 (talk • contribs) — Zmi007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete nn software Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 18:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - DiskCryptor has been around since late 2007; it's not "just been a hacked version of TrueCrypt, put out after truecrypt was released", which is what the above editor seems to imply.

Furthermore, if you do a little more digging with DiskCryptor, you'll find that any truecrypt code which may have been included was written out of it by the second release.

It is the first system of its kind which was released as opensource; TrueCrypt's version was only released today - a couple of months later.

This page is new, and has only just been created, yet it seems one of the main reasons given for deleting it just seems to be that it doesn't have much text on it... It's unreasonable to expect a new article to grow into a full 5000+ word essay the same day as its creation!

XFireRaidX (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the original version of the page for context of the original discussion [23].

Please don't use line separators. It breaks up the conversation! Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 20:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Software the article is about is encyclopedic, and should certainly be given the chanced to be edited into something more substantial (atm it's just a stub). Where on earth do comments relating to "possible malware" come from?! I can see absolutely no grounding for this, and comments like that certainly are far from complying with WP:AGF! Nuwewsco (talk 23:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the original version [24]. If all you know is that the page for appeared on the day of the TrueCrypt release, and that the freed0m.org website makes DiskCryptor sound like a derivation of TrueCrypt, you can see where one might suspect "hey, what if ithis is a trojan?" Winter Breeze (talk) 12:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant media coverage Addhoc (talk) 01:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. From the page's history, originally it was fairly incomprehensible, but has since been cleaned up. Subject is notable for the reasons given above. Raftermast (talk) 12:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Q ^{T C} 12:24, 9 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. Mango juice^talk 04:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MIddle East: Shuttle Diplomacy of Bush (Dr.Abdul Ruff Colachal)[edit]

Page is an essay (even signed by its author). I believe that per WP:NOT, the article should be removed. Ubardak (talk) 08:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it unquestionably an essay and can't be saved. I was going to speedy this, but I couldn't find a category for speedy deletion it fitted in. Once there are a few votes I suggest that it be deleted per WP:SNOW. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I had the same problem. It seems like WP:CSD might actually use an addition for essays like this. --Ubardak (talk) 09:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with Nick. (The user has created several similar essay-type articles today.) AndrewWTaylor (talk) 09:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an essay and the title does not offer the potential for an encyclopedia article to be written. Capitalistroadster (talk) 09:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:SNOW endorsed <eleland/talkedits> 09:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've nominated another essay created by this editor for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Putin and Russian Presidency --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and agree, should be WP:SNOW and some polite user education. Srpnor (talk) 12:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd call it more of a rant than an essay, but it definitely fails WP:OR. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Related discussions here, here, and here. Redfarmer (talk) 12:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SOAP anyone? but still, its defiantly an essay. Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 19:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think its a Blizzard. Admins, do your magic ;) Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 19:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and close per WP:SNOW. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 00:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and speedy close per WP:SNOW. Redfarmer (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 01:59, 7 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:SNOW. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Spencer[edit]

In brief, a great pile of steaming horseshit.

Although this philosopher has not published a book of his own to mass markets, he has written many lengthy essays and his work has been included in several scholarly journals. Good to know. Let's take a look at the list that's provided. They total less than twenty pages, and have appeared in four journals, the somewhat unlikely Back to the Pet Store, the conceivable Back to Nature, the all too plausible Men and Masculinities, and the irreproachably serious, indeed essential American Journal of Philosophy.

Except that not only have Back to the Pet Store and Back to Nature never existed, but the American Journal of Philosophy has never existed either. Don't take my word for it, look it up for yourself in Ulrich's: the 43rd ed. (2005) has nothing between Am J Philology and Am J Phys Anthrop on p.9737, and no Back tos on p.9807 other than Back to Godhead and Back to Work. (NB this does not merely mean that the journals weren't in production when Ulrich's was compiled, it means that no library had reported the existence of any back issues.)

We turn to Men and Masculinities. Sounds daftly cult-studies-ish enough to exist, and sure enough it does exist. See here. The article tells us that Spencer's "The machismo of steak: breaking the boundaries of societal constraint" came out in vol. 1 no. 1, July 1971. Gosh, super! Except that vol. 1, no. 1 came out not in July 1971 but in July 1998; and no, there's no Spencer (or steak) mentioned. (No, there was no earlier Men and Masculinities; or none that reached the attention of Ulrich's.)

I'll forgo commentary on the list for "Further Reading" other than to point out that Zeno Vendler really existed and really wrote a sensible book titled Linguistics in Philosophy which is really about language; the article about Spencer doesn't mention any interest in language.

(At this point I might point out that there is an eminent linguist named Andrew Spencer. He mostly writes about morphology and related phenomena, undoubtedly deserves an article in en:WP, and looks utterly unlike the bearded gent in our article.)

Back to the Spencer we're dealing with here. It's most interesting to note that the named influences on him don't include a single philosopher but instead are: Aldous Huxley, the novelist; Henry D Thoreau, the essayist etc., and Neil Downing, the -- uh, who the intercourse might Neil Downing be? Here he is, and if you believe that his photo was taken in 1954 then I have a bridge going for a very reasonable price that may interest you.

The article on Spencer was the creation of User:Gordonsquire. Remarkably, he has made no contributions to any other philosophical subjects; instead, his contributions have been limited to the Spencer article and this one.

Investigating the remarkable claims made for Andrew Spencer hasn't been an exclusively miserable experience but it has taken time. I leave Neil Downing, Maeve O'Donovan, other articles by their authors, articles that link to them, etc etc, to other editors more energetic than myself. -- Hoary (talk) 08:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Hoary (talk) 08:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There's really not much else to say, except that I've prodded Neil Downing as another apparent hoax. Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Moreover, aside from the mostly unsupported term author, this article makes no meaningful assertion of notability (a few spurious articles, years apart in the publications noted) and seems on the edge of an A7 speedy. Given the wording and tone there could even be some WP:BLP worries here. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. There's an Andrew Spencer with a Myspace page [25] who's a current student at the University of Limerick, and who looks remarkably like the chap in our article. Scog (talk) 09:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, looking at both of these a bit further, I think they could both be speedied as hoaxes. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Me too. But Downing can wait a few days before oblivion, and this can too. After all, Doc Spencer has had his article for well over a year; a little longer is unlikely to do any harm. And during this period people can more easily follow up "what links to", other "contributions" by ~~perps~~ contributors, etc. -- Hoary (talk) 10:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hoaxes aren't a speedy deletion category (though you could argue that the article doesn't actually make any claim no notability, which is). Black Kite 12:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See speedy G3, I do think these are obvious hoaxes (the pictures cinch it) but running them through here is helpful too. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hot tip: Contribution histories of interest: Therealneildowning, Johnljarvis. Could the latter be related to this person? (My own guess: yes, student–teacher.) And our little friend Neil: Peekaboo! Such jolly japes they have in Limerick. -- Hoary (talk) 09:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously, though I must confess that "Bunking with Budgerigars" made me smile. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 09:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: what worries me are the housekeeping and other minor contributions by apparently sane and normal editors. Amazing that people can in all seriousness "revert vandalism" and suchlike from crapola like this. I came across the article when I wanted to look up the author of the Blackwell books on phonology and morphology, and this, on some unrelated and fictitious nonentity, immediately stank; I chose to AfD it in part because I wanted other eyes to see the chains of links and also because it would help the speedying of any subsequent re-creation (or "re(-)creation", as our bearded chum might write). -- Hoary (talk) 09:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This would have been funny if it weren't so sad. This lasted for well over a year. That's a shame. faithless (^speak) 11:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant stuff. Delete, sadly. Black Kite 12:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obvious hoax/joke page. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am another editor who has done some light housekeeping on this article in the past, wondering about the validity, but with no knowledge of philosophy, assumed good faith. I commend the nominator Hoary for the extensive research on this subject, and the MySpace page is a definite clincher that this article is a hoax. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 13:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant update: the hamster's back! -- Hoary (talk) 14:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For failure to satisfy notability and verifiability requirements via reliable sources. Smells hoaxalicious. Edison (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious? Thank you for the new word Edison ;) Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 19:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete... not that my vote is needed. This hoax has a long way to go before it's even a pale imitation of this. Pinkville (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move to Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense (insert subpage name here), as that's where it really should belong. The fact its longevity was well over a year is proof of this. But realistically, there's no reliable sources that merit keeping it. --Solumeiras (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted (A3 - no substantive content). Probably a hoax too, given that there's already been a Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3. Black Kite 12:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3(2009)[edit]

