< January 18 January 20 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Numbers (website)[edit]

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

Non-notable website. Page has no citations to anything other than the website itself, Google search of related terms reveals only two results. Both are from the official website. No indication of discussion in notable, reliable third-party publications. Gromlakh (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree, but another user (not the author) deleted the speedy template. I figured it would just be easier to take it here. Gromlakh (talk) 01:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep per WP:N and WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). SeanMD80talk | contribs 22:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Wood[edit]

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

NUMEROUS people on the talk page have pointed out this woman is NOT NOTABLE. The only reason this is still here is because User: C S has made it his personal crusade to defend this page. Johnnygood (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johnnygood isn't a sock puppet account, is it? The only contributions were to nominate Melanie Wood for deletion.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JANJAN[edit]

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

Not notable for inclusion. WordMachine (talk) 23:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beijing Riviera (Beijing)[edit]

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

This is an article about one of many gated communities in China and this one is not more notable than any other one. The community mentioned is of a higher standard than many others, but this doesn't make it notable. I Poeloq (talk) 23:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Riverside Garden (Shenyang)[edit]

Riverside Garden (Shenyang) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is an article about one of many gated communities in China and this one is not more notable than any other one. The community mentioned is of a higher standard than many others, but this doesn't make it notable. Poeloq (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<<<<A road like [[Seventh Avenue, Newark, New Jersey? I think our differences lie mostly in believing Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia about important things versus believing Wikipedia to be the "sum of all knowledge". I see nothing wrong with articles about major roads that have houses, offices and shops. It is verifiable and useful. "Notable" is just shorthand for verifiable and useful, in my opinion. And the facts in our article on Riverside Garden are verifiable and useful. A foreigner being told of a meeting at Riverside Garden can now look it up and see what "Riverside Garden" is. We are better than Google. We make the internet not suck. What is the most useful thing we can do with regard to this article for a reader who types "Riverside Garden" into Wikipedia? WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your vision for Wikipedia is nice, but it isn't intended that way. You might want to check Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory, and other related areas of WP:NOT where it clearly states that we don't intend to be a guidebook, directory or a help in conducting business. That's the way it is. Poeloq (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We disagree. I think it plain that Wikipedia is meant to have articles on all named and verifiable communities of 1000 or more units. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, we agree to disagree :) . Let's see what other editors have to say. Poeloq (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, everything that has a verifiable existence should have an article. WP:NOT is wrong. Remember, "policy" on Wikipedia is not prescriptive--we are not obligated to care what it says. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!') 19:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kurt, you've just used one of the things listed over at WP:ATA, namely Wikipedia should be about everything. Also pointing out that policy can be ignored, is also not a valid argument in an AfD discussion. Poeloq (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know, that's just my point. It is my position that Wikipedia SHOULD be about everything; thus, my argument is perfectly valid. And yes, policy can and should be ignored. All it is is a description of what has typically happened in certain situations in the past. It is not a set of rules that must be followed in the future. The choice of the word "policy" as the appellation was unfortunate, and it has confused many a well-meaning user. But, the fact of the matter is that on Wikipedia, policy is not prescriptive and there is no obligation to "follow" it simply because "it's policy". You do what's right, whether it accords with policy or not. So don't argue based on policy--argue based on what's right for the project. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read the link I quoted? I know that policy can and should at times be ignored. However, in an AfD discussion there are certain things that need to be quoted and used to base a decission on, otherwise we could just abolish AfD all together - which I am sure you would favor. Poeloq (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've read it many times. It's irrelevant. All it is is a list some people put together that amounts to "I don't agree with these arguments, so I've decided you shouldn't use them." That's all it is. And I'm not talking about "ignoring policy"--because there is nothing to ignore in the first place! The word "policy" has a different meaning on Wikipedia than it does in the rest of the world. In the rest of the world, actions follow policy: if they don't, then people should change their actions so they do follow policy. However, on Wikipedia, policy follows actions. If actions are not in line with "policy", then, then "policy" needs to be changed to reflect that fact. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Keeper | 76 23:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The RealCycle Network[edit]