Disputed prod; speculation about the possibility of a film with no references or sources, nothing but vague assertions. Doesn't meet, specifically, WP:NFF and generally WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. Accounting4Taste:talk 06:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

agreed Beach drifter (talk) 07:30, 6 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. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Covingham and Nythe[edit]

Looks like it's only really there to provide an external link ThereOnTheStairs (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN Council ward in a small city. The wards might merit a mention under Swindon#Government but no evidence of independent notabity found. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 6 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. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Ross (businesswoman)[edit]

Fine contributions to be sure, but almost entirely local in nature. Article is basically a reworking of the article used as the sole reference. No other sources provided to show that WP:BIO is met. DarkAudit (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Borderline notability, but she seems to have had statewide name recognition. It might be better to rework this into an article on the Ross Foundation, which seems likely to pass WP:ORG. --Dhartung | Talk 22:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article has been reworked into a much better condition, but notability is still almost entirely local. DarkAudit (talk) 06:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local philanthropist on a small scale. No significant public office. DGG (talk) 15:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete I'll admit I submitted the article, having came across her while researching Clark County, Arkansas. However, notable is notable. There are many notable persons who, outside of their little part of the world, are little if at all known. However, where they are known, they made an impact. If the purpose of wikipedia is to inform the readers, and if even one of those readers anywhere in the world just for whatever reason happens to research "Jane Ross", then the article has served the purpose for which wikipedia stands. That is my opinion. Charliecow7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) Charliecow7 (talk • contribs) 12:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as failing WP:RS, and therefore WP:V and WP:N. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Global Gaming HQ[edit]

my prod was removed by author so listing here. Lacks sources to establish notability. Seriousspender (talk) 13:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This should be kept up because it does establish notability, both with one of GGHQ's sites, RuneHQ, being listed in the RuneScape article, and again, for being listed as the largest site on Alexa. Is Alexa not a credible source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tikuiaku (talk • contribs) 02:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC) — Tikuiaku (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
It doesn't, currently, see the primary criteria of WP:CORP. Being listed as an external link on Wikipedia and being the most heavily visited RS fansite according to Alexa are not criteria. Has the company been featured in reliable sources unrelated to it? Someone another 07:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 15:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is listed as one of the "major fansites" on Runescape (I thought fansites were against WP:EL???) and doesn't seem to have enough notability for it's own article. Alexa rank is similar to other fansites, but better or worse depending on what you measure, so not notable in that regard. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:58, 13 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. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Faseeh[edit]

Notability, This article looks like self promotion. A quick google search reveals the article itself as the number one response from the search engines. Darrell Wheeler (talk) 05:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Seems to be a semi-notable musician in the Malaysian music scene. Sources [26], [27], [28] Jfire (talk) 06:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a bit of background information: This was originally created as Fasy by Seatouch (who has since been inactive). It was a copyright violation, copied and pasted from http://www.backyardpub.com/music/fasy.htm, so a reworded version was written to replace it. Although the original version may have had the purpose of promotion (or a misinformed new user trying to write an article), I, with the other newer authors of the article, did not have that intention. As for notability, I remain neutral. --UberScienceNerd _{Talk Contributions} 21:55, 23 January 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 _contribs 01:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Jfire. Sources provided are sufficient evidence of meeting primary notability criterion. cab (talk) 07:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 07:16, 6 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. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suspense Digest[edit]

Delete Notability. Avi (talk) 06:31, 20 January 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 _contribs 02:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: It certainly does exist - there are 97 hits on the Pakistani Google [29] - but that doesn't look terribly notable. RGTraynor 21:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A Google search and LexisNexis news search do not turn up much coverage in reliable sources. The claim that it is the "largest circulated monthly Urdu magazine in Pakistan" would be enough for me to presume that the lack of available sources is due to an inability to find/access them rather than an actual absence of coverage if only the claim were verified. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 07:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This magazine exists, I've read it myself when I used to live in Pakistan. The reason for the low hit count on google is because it is an urdu magazine, and does not maintain a website of it's own as far as I'm aware. Most Pakistanis who use the internet are English speakers or type in Romanized Urdu so that may be a reason for the small number of search engine hits. I don't know about it's circulation figures, but it is certainly notable enough to keep. Zaindy87 (talk) 01:22, 7 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. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shemar Charles[edit]

Non-notable individual. Initially prodded, but that was contested. Only notable as member of a dance group, which itself doesn't have an article. Article has been tagged as unreferenced since June 2007. Search for sources doesn't turn up anything aside from a myspace page, and videos of groups appearances at the Apollo and on the Maury Povich show. Although at eleven years old, subject may become notable in future years, but not at this time. Optigan13 (talk) 05:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 19:19, 8 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 into Simcoe, Ontario. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Brook Donly Museum[edit]

No proof of the museums notability. There are some sources, but one of them just mentions the museum in passing, one is a museum association and the rest are promotional websites. Fails WP:N. I would say that the page should be merged with the article for Eva Brook Donly, but she doesn't have one... -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notability....the person its named after does not even have a wikipage? Corpx (talk)`
Merge this article into Simcoe, Ontario for expansion purposes. GVnayR (talk) 04:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Simcoe, Ontario, which can use the added content. PKT (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. It's (probably) a very small museum, worthy as a section in Simcoe, Ontario, and is not otherwise notable. Bearian (talk) 01:26, 15 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. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ZEGG (band)[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. Non notable band. The review was from one indy music site. Not notable. Delete Undeath (talk) 05:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Relix Magazine is not an indy music site, it is a large-circulation glossy color monthly magazine. They manufactured 100,000 Zegg single CDs and shipped them with the magazine - no small task. Furthermore, this article has a conscientious editor supporting and tending to it. Deletionism is lame. --AStanhope (talk) 08:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Relix mag was not what I was talking about when I said the review was from an indy music site. I was talking about the review of the album. Look at the external links. Undeath (talk) 12:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like we should close the deletion discussion then and call it a keep. --AStanhope (talk) 17:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tipstaa (talk • contribs) 13:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrJollyMan (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, WP:SNOW, without prejudice to adding something to the Oreo article if it can be properly sourced. As is, this article is part of Nabisco's viral marketing. That's not what Wikipedia is for. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dsrl[edit]

Sadly, this doesn't cleanly fit into a speedy category cleanly, so in lieu of a CSD I'll suggest a snowball delete. This "sport" is from a commercial for Oreos. It's presented as a real sport (which is patently absurd), and either way it's completely non-notable. Gromlakh (talk) 05:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nonsense, completely made up, can't be salvaged (as I originally tagged it). The only part of this that is "real" is the commercial. I feel the same way that Archie Manning does in the commercial. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Unfortunately doesn't meet G1, as G1 is only for things like random characters and gibberish. Still should be snowballed, though. Gromlakh (talk) 05:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A comercial gimic doesn't make a subject enclycopedic.--Cube lurker (talk) 05:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nor do celebrity endorsements. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Oreo. As Gromlakh says, it's part of an oreo add campaign. The "league/game" was invented in a Superbowl ad. One other admin deleted as nonsense. So did I before I did my homework. There is some news coverage, but I don't think this rises to significant media coverage. Creator protested deletion, so I restored it and joined the discussion here. (This page wasn't up yet when I hit "delete". Dlohcierekim Deleted? 05:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the only one here who was working and did not see the bleeding ad? At any rate, if notable, delete as advert. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 05:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're not. Apparently I choe the wrong speedy-delete criteria. How's about WP:SPAM instead? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To quote from one of the Google hits, "The DSRL interactive marketing program is a first of its kind for the Oreo brand. It includes a robust Web site (http://www.dsrl.com/) and a major advertising campaign, . . .". That would be the "game's" official webpage? Dlohcierekim Deleted? 06:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All the news and web hits I see refer back to the ad campaign. No news coverage prior to January. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 06:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Merging this article will take away from what this league is. It is also not a Super-Bowl Commercial go check out the site www.dsrl.com and you will see what it really is about, also is a league not a gimic this allows kids to look up to something to do professionally and have fun with there friends. Please reconsiderApplemac20 (talk) 05:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a gimic, it is a real league and is a fun activity for people who canot participate in other sports. it is not an advertisment.— JoeEverdine (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 06:01 (UTC).

- Comment - After reviewing the above, this nonsense ridiculous article, and author's other contribs, the user appears to be quacking like a troll, and I suspect he's now making socks (e.g. User:JoeEverdine). Please don't feed it. Gromlakh (talk) 06:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it I dont understand why you want to delete it. Its a real game and people can look on here to learn to play... Re edit Sorry i didnt sign my other comments.. I Didnt know how or you were supposed to. Just learned from the link JoeEverdine (talk) 06:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter if it's real or not. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Subjects must meet notability requirements via verifiable sources. Please be aware that AFD is not a vote. It is a discussion leading to Consensus. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 06:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(keep #2 Dlohcierekim Deleted? 07:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)))Keep ' if you noticed our ip address is different there fore there is no way I could make socks, please stop accusing, and reconsider that this article is very important to society.Applemac20 (talk) 06:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's just somewhat surprising to experienced editors, perhaps a bit eyebrow raising, when very new editors show up in an AfD discussion. You will need to provide verifiable sources that the subject meets notability requirements. I mentioned this on someone's talk page. T. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 06:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(keep #3 Dlohcierekim Deleted? 07:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)) Keep Gromlakh, very immature to strike out my Keep as you are somewhat confused. There is many links at Google News about the DSRL and as you can see there is one on the ArticleApplemac20 (talk) 07:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I struc it out. 3 keeps are too many. One per customer. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 07:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Oreo. While the creator has made an attempt to add sourcing to verify stand-alone notability, as was suggested to him, the only source in the article is a press release, which is excluded for the purposes of establishing notability. Little in this article is mergeable, but it could be possible to mention the campaign in the Oreo article. (The article has also been speedily deleted multiple times under various criteria as DSRL.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UGH! I wondered about the message on Moonriddengirl's talk page, but I kept getting the current article when I tried to follow the link . Dlohcierekim Deleted? 16:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable and the source added is a self published kraft foods press release. Ridernyc (talk) 13:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Oreo on several points.

Promotional/Advertisement Issues - A Kraft Foods Press Release notes this as a marketing program created as an advertising campaign for Oreo by an advertising company. "The DSRL interactive marketing program is a first of its kind for the Oreo brand. It includes a robust Web site (www.DSRL.com) and a major advertising campaign, created by Draftfcb New York", a "full marketing communication agency"; and, the Kraft Food's website for DSRL contains a commercial disclaimer, "Hi kids, when you see "Ad Break" it means you are viewing a commercial message designed to sell you something."

Copyright Issues - The Kraft Food's website for DSRL contains Terms and Usage conditions: "RESTRICTIONS ON YOUR USE OF THE MATERIALS IN OUR SITES (1) You agree not to re-use material from www.kraftfoods.com or from any other World Wide Web site operated by Kraft Foods. In particular, you agree not to copy, distribute, republish, upload, post, or transmit anything unless you get our written consent -- first."

--Daddy.twins (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unencyclopedic nonsense, WP:MADEUP and WP:NEO Mayalld (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with deletion. I don't see how either of the 2 guidelines you sited have any relevance here. Ridernyc (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete messy and hoax-like. Constitution of the DSRL? No thanks, Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 19:09, 6 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, G12: article used copyrighted text from http://www.deltapsisigmainc.org/about_us.php in violation of copyright guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 06:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Psi Sigma Sorority, Inc.[edit]

NN sorority. Fails WP:ORG and WP:V, absolutely no sources listed and Google only turned up one related hit for an associate chapter in Boston [30], but otherwise nothing. Mr Senseless (talk) 05:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - we have three locations NYC, Boston and NJ and we are intercollegiate but growing. Thank-you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karinafinny (talk • contribs)

That still doesn't make the sorority notable; see WP:N as to what regards general notability around here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Psi Sigma Sorority has been incorporated and is considered to be a non-profit organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karinafinny (talk • contribs) 05:26, 6 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.

Result was delete per WP:SNOW and as unverifiable, nonnotable bio. Rkitko ^(talk) 21:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Alman[edit]

No evidence of notability. Article seems to have been created as a joke. Curtis Clark (talk) 05:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax; "Dr. Josh Alman" and "Dr. Josh Allman" turn up nothing on Google. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, could User:God1024 and User:Frac2 be a case of sockpuppetry? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The web page cited in the article lists Josh Altman with an email address at utschools.com, which is a high school.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability per WP:N found through these searches: [31][32][33][34]. --Melburnian (talk) 05:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Possible vanity page by subject or associate. No evidence of notability. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per expert discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants#Josh_Alman --Dweller (talk) 13:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The closest thing to notability I've seen is [35] (a reference to [36] which does not appear to be a reliable source). I can't tell whether this is a hoax or a real (but obscure) person. But in either case, you need sources to write a biography, and we haven't seen them yet. Kingdon (talk) 16:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 19:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. This is a hoax. I know the subject in question and he is a high school student. Cybersach
Delete After some digging, I am convinced that its a hoax too, the kid is still in his teens. Hardyplants (talk) 16:02, 7 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. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tři sestry[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. No notable sources to back up claims. Delete Undeath (talk) 04:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to have non-trivial coverage in Czech [37]. cab (talk) 07:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 07:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep English and Slovak sources as well. The Prague Post's articles could be a good place to start. Travellingcari (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the Czech article seems to be pretty good [38]. Maybe someone can translate it. Demonwhip (talk) 18:03, 7 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. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CodeGuide[edit]

The subject for each article is a non-notable product from the same company. The articles have barely any content, few edits, and no discussions. They have been tagged with Template:Notability since Sep 2007. Ham Pastrami (talk) 04:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, I agree. In its current state, it may even fall within the realm of CSD. A quick Google search [39] shows a few minor reviews, none of which seem to be important enough to justify an encyclopedia entry. However, someone more familiar with computer software may have a different take on the product.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 05:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ditto: a non-notable software package, obviously made for a specialist market of programmers rather than consumer end users. The article, little more than a features list, is probably unintelligible to non-programmers: at least, it is unintelligible to me. My opinion is that any article about a technology, web based, or service business needs to show fairly clear notability on its face: we shouldn't be troubled to look. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:54, 6 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 G11 (blatant spam) by User:Pb30, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foodist colony[edit]

This is an advertisement, written by an editor who has not made any other edits to Wikipedia. Perhaps I added too many templates, but they are all justified. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G11 as blatant ad, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:41, 6 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. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TriStar Enterprises[edit]

No evidence that this company passes WP:CORP. Most of the hits relate to another company with a similar name. Travellingcari (talk) 03:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not necessarily with prejudice. This article is about a hard goods business, and the article makes (unreferenced) claims of government and military work, and asserts a fairly long history. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:58, 6 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 into Cyber-shot. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W30[edit]

Non-notable commercial product. No references. Wikipedia is not a digital camera guide. Wikipedia is not a Sony catalog. Mikeblas (talk) 03:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am probably biased, as I have added material to the article, but the article is now referenced, and could be expanded more. --DAJF (talk) 04:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. At the moment, there are no references; just a couple of external links. Still no claim to notability. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into a broader article. An individual model number is probably too specific to ever have much encyclopedic content, especially since there is no assertion of notability. Ham Pastrami (talk) 04:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —DAJF (talk) 09:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We seem to have a Cyber-shot category full of these articles, I know everyone is going to point out WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS but I'm not voting, just pointing out that there is a whole bunch of them; which isn't a reason for or a reason not to delete this article. --Sin Harvest (talk) 10:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. So, why point it out? It's irrelevant, and you know it, and you say so. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The editors should save themselves the trouble -- the cyber-shot article contains a table full of red links and self-redirecting blue links. This table is probably encouraging article creation when it shouldn't. Editors interested in the subject might want to consider showing themselves a little mercy and getting rid of that table or converting it to flat text. Ham Pastrami (talk) 22:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment This is in the process of being dealt with. Most, if not all, of the individual articles can be redirected to Cyber-shot and the links removed. --DAJF (talk) 23:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Cyber-shot Travellingcari (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cyber-shot. Insufficient notability to have a standalone article for each new model of gadget. Wikipedia is not a product catalog. Edison (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - into Cyber-shot. Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 19:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cyber-shot. Having seen the state of some of the smaller Cyber-shot model stubs, I have now rewritten the Cyber-shot article to include the basic spec details of individual models, in a similar fashion to the Sony Mavica article, allowing them to be redirected there. --DAJF (talk) 23:17, 6 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. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Lobenstein[edit]