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

The subject of this article consists of a number of local Yahoo! Groups (web forums) founded half a year ago. No independent sources, notability not established. High on a tree (talk) 23:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, especially to the worldwide Wikipedia audience. Brianhe (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete – Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. KrakatoaKatie 08:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Herbal Administration[edit]

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

Not encyclopedic. Possible candidate for transwikification, though I'm not sure. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Udo's Choice Food Pyramids[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Udo's Choice Food Pyramids (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable quackery. Delete Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:53, 13 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 22:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, the nomination statement says "quackery", definitions of which include the concepts of fraud, dishonesty, pretending to be a doctor, ignoring scientific findings etc. I do not believe that Udo Erasmus has done any of that, and no evidence of such has been presented either here or in the articles about him; in fact, he cites scientific findings in his book. Some of his ideas may be unproven or partially unproven; others are established scientific fact; but discussing speculative or (as-yet-)unproven ideas does not constitute fraud. The nomination itself could perhaps be considered a BLP violation. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RHEMA Bible Training Center[edit]

RHEMA Bible Training Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A very nicely written advertisement, but an advertisement nonetheless. The only source cited in this article which is not from the organisation's own website, is on the site of the designer of the new basketball court - and as such is not properly independent. I Googled a bit but found only more of the same: uncritical puffery based presumably on press releases, comments from alumni and the like. One namecheck in Google News, and that's ab out it. Guy (Help!) 10:56, 12 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 22:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A few respected editors have taken offense at my comment above. I did not intend to offend anybody, and I don't think I said anything inherantly uncivil; but all I wanted to say is please do not add more "Merge per aboves", as the merge recommendations are incomplete in that they do not say WHAT to WHERE. Please be specific, and if you are inclined; do the bold thing. Thanks. JERRY talk contribs 05:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you'd be willing to share a little more on this? I am very interested to hear what you have to say on this subject. I am all ears, mon ami. JERRY talk contribs 01:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Continued on appropriate talk page. Tevildo (talk) 02:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a problem with that, in that the place clearly fails WP:ORG due to lack of independent sources. Guy (Help!) 10:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Then don't delete it, Guy, fix it. As Peterkingiron observed, this place is very notable in charismatic circles, which make up a very large segment of the U.S. population. Plus their classes are transferable to accredited schools, so they are notable in and of themselves, not just as part of some other person, place or thing. I recommend you at least try to find those independent sources - I guarantee they're out there. Goo2you (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Shaloob[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians. No Google hits other than this very article. Article says he has gained significant media attention for his plan to socialize the American Health Care System. Surely Google would return said "significant media attention" but unfortunately, Google does not. Plus, I live in Mississippi and have never heard of this guy. ALLSTAR echo 22:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Briglin[edit]

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

Previously tagged for speedy deletion for notability concerns. However, it does seem to have been written about and may claim notability. Procedural nom. Keilana|Parlez ici 22:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I Trokia Pottery, Poole Pottery are listed, why not Briglin Pottery, they are very similar except Briglin seems to have been lost in the record books and there is very little information anywhere to be found about the pottery which closed in 1990 appart from AA's book. Wikipedia is exactly the right place to list inforamtion about Briglin. please list it here. BR alex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skippy8888 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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:BIO. KrakatoaKatie 08:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will Brooks (actor)[edit]

Will Brooks (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO. No independent reliable third party sources to verify notability. Nv8200p talk 22:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Only one !vote please. -- Whpq (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was The result was speedy redirect, nom withdrawn non-admin closure--Lenticel (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zeitgiest, the movie (criticism)[edit]

Zeitgiest, the movie (criticism) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article consists of nothing more than NPOV and OR work that was repeatedly excised from Zeitgeist, the Movie. Main issue that it is NPOV and OR has not been addressed. Nevermind, article was redirected while I was typing this. Gromlakh (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True Catholic Church[edit]

True Catholic Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Seemingly non notable group or sect of a few tens of people. No notability asserted through reliable, third-party sources; could even be an autobiography or primary research publication... Raistlin (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Beaver Island State Park. Bearian (talk) 16:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