There has been some discussion here about removing this article. I agree with the writer calling for deletion as there is a notability issue. There may as well be an article about any other one time Hackney Council member or mayor. It seems likely that somone is trying to give Joe free publicity here for some reason. Apissting (talk) 03:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Keep His MBE, if legitimate, would certainly qualify as a significant award per WP:BIO. His political career (being mayor of London Borough of Hackney) also suggests notability. If everything in the article checks out and is correct, this should not be deleted. faithless (^speak) 04:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google Books has some info that helps further establish notability here Almanac of British Politics and here Shefford and here Culture Wars: The Media And the British Left. For secondary sources, he is quoted far too often by news agencies—just look at Google News: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Joe+Lobenstein%22+hackney&btnG=Search+Archives. (Mind meal (talk) 11:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Delete There may be a misconception here about the position of Mayor of Hackney he held. At the time of his occupation of this position, the position was not that of a directly-elected Mayor. It was instead almost identical to the current title of Speaker which is largely ceremonious and itself has no wiki article. Indeed to the best of my knowledge there is no previous Speaker or old style Mayor who has a wiki page. The article does not conform under the guidelines for Notability on politicians. According to the Notability Guidelines, amount of search engine listings are not helpful in ascertaining notability. However there are very few listing on the link put forward on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.162.50 (talk) 16:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - Do Single purpose anonymous accounts count as votes? JASpencer (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (Disclosure: Author of the article) Not because he was mayor of Hackney but because he was the only non-Labour councillor in Hackney from the mid 1970s until the late 1980s, because he got an MBE for this, because he was the leader of the Tory group in Hackney until 1999, because he was elected four times in a row when no previous mayor had been elected for more than two years, because he was a crucial figure in the post-Trotter Hackney landscape, because he is the public face of the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community in the UK, because he was the first ultra-Orthodox mayor elected outside of Israel and there may be a couple of other reasons too. This is not an article to publicise Joe Lobenstein but a person who was as fascinating as Monty Goldman, another article I created (thanks for complying by WP:AGF, Apissting. JASpencer (talk) 23:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He has also been a columnist for the Jewish Tribune for many years. Chesdovi (talk) 00:57, 14 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. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MHX First Defense[edit]

Promotional article about a non-notable piece of software. KurtRaschke (talk) 02:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to disagree, it should be notable for having integrated chat support, as no other similar program has it. Justin M — Justin M (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Weak delete. The review, which is more of a blog post, and is the only third-party reference provided, states that the chat didn't even work. If more or better references can be found, it might warrant a keep. But I have serious doubts about the software ever becoming notable. Ham Pastrami (talk) 05:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I placed the prod (which was contested), and my reasons still stand. No claim in article of meeting WP:Notability (and I encourage Justin M to read that guideline, because notability is not the same as importance); first half dozen pages of non-wiki ghits aren't showing notability. --Fabrictramp (talk) 16:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very close to WP:SPAM. --Salix alba (talk) 18:08, 6 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Alman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Stuart Alman

This is a hoax page Arcette (talk) 02:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; total lack of Google presence for "stuart alman bangor" indicates a likely hoax. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bangor University has never heard of him, I'd say it's a hoax. faithless (^speak) 04:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 04:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete its ferge- err, hoaxalicious! :) Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 19:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Confused, but Delete. The creator, Chanandler04, has also created stub articles on Ixanthus viscosus (a plant) and Exoccipital condyle (a mammalian bone) - both of which apparently are credible according to Google, even if the author is not notable. But the user name also indicates non-NPOV, since it's included in the website mentioned in the article. Student, maybe? Active imagination? Sure, but not encyclopedically worthy without sourcing. Duncan1800 (talk) 09:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very poorly written article Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 05:52, 10 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 a1, short/no context, also clearly original research, no sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aquatic earth[edit]

This article seems to be original research, and has no cited sources. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 02:19, 6 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. Tyrenius (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gal Deren[edit]

Contested prod. Non-notable photographer/cinematographer. Only a single film listed at IMDB. Nothing substantial found in web searches. Jfire (talk) 02:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 02:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We're voting on the current stage of the article and the person described does not seem notable anyway. Pundit|utter 03:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I am not familiar with him, but he has a reasonable amount of not-so-trivial Google hits, when searching in Hebrew for גל דרן. Borderline notability. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 09:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 09:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Couldn't find anything useful in web searches and the article doesn't assert notability. fschoenm (talk) 22:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Did you try searching in Hebrew? There are people about whom little is written in English, but it doesn't mean that they are totally obscure. I can verify sources in Hebrew. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 06:40, 10 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 --JForget 02:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MoviePosterDB.com[edit]

Non-notable website, which the editor has attempted to spam across various film articles. Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable and author is spamming. Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 02:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, and spam. --L. Pistachio (talk) 04:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like he's just trying to increase his Google Pagerank... --awh (Talk) 07:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Is that possible with the "nofollow" thing in place? Sarsaparilla (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It would certainly be better if it was something other than a totally bare-bones article, one that gave some background on the site, what its purpose and philosophy is, what the scope of its holdings are. But notwithstanding the deficiencies of the article as it stands (which can always be changed), I really do have to ask -- what is the essential difference between the site that's the subject of this article, and IMDB? That one's been around longer? That one has corporate backing and the other doesn't? It seems to me that people are jumping on this site and calling it spam without giving it a fair shake, or even looking closely at what the site has to offer. It looks to me like a knee-jerk response rather than a carefully considered one. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 12:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same argument can be applied for any website, but WP:WEB applies here. Testing under WP:SET, searching for MoviePosterDB.com -site:MoviePosterDB.com OR MoviePosterDB -site:MoviePosterDB.com OR "Internet Movie Poster Database" -site:MoviePosterDB.com shows nothing. In comparison, searching for IMDB.com -site:imdb.com OR IMDB -site:imdb.com OR "Internet Movie Database" -site:imdb.com shows 7,460 results. Any website can cite a general purpose for being included, but here, policy reigns. The record clearly shows that MoviePosterDB.com is not prominent for its own article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under ((db-web))--The Dominator (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A7. GlassCobra 19:52, 6 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leland (Peanuts character)[edit]

Delete unsourced article about nn fictional character. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable one-shot character, not even worth merging/redirecting. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carlos and TenPound Mandsford (talk) 04:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Inanely non-notable. JuJube (talk) 04:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everything. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:38, 11 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. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hitone Records[edit]

Non notable record label, orphaned article. Rtphokie (talk) 04:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete wp:corp absolutely no assertion of notability. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 04:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:38, 6 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, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:40, 6 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. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rocktronica musicians[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Rocktronica seems not to be a valid genre, it doesn't exist and many claims made on the article are absurd...it's the same problem we have had before with Art Punk and Acid Punk. Therefore I have decided this page must be deleted immediatly, as it might be a big cause for missinformation. The-15th (talk) 01:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research/synthesis per nom; "rocktronica" gets no significant hits. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is sourced to one website that appears to categorise artists based purely on user input: not a reliable source. However although the "parent" article Rocktronica has been deleted several times as a neologism, the term now shows up quite widely in Google and Google News searches, so perhaps it's time to reconsider the existence of that article. —SMALL JIM 09:58, 13 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 --JForget 02:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia Sui[edit]

Sonia Sui doesn't appear in the cast lists of the two series she's supposed to have starred in
single external link leads to a Chinese language Yahoo login page
looks to be promoting agency instead of actress/model

(I nom'd this as a speedy but tag was removed) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems real and has appeared in several shows; copious ghits. Likely notable, but not listed by this name at Fly Me to Polaris listing on IMDb site [40]. Err on side of keeping. JJL (talk) 01:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Comment As the person who started this article, I thought this guy was a bot for a sec. All he/she did was tagging articles. He/She wanted it for speedy delete, got rejected and now try again. Let me tell you something, I have stated in the discussion section as well as here that I have been doing translating work from Chinese Wiki to English for quite some time now. In fact, I am about to start another 2 more related models who are also actresses in Taiwan. Just look at my personal page, I have been translating Taiwanese TV programs, actresses, actors, TV Hosts...What? You want to nominate them all? I don't know why that "Fan Club" page doesn't work, because I am just translating! About that show, she was only in a few episodes, if you look under the Chinese Wiki, you will see her name & again, just translating. *EDIT* Also, I would like to point out that I have already explained my positions on the page's Discussion section, and it was also rejected for speedy delete. I don't understand why I have to defend my position on this issue 1 more time. TheAsianGURU (talk) 05:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is pretty much standard procedure to nominate something for AfD if a speedy deletion tag is removed. The criteria for speedy deletion are quite narrow; articles which do not meet those criteria may nevertheless still be unsuitable for an encyclopedia. You don't counter requests for deletion by talking about how it was already on another language version of Wikipedia, you counter requests for deletion by providing evidence of notability. We shouldn't be translating unsourced/badly sourced materials (especially not articles about living people) from other language wikis; we should be building them up organically with reference to reliable sources. cab (talk) 07:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you. She’s a well known local celebrity, I would have gone my way out to find more stuff, but the person tagged me within 13mins of creation of the article. It kinda kept me “busy” since then. Please also refer to my comment below. Thank you again. TheAsianGURU (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I went out of my way to list my reasons for nominating as a speedy delete on the talk page because I don't speak Chinese and realized there may be ghits that I can't interpret one way or the other. My reasons for listing it as CSD and here are given above and are valid. If you had a comment for me, AsianGURU, you could have left it on my talk page, instead of on the articles talk page, so that I would see it. The CSD wasn't denied, it was removed by User:RMHED, who does not appear to be an admin. I relisted it here, because I thought it better to get other editors involved than start an argument. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Start an Argument"?? Who is the person wasting our time here?! For all these time, I could have been improving the article! (or maybe find out why the fan club site doesn't work, instead, I am here to defend my position 1 more time so that people & me can later on improve this article.) Talking about leaving messages, did you ever come in and left me a message to start with??!! On the page's Discussion section, I have already stated my positions. How am I "promoting" if I am writing the same thing as the Chinese Wiki?! (Hey, maybe you should go over there & tag that too.) I know you don't read Chinese, but did you go out your way to find out if I am writing the same thing? At the very least, Google Translate anyone? Take a look at the history section of Sonia Sui's page. I created the article at 22:46, 5 February 2008, this guy came in & tagged the article at 22:59, 5 February 2008. Within only 13mins! That's why I kept thinking I got hit by a bot. Did Delicious carbuncle alow time for me/any fellow wikipendian to improve the article? NO! Did Delicious carbuncle have any in-depth understand on who this person is? NO! Did Delicious carbuncle even do a search with the person's Chinese name and see how many results show up? NO! Thumbs up buddy. TheAsianGURU (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, I'm not sure why I was concerned about starting an argument... The article looked spammy (as did the linked agency page) and the references didn't check out (I know because I checked them, unlike you), so I tagged it CSD. I think part of the issue here is that you seem to be translating articles without looking at their quality. Your earlier statements above about "just translating" ring truer than your protest about spending time defending the page, which is entirely unnecessary in an AfD like this. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Quotes from Delicious carbuncle - "The article looked spammy" Sorry about my writing skill, I will improve later. Oh wait, you tagged it within 13mins of its creation, screaming I am "promoting" an agency. "(I know because I checked them, unlike you)" Oh thank you, is that all you did in that 13mins apart from tagging the article and came to a conclusion that I am "promoting"?! "Your earlier statements above about "just translating" ring truer than your protest about spending time defending the page, which is entirely unnecessary in an AfD like this." Then why did you tag it? Why did you start this? How about sending a message getting myside of the story? How about sending a message asking me to fix stuff or this would be issued? How about getting others to help? How about even do a search on your own? You kept on saying I did nothing, that's because you tagged it within 13mins of its creation! I have researched/translated many articles on Wiki --- Humiliation of Jingkang (I improved the article from 10 lines to what it is today.), Lord Mengchang of Qi (I started the article from 0 word!) Way to go man. TheAsianGURU (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there's plenty of news coverage about her [41][42][43], which should be used to improve this article instead of adding even more unreferenced zhwiki content to it. cab (talk) 07:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 07:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources that User:CaliforniaAliBaba ("cab") found. But her name does not even appear on the cast list of Fly Me To Polaris on HKMDB. So someone needs to back up that claim or remove it from the article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. I will edit it out along with the "Fan Club" that Delicious carbuncle "helped" so much then. Thanks for your support.TheAsianGURU (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC) Done. TheAsianGURU (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Listing your article for Afd wasn't personal. We're all working toward the same goal. Please stop being uncivil. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't know...Anyone can create a sockpuppet in no time. Explain to me how "we are working towards the same goal" at the moment? TheAsianGURU (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - If you think I'm somebody's sockpuppet, please report me. I assume all editors are here to improve the overall quality of WP, but I'm not here for a debate. Please stop being uncivil, or I will take this to an admin. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She meets the notability guidelines. RMHED (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It meets notability and verifiability. Snake66 (talk) 11:31, 7 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. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trader Workstation[edit]

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY Hu12 (talk) 23:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: article fails to assert notability. Mh29255 (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the Trader Workstation does pass WP:NOTABILITY. It is a business software. There are many other business software articles on Wikipedia. I am not associated with Interactive Brokers in any way other than that I am a client and I use their software. I am not trying to promote the software for commercial purposes, but I do want to provide an article for other users of the software to learn about it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Agentq314 (talk • contribs)
Merge/redirect to Interactive Brokers#Software (though it looks like suitable content is already there). Insufficient notability for a standalone article. Jfire (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Create a new article. Extensive notability for a standalone article. Agentq314 12:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect at least for now. The Interactive Brokers article provides the right context for such a short article. It will always be an option later to revise this. Pichpich (talk) 02:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above doppelganger account user page states "This account is a alternate account used solely for wikignoming. As such it will never participate in community decisions, be it deletion debates, request for adminship debates, talk page disputes, etc." JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:48, 6 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 _contribs 00:57, 6 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Take a Bullet for the President[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary - this article only serves to define the term which is already defined on Wiktionary. The other contents are already covered in their respective articles. Gwernol 00:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with United States Secret Service. Lbbzman (talk) 00:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I feel that this article should be kept as it gives a more of an explanation. Had Tim McCarty not of taken the bullet then they would be no article but as he had. This gives more than wiki-dictonary does. Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 01:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chandlerjoeyross is the creator of the article.

Does this really matter? Editorofthewiki (talk) 00:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced, colloquialism, tries to make an article out of one aspect of Secret Service duties, and the info is already in Secret Service#Attacks on Presidents. Pairadox (talk) 01:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. KurtRaschke (talk) 01:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cookie. JuJube (talk) 01:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. This could be an encyclopedic subject, but would call for a serious and time consuming historical research (especially on other countries, cultural connotations, etc.) - while at the moment the article is just poorly written. Pundit|utter 03:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, reuse of phrase undoubtedly derived from military usage, not particularly notable in itself. Verges on WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. --Dhartung | Talk 07:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a valid subject, certainly notable. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 10:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 19:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid subject, is more than a def. Editorofthewiki (talk) 00:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No need for a redirect, since it's probably an unlikely search term, but one to the US secret service should be set up if that's what people want. If there were more people (and in other walks of life) who went about taking bullets for the President or anybody else, a standalone article could be worthwhile (much as Pundit has argued), but at present it's just about the way that the secret service does what it's apparently meant to do. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete'. It's a potentially valid topic (it's notability is not entirely clear), but the article is unsourced and a waste of time for readers clicking over from, e.g., Tim McCarthy. If this is all that can be said about the topic, we should not have a separate article.--ragesoss (talk) 17:37, 8 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 --JForget 02:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James English School[edit]