South Parkway/Beaver Island Parkway[edit]

South Parkway/Beaver Island Parkway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

PROD removed. There is no indication that this highway and its intersections are notable; the rest of the article is about Beaver Island State Park which already has its own article. JohnCD (talk) 22:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete – no third-party sources, and Wikipedia is not the place to advertise plays for lease. KrakatoaKatie 09:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro's Fly Ten Year Reunion[edit]

Alejandro's Fly Ten Year Reunion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A non-notable play. It was written/performed in a high school and has never been performed elsewhere. The only coverage of it seems to be the high school's newspaper. Metros (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will burns[edit]

AfDs for this article:
    Will burns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Not notable. Worked for Obama, and he is currently RUNNING for a state office in Illinois. Never held any office. This falls short of notable. Anyone can run for office by filling out a form, so that won't fly. Pharmboy (talk) 21:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree but chose to AFD solely because of the potential turmoil in trying to speedy a political candidate. Felt it better to air it very publicly and get others input, and a few more days won't hurt wikipedia. Pharmboy (talk) 17:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Will burns has been PRODded - a race to see which process wins! JohnCD (talk) 22:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael A. W. Griffin[edit]

    Michael A. W. Griffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Subject does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The page has been tagged with the "Notability" template since June 2007 and no attempt has been made to assert the subject's notability. NatureBoyMD (talk) 01:47, 13 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 21:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Kurykh 00:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    BulletProof Messenger[edit]

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

    Unsigned band, lots of claims of notability but no references. A quick googling shows lots of myspace, etc. Maybe someday, but not notable at this time and fails wp:band. Pharmboy (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Kurykh 00:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ashlene[edit]

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

    Just another non-notable music journalist, one of hundreds. The article itself isn't much more than a vanity piece with no 3rd party references to her notability. WebHamster 21:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Chrome Dreams (record label)[edit]

    Chrome Dreams (record label) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable label and blatant spamming/advertising. Lugnuts (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Kawe Khosrawi[edit]

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

    No assertion of notability beyond that this person exists. No cited works. Google search results returned mirrors back to this article. Except for tags, article has been untouched for nearly two years. DarkAudit (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    DTT Surveillance[edit]

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

    There are no provided non-trivial articles about DTT. One of the provided and still available articles doesn't mention DTT until page 2 and the other is just a company press release. Doesn't seem to satisfy WP:NOTE. Most of the article seems to come from the corporate web site and so there is no 3rd party verifiability. Seems to fall under the WP:NOT#ADVERTISING JJLatWiki (talk) 01:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. Actually the Securityinfowatch article does mention the subject - about the last 40% of the article is about DTT's products. And requiring a login is most emphatically not an "no-no". However I have found a copy of the first few paragraphs freely available online and fixed the reference in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:58, 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 20:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Lynne Spears[edit]

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

    A user tagged this page for deletion but never created the AfD. I'm just completing the nomination. I suppose Lynne Spears' notability could solely be inherited from Britney Spears and might not pass WP:BIO. Spellcast (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Authors are not automatically notable; have you looked at the guidelines? Dicklyon (talk) 22:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Unpublished authors are not notable. When the book is actually published, then maybe. Bearcat (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Her other book was published in 2001, and made into a TV movie. See IMDB link below. Pharmboy (talk) 01:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I note that some of those 596,000 google hits may include references to her daughter, Jamie Lynne Spears. I've seen her name spelled with the e, and thought that her article was the one up for deletion when I came to this debate. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Kurykh 00:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Pseudo-orders[edit]