Delete unsourced article about nn school. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 02:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --L. Pistachio (talk) 05:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.BWH76 (talk) 06:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 19:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exterminate ditto. Red Zion^X 20:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has very little content but it is notable to have a school in Japan teaching in English. Japanese schools are desperately undre-represented on Wikipedia. How many schools in the UK or America teach Japanese? See Category:Schools in Japan. We should be working to expand the Japanese school articles which exist not deleting them. Dahliarose (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge - as the article currently stands, it misses on Notability, Verifiability, Reliable Sources. Made recommendations on creator's talk page for finding WP sources for improvements. If sufficient reliable, secondary sources can establish that this is a notable TEFL school in Japan, then consensus could change. --Daddy.twins (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC) Update per a refinement to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (schools)#Failure to establish notability. If a suitable place to merge can be found, then I recommend placing this article there until sufficient notability can be established. --Daddy.twins (talk) 01:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is 5% of all the schools in Japan according to the wikipedia category of that name Victuallers (talk) 20:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 02:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. As it stands, it satisfies the criteria for Speedy Deletion, since it does not even assert notability. --DAJF (talk) 02:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete English schools in Japan are a very big cottage industry. The industry has an article and major schools can have one, but this one is minor, with 15 locations employing 3-8 teachers at each. That sounds like 75 teachers (but I don't know whether they are all different or if one teacher covers more than one location). There are plenty of smaller schools with one teacher, but this is not a Berlitz, Nova (over nine hundred branches), ECC or other major. It's not a university or a high school; it's not even a big cram school. Just one of an enormous number of English-teaching schools in Japan. Fg2 (talk) 02:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree well argued Fg2 Victuallers (talk) 13:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Without sources, more information, or a dedicated editor, this article adds little or nothing. Adam McCormick (talk) 05:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Canley (talk) 11:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbonne International[edit]

No assertion of notability. Only source listed is a self-published book. Recommend Delete Dchall1 (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting as initial AfD listing was incomplete.

delete - Article fails WP:CORP. Article reads like an advertisement, there are no reliable sources, no independent coverage of this company - most ghits are to Arbonne websites. Argyriou (talk) 00:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, I can't find much in the way of reliable sources either, just press releases. There could be some notability in a company that's 30+ years old and operates internationally, but I'm hard pressed to find any yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under criterion A7. MSGJ (talk) 09:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Placebo Effect (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Disney Classics Collection[edit]

Delete unsourced one-liner about Disney collectables; not all collectables are notable and this series seems to be of import only to afficianados. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. I'm getting plenty of relevant hits for this particular line, including a bunch of news hits; these seem to be a fairly notable line of collectibles. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree --Nengscoz416 (talk) 00:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per TPH. Undeath (talk) 06:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article as it stands is poor, but there are articles about these figures in reliable and independent sources, satisfying the requirements for notability. See The Daily Herald (Chicago), July 13, 1994, page 99, (subscription) which has a feature story on them. They are limited edition, hand painted figures based on the classic movies Walt Disney himself created, and the first figures had guidance from the original animators. They initially sold for $75 to $800. Today the top iprice (initial sale) is $1975. They were introduced in July, 1992, according to a fan website [44]. There were 50,000 members of a collectors' society and local clubs where collectors met to discuss them (people apparently had excess time on their hands even in the days before Wikipedia editing came along). A figure which sold for $199 initially sold for $1800 in the secondary market. They have since branched out to more recent Disney films [45]. Many of the hits I found from newspapers are just for ads or press releases, but there have been a number of articles in papers around the country in which these sculptures get substantial mention. It sounds like a major commercial enterprise of many years standing. Edison (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The article is a stub to the extreme, and needs massive amounts of work, but it is definitely notable. Red Zion^X 20:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Canley (talk) 11:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pie gun[edit]

I despeedied this as I got G--hits for this usage, but I don't know if we can verify the thing or not. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 00:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even for a dictionary entry this would be too little. No sources, one sentence - I would have doubts about despeeding, despite the googlability. Pundit|utter 03:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The meaning given here (a gun that shoots pies, often used by clowns) is more or less obvious from the term alone. Moreover, the Google results don't look promising: I can't find a single instance of the term online which isn't a joke. The first hit is this page (always a bad sign), the second hit is a Youtube video, and the third is a bizarre short story involving a "dog pie gun party" - and it goes downhill from there. Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per above Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 19:20, 6 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 per WP:CSD#G7. Spellcast (talk) 11:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis McCarthy (football player)[edit]

Contested prod, suspected hoax. The subject is supposedly a multi-sport high school phenom whose promising collegiate career was derailed by injury. A google search for "Dennis McCarthy" + "Catholic Memorial High School" yields zero hits [46], kind of odd if he was such a powerhouse there. Even if it's all true, he still would not meet the general notability requirements for athletes, having never played in college. The IP who contested the prod said that this person "participated" while at Northeastern University, but there doesn't appear to be any reliable sources confirming that this person ever played football there, or anywhere else for that matter. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wow okay delete if you want, he's just a nice guy who goes to my school that i thought should get some credit. the info is in the media book they hand out, i know he had a really bad injury in 2000 or 2001 and had a lot of surgeries and missed time and kinda fell off the radar, i'd also consider that during his best years most of that information wasn't readily posted on the internet. he did get a scholarship to college and is working hard to get back on the field, check facebook and look at his football pictures...or just delete. its not a hoax he's a real guy. not a "phenom" or a "powerhouse" just a guy who had a bad break, please delete if its a problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbfb (talk • contribs) 11:03, 6 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 all to Chester Bennington. (Except the one stricken by the nominator). JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: in a separate action, I speedy-deleted the template, as an unused template having no feasible use. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Dowdell and His Friends?[edit]

Non-notable releases (and template) by a non-notable band. The band's article already went through AfD and the result was redirect. Prods removed without comment. Precious Roy (talk) 10:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chester Bennington. WP:MUSIC notes that bands where one or more member goes on to another notable group are often notable for that reason, although it notes that redirects are often the more appropriate way to go. Given that the article for the band was changed to a redirect, then, there's no reason the albums shouldn't share the same fate. That being said, the fact that these articles even exist indicates that there has been some progress in gathering reliable sources related to Grey Daze--since that means that the main article could potentially be revived at some point, it'd be good to leave the content of these articles accessible. --jonny-mt 12:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Note that these articles consist of little more than track listings and all are unreferenced. Precious Roy (talk) 13:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know; all I was trying to point out is that someone has dug up something on Grey Daze (in this case, their discography). Incidentally, the deletion of ((Grey Daze)) should be taken up at WP:TFD rather than here. --jonny-mt 14:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Template stricken. Will take to TFD once this AfD is closed. Precious Roy (talk) 14:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Precious Roy (talk) 13:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ...No Sun Today is notable. It needs references, but it should not be deleted.

Sean Dowdell and His Friends?, Wake Me are notable by association. « D. Trebbien (talk) 18:20 2008 February 3 (UTC)

Comment Please explain what is notable about ...No Sun Today. Also, note that nothing is "notable by association". Precious Roy (talk) 19:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If true, "This made the disc highly sought after, due to its rare and almost completely unreleased status." Note that ...No Sun Today is not being nominated for deletion because someone is contesting this.

Also, there are things that are notable by association. First ladies, boyfriends/girlfriends of celebrities, assassins of public figures, flopped albums of famous music groups or singers, etc.

Why do you think that the album and the band are not notable?

« D. Trebbien (talk) 20:16 2008 February 3 (UTC)

Comment Notability is not inherited—period. Nothing about any of these albums meets the criteria for album notability set forth in WP:MUSIC. The band is not notable because an AfD consensus says so. Please read WP:ATA before continuing this discussion; you're not providing any valid arguments here. Precious Roy (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To cite WP:INTERESTING: "Deletion processes are discussions, not votes, and we encourage people to put forward their opinions." It is my opinion that ...No Sun Today has asserted some notability, which I quoted above, and that it should be kept for this reason.

Additionally, I hardly call Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grey Daze an AfD "consensus". « D. Trebbien (talk) 03:43 2008 February 4 (UTC)

Fair enough, even if you are taking that quote out of context (it's part of WP:ONLYESSAY). Precious Roy (talk) 10:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INTERESTING redirected to a paragraph below. You're right. « D. Trebbien (talk) 15:36 2008 February 4 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all. Sean Dowell and His Friends are three tracks by a defunct band. Also, this is not a discussion of opinion, deletion debates abide by guidelines and this completely fails the guidelines setforth by Music Notability; specifically,Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs and promo-only records are in general not notable, plus there is no substantial coverage from reliable sources. There is absolutely no reason for these three lines to have a separate article and can sufficiently be redirected. As far as the other two, No Sun Today and Wake Me, ordinarily I would say keep if the band/artist was notable, but Grey Daze has been redirected to Chester Bennington so there is no reason to keep these either. Incidentally, No Sun Today is the only release listed at AMG [47], and the content of the article looks like Original Research ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 16:46, 9 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. Some see utility, some do not. Complaints about the inclusion criteria are important, but they can be edited. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 22:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who died before the age of 30[edit]

Listcruft. Why 30? Why not 27? (cit.) (on the talk page, there is a proposal to lower the age to 29). There are thousands (I belive) of biographies of people who died before X age. It doesn't serve any purpose. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 00:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this is actually a second nomination as the deletion of this listed was discussed already in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous people who died young. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 00:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Arbitrary inclusion criteria. Who decided 30? Why? Who decided the list should only include "historical figures or celebrities known for reasons other than their death"? Completely subjective criteria for what qualifies someone to be included. Is everyone who has a page on Wikipedia a celebrity or historial figure? If so, this list would be very, very long and possibly unmaintainable. VegaDark (talk) 00:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listcruft. There is no given reason why 30 is a good cut off age and lowering it by one year to 29 would leave it in the same situation. This is what categories are for, althought i doubt we could even use this as a category. Lists are to put things together with information that sint in the individual articles. If it doesnt meet that, then it should be a category, unless it is pointless, like this. The Placebo Effect (talk) 00:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lists are an aid to navigation and that's their point. For example, I browse this list and notice that the Big Bopper died young. From there, I navigate to American Pie which explains all about the the day that the music died. Fascinating and I wouldn't have got there without this list. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the above--Nengscoz416 (talk) 00:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft. Why 30? Why not 29 1/2? 27 and a month? Purely arbitrary inclusion criteria. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep if not encyclopedic then certainly almanaical; may need to be renamed as 30 is not a magic number but it's a topic of obvious interest. JJL (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although I found the list interesting, interesting is not a valid reason for keeping an article, and I tend to agree with the crowd who says delete. With the exception of the persons who died of "natural causes", isn't this simply a list of persons who were killed in accidents or homicides? If a person is murdered, is it more tragic at age 29 than at age 31? I like the method of organizing the data, and all lists should be this readable. However, I think that it is arbitrary to divide adults, who have died unexpectedly, into the groups 18-29 and 30+ Mandsford (talk) 01:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Way too arbitrary and broad-based to be viable. Could have thousands of entries. 23skidoo (talk) 04:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why not 30 exactly? Why is Wikipedia a more useful place for its readers if this article is deleted? Wikipedia exists to serve its readership, not its increasingly arcane rulebook. What exactly is 'cruft' apart from information you're not personally interested in? If the information is verified and the criteria for the list clear what is the problem apart from I don't like it? Rename it to 'notable' or 'famous' people if you must. Nick mallory (talk) 08:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wouldn't a category work much better than a whole article? It would be easier to maintain as well. --Sin Harvest (talk) 10:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, and if you read WP:CAT and WP:OCAT and WP:CLS, you will see that "categorize" is not a good answer because many similar categories have been deleted. If something is not a good topic for an article, then it is definitely not a good category. Categories & lists provide navigational services and have different benefits, but still require some baseline criteria -- for categories that the topic must not only be "notable" but actually "defining". --Lquilter (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just for the record, one reason I said delete rather than categorize is because of the ongoing culling of categories (don't get me started...). There was a category on this specific topic awhile ago, but it appears to have bit the dust. 23skidoo (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The point of the article is obviously to list notable people who died young. If the watershed was not defined then the same nay-sayers would be complaining that inclusion in the list was subjective. Thirty seems a reasonable choice because of general culture, e.g. "never trust anyone over thirty", Logan's Run, etc and because humans are usually at their physical peak in their twenties and so over-the-hill at 30. If there is a better age choice then the article can be edited accordingly - deletion would be counter-productive. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, up until recently it was called List of people who died young and it went up to age 39. I split it into two articles (one for those who died before 30, one for those who died in their thirties) because it was getting too big. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per discussions above about arbitrary inclusion. Wikipedia editors would be better served by an article that talked about the phenomena of intense social interest in people who die young. --Lquilter (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think this kind of thing is both useful and interesting, and arbitrary inclusion issues can be discussed by people with an interest in the subject. That's no reason to get rid of it, however. -- Roleplayer (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask you how is it "useful"? Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 20:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One use is as a source of inspiration - encouraging one to count one's blessings and carpe diem. "There, but for the grace of God, go I...". Colonel Warden (talk) 01:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wikipedia isn't a list Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 19:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What do you mean by "wikipedia isn't a list" ?- Master Bigode from SRK.o//(Talk) (Contribs) 03:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't an article either. 96T (talk) 15:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But Wikipedia is! ;-) —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 06:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per VegaDark and The Placebo Effect.- Master Bigode from SRK.o//(Talk) (Contribs) 03:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the concept of famous people dying young is famous and discussed. Per the policies for stand-alone lists, I do not think the subject is neither too broad nor to specific, nor is it trivial. Lots of these people wouldn't been remembered the same way today if they hadn't died young. 96T (talk) 15:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 96T. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 06:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a list of famous people who died young is obviously interesting. The list of those who died in their thirties is less important, but still interesting (although that one easily could get too big). 84.70.178.139 (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Subject lacks genuine coherence, and significance of age varies greatly over time. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 00:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the age at which someone died could be included on other people lists - we don't need to create new lists to handle this data. Otherwise, we'll have List of people who died before the age of 1, List of people who died before the age of 2..., List of people who died after the age of 80, etc. This would unnecessarily relist all people covered by Wikipedia. If you are interested in adding this data to lists, those lists can be made into tables, and tables can be made sortable (one click will sort the table by age at time of death). I hope this helps. The Transhumanist 19:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft. tgies (talk) 06:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this article was named List of famous people who died young and List of people who died young before it was renamed List of people who died before the age of 30 in January. Most of the people arguing for deletion seem to be arguing over the current name of the page. I agree with 96T. The concept is notable. And the information in the article is verifiable. --Pixelface (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
my complaint isn't about the age mostly, its the actual neccesity of this type of list. If i had seen any of those other deletion debates, i still would have voted delete, regardless of age. The Placebo Effect (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agree with above statements. Chantessy 16:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Canley (talk) 10:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revolution (In The Summertime)[edit]

Article about an album that could be a hoax. Thebluesharpdude (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Acutally, it deserves a nocontext speedy deletion. Victao lopes (talk) 00:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A1 as very short and lacking in context. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per context, album does indeed exist and now contains enough context. Still needs an infobox and cover art, though. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I cleaned it up slightly and added some context, see if that's any better. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Note that the article has undergone quite a metamorphosis since its nom and the first two !votes (nice save, Bongwarrior). Song charted top 40 (a fact referenced with a BBC article). Meets WP:MUSIC. Precious Roy (talk) 02:32, 6 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 Mergè with Mylène Farmer. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mylène Farmer International Fan-Club[edit]

Non-notable fan club. Fails WP:NOTE. Precious Roy (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : This fan club grouped about 10,000 members in 37 countries (thus, it had an international dimension). There are 2 independant and reliable sources (notes 1 and 3). The article is also available on the French Wikipedia. Europe22 (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 15:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with Mylène Farmer. Farmer is notable, but this doesn't pass WP:ORG. Almost every significant celebrity has a fan club (some have several) and they're generally not notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Mylène Farmer. Generally a fan club should be discussed on Wikipedia (if at all) in the article about the person it is associated with, not in a separate article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. The club is NN by itself. Bearian (talk) 01:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Canley (talk) 10:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid Eye Movement (film)[edit]