    This article is on a topic that is ambiguous and unhelpful and its associated category is confusing. The linked and similar article Chivalric orders is poor and needs improving but is easier to understand, and is enough for the topic. --Sannhet (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    this will create an improved clearer article. Having read the all arguments I do not now believe either article does anything that would not be better than a good edit to articles on individual orders. --Kyndinos (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    And what is interesting, Simsek is co-author of article Scottish Knights Templar and probably member of this association, Exit2DOS2000 is co-author of article Sovereign Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem (and probably member of this), Quaerere Verum is co-author Knights Templar in Scotland and I bet for his membership in Scottish Knights Templar. This is very interesting and make big shadow over theirs objectivity. Maybe is this sort of "templars revenge", but I´m not king Philip_IV_of_France :) Yopie 19:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
    No, this isn't a "templars reverange", it is simply editors not wanting Articles we care about getting badly described in a badly defined Article and a similarly badly defined Catagory. If there is something "Pseudo" about a group, put it in the Article and give a Citation. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 04:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A bit surprised to see I am credited as co-author :-). The log shows both articles were created by SKT1314 (talk•contribs) and then developed by Steve Zissou (talk•contribs). An interesting conspiracy theory, but this is just about removing an article and a category that do nothing for Wikipedia.--Simsek (talk) 07:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So, summary, there are two groups. First, who want delete this article, because is "badly written" - but this is argument for rewriting, adding etc. (Of course, I assume, that this group is connected with "Knight Templars"). Second opinion is, that this article have bad name - I agree, better will be "Self-styled orders" or "Revived orders" or so.Yopie 01:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopie (talk • contribs)
    Why do you insist that we are Knights Templar simply because we disagree with you? I kindly ask that you please stop making this kind of statement, it is not helping you put across your point of view. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 03:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. The idea that the delete argument is being driven by what the article describes as "the extinct order of Knights Templar" is a wonderful oxymoron, and is the weakest possible argument for retaining the article.--Quaerere Verum (talk) 08:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems an argument for renaming, rather than for deletion. I suggested one alternative name above. Can any one suggest somethign better? Peterkingiron (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "What's in a name? that which we call a rose/By any other name would smell as sweet; I do not agree. This is an unecessary description, difficult to interpret, adding nothing. Get rid of it. --Sannhet (talk) 07:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Famous (rapper)[edit]

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

    Arguably insufficiently notable. I PRODded the article hoping for second opinion but the author (legitimately) deleted it so none was offered, hence bringing it here for discussion instead. Some association with Chamillionaire but I do not believe own article is warranted. Also in dispute over the name "Famous" so something would need doing to disambiguate. Previously went by the name Lil' Ken (various spellings); Lil' Ken article was speedily deleted earlier today and this appears to have replaced it (currently Lil' Ken is a redirect I put there). Ros0709 (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Motorway town[edit]

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

    Total neologism - nobody uses this term. And this list is always going to be OR / indivdual view. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blood and Ice Cream[edit]

    Blood and Ice Cream (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    The director and lead actor in Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz have made the same joke three times in interviews and DVD commentaries - that the two films could be considered part of a "Blood and Ice Cream" trilogy, as they both feature gory violence and Cornetto ice-creams. Neither of the films is marketed as being part of this trilogy, though, and no other sources reference it. Until we can do something more than write this up as the one-sentence joke it appears to be, I don't think it needs a full article. Delete. McGeddon (talk) 00:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps, but the only documented themes to date are "they both have blood and they both have a coloured ice-cream"; neither Pegg nor Wright has spoken about it in any greater detail than that, and waiting for the possibility of better interview sources in the future seems excessively speculative. Given that the series only contains two films at the moment, the articles can (and do) simply link to one another, for now. --McGeddon (talk) 11:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is true, but the fact that the "Blood and Ice Cream Trilogy" has been mentioned by them on more than one occasion does lead me to believe that it is at least notable, and as such deserves some mention.-- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 11:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, we can note it, but until the available sources give us more than a one-sentence "both these films have blood and ice-cream", it's better noted in each of the two film articles, rather than being an optimistic and entirely unexpandable stub. --McGeddon (talk) 11:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I keep saying they have more than 'blood and ice cream' in them. And everything that is repeated is intentional. Thats what links these films as a trilogy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliw136 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but we need citable sources confirming that these things are specifically in there as part of the trilogy, and not just as director's trademarks. After all, Arnie says "I'll be back" in virtually every film he's in, but that doesn't link them as part of a series! -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 16:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The only way to solve this is to accept that its intentional or ask the writers if its intentional. aliw136 16:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)aliw136 (talk)
    Neither option fits with Wikipedia guidelines. "Accept that it's intentional" goes against WP:VERIFY and to "ask the writers if it's intentional" goes against WP:OR. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 16:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ... There is obviously the third option of "assume that it is unintentional", which is the only place we can go for now, until further interviews tell us more about Pegg and Wright's view of the trilogy. --McGeddon (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Does Wiki still have the page for the 'Mediocre American Man' trilogy? There's no formal recognition of the trilogy existing in either Anchorman or The Ballad of Ricky Bobby - but it's still generally accepted that a trilogy exists. If it remains - there's no reason why this shouldn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.95.40.137 (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and it's just as unsourced as this one; if there's "no formal recognition" that it exists, then it doesn't have any place in an encyclopaedia. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a valid reason to keep an article. --McGeddon (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's very rare for a trilogy like this to be recognised as a trilogy, because we're thinking of the Lord of the Rings type trilogy. --aliw136 16:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    I saw they were being sold together in a set on Amazon. Supposedly when they finish the last film, it'll be sold in a boxset. (and with three different cornettos joke the writers on the DVD commentary.)--aliw136 16:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    They do mention "Three Colours: Cornetto", but they do also describe the series as the "Blood and Ice Cream Trilogy"-- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 16:55, 17 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 19:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was speedy close. Repost of The Crystal Rod among many other good reasons. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    THE CRYSTAL ROD[edit]