Article about a nonnotable movie written by a publicist and his blocked sockpuppets as purely promotional material. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -RiverHockey (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 15:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable film and fairly blatant WP:COI issue. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet notability criteria for films in any way. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:59, 6 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. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephania Bell[edit]

Non-notable "ESPN injury analyst" for their fantasy sports blog. Precious Roy (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom even though based upon her ESPN bio photo, she meets WP:HOTTIE. --Sc straker (talk) 03:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete she's the most high-profile injury analyst in the fantasy sports world. A lot of people rely on her information and her biography on Wikipedia seems a good fit. I disagree -- being a top columnist for ESPN.com and major media sites should be reason enough for an entry. FantasyHistory (talk) 21:48, 6 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, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 15:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being a contributor to a major company's website is not in itself a claim of notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, nothing about her outside of the brief bio on ESPN.com - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:57, 12 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. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liang-Jie Zhang[edit]

This is apparently an autobiography, and then author has blanked the page twice. I would say it might satisfy WP:CSD#7, as other edits have been small, but numerous, but the page was prodded and declined because of a good showing in Google scholar. The blanking was construed as vandalism, and the user was warned. No independent references are given on the page; perhaps the blanking was because of an error which the author wasn't sure how to get rid of, or some other BLP concern? Thus this person may be notable, and so if someone can improve the page I'm fine with a keep, but I'm not sure anyone ever will and thus suggest deletion; somebody can start an article without a conflict of interest later if they wish. Rigadoun (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 22:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Various people come after a while and improve pages--someone else who knows the work is likely to look him up and put in the information. --to delete a page because nobody has done so is not the best procedure; the effort is better spent in adding some some additional information. If there was relevant info in GS it should be added, and Ive added at least a little. But he is editor in chief of an iIEEE journal. as these are the highest best journals in the subject, he is unquestionably notable--the criterion of being the ed. ofa major journal has been accepted invariably at Afd for scientists. DGG (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Founding EIC of an IEEE journal seems like enough, but what I see of his pubs in Google scholar looks unimpressive. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:02, 2 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, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 15:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - for being a published author and a founding editor of IEEE TSC. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The frequent editor/creator is Zhanglj which in Pingyin is Zhang Liang Jie. It means that he was creating a page for himself. Good try.TheAsianGURU (talk) 18:42, 7 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. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sangeeth Varghese[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable person. There is no evidence of notability and further article is like an advertisement.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete tagged as ((db-spam)) and ((db-copyvio)) Ohconfucius (talk) 05:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup I've tried to cleanup the advertisement part of it-Ravichandar 05:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 15:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 2 trivial GScholar hits, 2 GNews hits, no sources about him (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). Writing an article for Forbes does not make you notable. cab (talk) 03:00, 6 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 but as Rhinoracer said, it needs more sources for verification.--JForget 02:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teri Sue Wood[edit]

Previous AfD:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teri Sue Wood

Previously deleted article. No assertion of notability, no reliable sources provided or found. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Lack of reliable sources is a major issue Ohconfucius (talk) 06:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep A number of independent websites call her Wandering Star a "highly acclaimed science fiction comic series." This leads me to believe that reliable sources may be out there. --L. Pistachio (talk) 08:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATT (NOR+V) requires attribution of sourcing. This article was deleted once for this reason, and essentially recreated while still not addressing this concern. See also related afd, where her comic series article was also deleted. JERRY ^talk _contribs 12:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Definitely lacking in sources, but she is the author of a fairly well-known comic. Rhinoracer (talk) 12:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-Previous deletion is very odd, notably since the consensus was far and away for keep. That makes me think this should be kept, particularly in light of the above reasoning.JJJ999 (talk) 05:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JJJ999 - Milk's Favorite Cookie 02:09, 6 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, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 15:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Discussion here suggests notability. Agree with editors who note that the previous delete was incorrectly closed. The closer said "per" an editor who only critiqued the article ("a sub-stub"), not the notability of the subject, and there were clear assertions of notability in that discussion. --Lquilter (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Both previous discussions appear to manifest a keep consensus, and the sourcing meets de minimis standards. Multiple book titles on Amazon from commercial/nonsubsidy publisher. Seems to have been most prominent just before significant online coverage of "alternative" comic books became prevalent. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 00:54, 12 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: editors may merge as they see fit; such a proposed action does not require AfD. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nihilanth[edit]

Delete or Merge into a "Half Life characters" or "Half Life bestiary" article. This article covers a subject not notable enough for an article. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 00:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Fancruft of low importance to its own universe. I'd go for delete but don't see the point if the other articles are still around. Ham Pastrami (talk) 05:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary Merge. I'm conflicted on this one. On one hand, Ham is right in that he's currently not very important to its own universe (disagree on the 'fancruft' nonsense). On the other hand, it would not surprise me one bit if the character's importance is addressed in detail in the final third of HL2's episodic content. So I would say, merge the important parts (that the Nihilanth was the source of the HL1 disaster), but keep an open mind if there's enough new information from Episode 3 to re-warrant its own article. Scumbag (talk) 18:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, I'm open to that. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 03:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per Scumbag. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 15:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom tgies (talk) 06:57, 13 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xbox 360[edit]

Just some stupid side product my Microsoft that lacks notability, speaking of which WP:N. Article is also very poorly written, thus a deletion might do justice. In addition, the Wii and the PlayStation 3 are the main sellers, not this $290 wannabe console. Since there is already talk about deleting those two articles, I can't see why deleting this one should be overlooked. There is some decent content though, which would happily be merged into Microsoft. Sorry, guys, its a hard choice here but I think its the right one. Just one last note, remember this article is only being *CONSIDERED* for deletion, which is to mean in no way is deletion of this article definite. --Brokendownferrarienzoferrari (talk) 00:10, 6 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Billy Joe[edit]

No assertion of notability whatsoever. Circeus (talk) 02:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So it's a camp in Oklahoma and it was created because a kid died. Nothing to assert notability. Undeath (talk) 05:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "This is a place that exists in the world" is one of the many thing people seem to think constitutes notability. Srpnor (talk) 12:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Never asserts notability and fails per WP:ORG Doc Strange (talk)16:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 19:23, 6 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. Please take any merging or renaming discussion to the talk page. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hörspiel[edit]

"Hörspiel" (see de:Hörspiel) is the German translation of radio drama. There is no use to merge this article. Theses like "..., but the musical component in German broadcasts is typically more substantial" are wrong. In the 50'ies e.g. there was no music at all in German radio dramas. Non of the important German authors of radio dramas like Ingeborg Bachmann or Günter Eich are mentioned. --Kolja21 (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC) from Germany[reply]

Keep, but improve - Radio drama is focused on English-language radio drama (actually, it's mostly about US radio drama). It has a section for Radio drama#Radio drama around the world that consisted of a link to Radio drama in Japan. The Hörspiel article is about radio drama in the German language, so it would be very logical to keep it as a separate article and link to it from the radio drama article. (In fact, I added a link to it.)

If the article is incomplete due the omission of important German authors of radio dramas like Ingeborg Bachmann or Günter Eich, then it needs to be expanded, not deleted. --Orlady (talk) 00:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Radio drama in Germany and make this a redirect. --Paularblaster (talk) 09:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought of suggesting that move, but I believe that Hörspiel exists in Austria, too. --Orlady (talk) 12:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Radio drama in German? German radio drama? --Paularblaster (talk) 12:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason that I can't articulate, I would want the title to specify "German language," not just "German." Perhaps the best title would be "German-language radio drama". "Radio drama in German language" seems more consistent with Wikipedia customary style, but it is less idiomatic. --Orlady (talk) 04:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Three Investigators, Paul Temple and John Sinclair (German fiction) as typical "German Hörspiel"? The "Categorie:Radio hobbies" says it all. There have been a try to merge on Sept. 28. There is nothing substancial to merge or to move. (Beside Switzerland Radio is also producing "German Hörspiel".) --Kolja21 (talk) 04:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the article Radio drama also has serious shortcomings. Much of the best English-language radio drama is represented only in the list of "programs/series". --Orlady (talk) 04:35, 13 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.