    THE CRYSTAL ROD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Unsourced ditty about a likely NN independent film. Very poorly written, almost unreadable at times. I would almost say speedy delete, except that A7 doesn't cover films and it isn't quite patent nonsense nessacary for G1. Mr Senseless (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Kurykh 00:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    TimeLETSystems[edit]

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

    Absolutely zero Google hits on this topic. No resources given. No indication that this is term is in use in any significant way. Prod removed by author, without explanation. eaolson (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Kurykh 00:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    St. James Day Celebration[edit]

    St. James Day Celebration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Non notable 'holiday' relating to basketball. Google doesn't seem to throw up any reliable sources, but a second pair of eyes would be appreciated on that front. Prod was removed with the comment "This is a de facto holiday observed throughout the United States, observed accross professions and socioeconomic levels." J Milburn (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Deletion has been proposed on the basis of its non-importance. As the author, I would argue that the NCAA tournament phenomenon and its effects on the US economy are widely recognized in the wikipedia and the media at large. The movement toward a national holiday is relatively young--seven years and counting. However, if this article is deleted now, the wikipedia community will lose early documentation of a social phenomenon near its inception.

    Note also that the article is under construction, and additional supporting references are projected to be added in the coming weeks. Derekdsimmons (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete Cute idea, probably will be celebrated much like International Talk Like a Pirate Day, but unfortunately there isn't enough support for this new holiday yet to justify inclusion in Wikipedia. Feel free to prove me wrong, you have about 4-5 days... -- RoninBK T C 21:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Wanting something to be declared a holiday doesn't make it WP:Notable, although I do find it somewhat delicious that someone is proposing an American holiday to honour a Canadian invention. Accounting4Taste:talk 03:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was transwiki and delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Kraata[edit]

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

    Orignal research plot summary about aspects of a fictional universe. There is no real world context and all sources are primary. Ridernyc (talk) 20:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    the entire article is plot summary. Ridernyc (talk) 22:30, 4 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 03:23, 12 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 18:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Clear consensus for deletion based on failure to meet WP:V. TerriersFan (talk) 23:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Warren, East Sussex[edit]

    Warren does not appear to be a place in Eastbourne, as a local I am sure I would have heard of it. It certainly lacks nobility. The article is just one line, created by a single user. Putney Bridge (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Kurykh 00:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz[edit]

    Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This was speedy-tagged as an A7. I declined to delete it on the basis that notability was asserted (although I stated that I wasn't at all sure that it would survive an AfD if brought here). Today, the subject of the article appears to have requested its deletion. Given that it might not clear WP:N as it is, I think the apparent request of the subject should be enough to delete this. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The last conclusion for this AfD is: The article stays on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kubek15 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    AFAIK there is no conclusion to this AFD yet. The above comments are somewhat puzzling. Ros0709 (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Actually the source which I added for his Internet Citizen of the Year award does confirm that he was a founder of Polish Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That kind of out of process use of admin tools in an area in which you have an interest would be inappropriate. Let's assume he's telling the truth. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Speedying his own article wouldn't be a conflict of interest, would it? Considering Angela Beesley was not just an admin but a board member, and wanted her article deleted, and didn't delete it herself... But, I'm sure she secretly glories in in as well. Yes, absolutely let's look into Kpjas's heart, and not pay any attention to what he actually says. No, wait, that's not sufficiently verifiable, is it? I've got it - let's use divination by tea leaves! I've just drunk a cup of Earl Grey, and, stirring the cup three times widdershins and peering into the dregs ... no, the tea leaves say, he wants it deleted after all, like he says. Sorry. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    More seriously, please do compare our article Angela Beesley, which has 12 sources, and still has been repeatedly nominated for deletion, mainly for the "she doesn't want it" reason, coming reasonably close each time. Now Poland isn't quite as media-rich and Internet-wired as the UK, but neither is it Chad. I think a little bit more than a paragraph about winning an award can be asked for to prove Kpjas to be undisputably notable, in the face of his not wanting it. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Although I haven't registered an opinion here as such I did tag the article for speedy delete when it was created on grounds of notability. Given the overwhelming opinion in favour of delete so far I do not think that observation (carefully expressed as a comment, full of weasel words) will in any way affect the result. But I do respect the guy for taking the stance he has. Ros0709 (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was speedy delete as being the That Infamous Game again. Yet another group of schoolchildren have thought that they invented this game and have come to Wikipedia to write up their claim to fame. No you didn't invent the game of going from one article to a target by following links. It's ironic that editors mention Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. In an earlier version of that page we used to have a list of where this infamous game has cropped up. User:Metropolitan90 now maintains it on xyr user page. Uncle G (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikit[edit]

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

    Should probably actually be speedied, but I figured I'd be nice and send it here. Google search returns no results, article is completely devoid of references. Appears to be a game somebody made up the other day. Gromlakh (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G7, author request [6]. Hut 8.5 17:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Pro Wrestling Alliance: Africa roster[edit]

    Pro Wrestling Alliance: Africa roster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    List is completely unreferenced and appears to be a spinoff from Pro Wrestling Alliance: Africa. I can't see how this merits its own article. Gromlakh (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mancuspia[edit]

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

    This is non-notable and WP:OR. Speculation about a fictional creature in one short story? Yikes! Clarityfiend (talk) 07:33, 12 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, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was snowball delete pointless copy-paste fork of existing article `'Míkka>t 22:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    History of Romania since 2007[edit]

    History of Romania since 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Arbitrary sectioning of Romanian history, with focus on very recent developments; the text is of low quality and simply redundant to existing articles, and there is obviously no scholarly precedent for this. The entire article could fit nicely into the preexisting History of Romania since 1989 (you'll also note that the creation of this article has left the other under an absurd title - "since 1989", but then "since 2007", and until?). Dahn (talk) 15:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    What about my other points? Dahn (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you that the naming is not the best but that can be fixed without a deletion. As for your point about scholarly precedent, the 1989 article was created because in 1989 because communism fell in '89. And while the joining of NATO and the EU are clearly not as momentous as the fall of communism, they are still important events that may merit a different article about the politics after the joining. I believe this to be a good faith nomination and I will most likely !vote delete if nothing is improved, however I believe it probably would have been better to wait a few days and see how the article developed. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Even that aside, though, history since 2007 of any country will not be substantial enough to warrant an article. Perhaps in the future, Romanian history can be broke into 1989-2007 and Since 2007 as EU membership shapes the next 10 years of history, but at the moment, there's hardly enough content to warrant an independent article for Romania after EU membership. matt91486 (talk) 01:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I agree completely; sorry if I didn't make that clear in my reasoning . TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment WP:CRYSTAL. Dahn (talk) 06:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Merge and redirect to Rancid. Action to be taken by others. JERRY talk contribs 01:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Brett Reed[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Brett Reed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    The notability of the subject has not been established, and the article lacks any reliable sources by which it can be verified. The current contents of the article appear to violate WP:BLP. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 21:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note A previous AFD resulted in Redirect back in 2005. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Triona (talk • contribs) 21:22, 12 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, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Our Lady J[edit]

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

    Non-notable singer. The article is speedy-able, as it does not assert notability. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:29, 12 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, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Deep Red Meteor[edit]

    Deep Red Meteor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Non notable band. Fails WP:MUSIC AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:45, 12 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, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Defied[edit]

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

    Non notable band, fails WP:MUSIC AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:39, 12 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, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Global Standard Deity[edit]

    Global Standard Deity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Contested PROD. In-universe fictional new religion from a novel of unasserted notability. Delete. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 14:25, 12 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, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dark Revelation 1[edit]

    Dark Revelation 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Also adding Dark Revelation 2, Dark Revelation 3 and Dark Revelation 4. Fails WP:N, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legend of Blue-Eyes White Dragon for recent consensus on this issue, Delete All-- Secret account 23:54, 12 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, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 merge's said "merge anything useful", and then demonstrated nothing was in-fact useful. JERRY talk contribs 02:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ecotourism in North-West of Hong Kong[edit]

    Ecotourism in North-West of Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    We already have an ecotourism article. There doesn't seem to be a reason why we need a special article for Ecotourism in a particlar area of a particular province of a particular country. As usual, de-proded by author without explanation. eaolson (talk) 20:08, 12 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, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Matthew Ball[edit]

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

    A fifteen year old who is supposedly a grand master ninja. Of course, no sources for this incredible success story. I'm inclined to believe its a hoax. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 13:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

    — 78.145.188.139 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    You idiot! After it was nominated someelse has put that on. And Yeardley Smith is Lisa! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fr4zer (talk • contribs) 10:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thermae 2'40"[edit]

    Thermae 2'40" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable student film. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:11, 11 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, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JERRY talk contribs 02:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of professional sports team owners[edit]

    List of professional sports team owners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This seems to be a load of things bundled into one list. I wouldn't mind seeing a list for each individual sport (e.g. List of Formula One team owners; List of soccer team owners), but having this seems a bit overkill. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. D.M.N. (talk) 13:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Kurykh 00:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Pat Kelly (Irish singer/songwriter)[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Pat Kelly (Irish singer/songwriter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    No evidence of notability or demonstration that Kelly passes WP:MUSIC - no discussion of signing to a label, hits, coverage in reliable sources, awards, theme songs or any of the other criteria. WLU (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    what exactly must the criteria be?. here is an independent singer/songwriter who ha a good career in the Benelux countries and Scandinavia. He has published 2 solo albums - sure, no big record deal but all tracks self written, recorded and published by the artist and GEMA (germany) and BUMA STEMRA (holland) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.198.184.60 (talk • contribs)

    WP:MUSIC is most relevant, though WP:N is also a concern. You're mistaking a 'good' musician, who writes and plays his own music, with a 'notable' one, who has received, large amounts of coverage in some sort of press venue. Touring and producing albums isn't notable, lots of people do so. There needs to be some evidence that he's received attention beyond the crowds he's played for. WLU (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: Please refrain from editing out comments in an AfD. Even tangential comments deserve to be heard in the discussion -- RoninBK T C 17:38, 19 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, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Kurykh 00:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of BloggingHeads.tv contributors[edit]

    List_of_BloggingHeads.tv_contributors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

    I originally was the creator of this page, and in the first nomination for the deletion was the main proponent of keeping it. I have since changed my mind and determined that the deletion of this page would be best for wikipedia. It does not demonstrate a notability to stay, per WP:LC and others. I think it should now be deleted. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 09:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Here are List_of_BloggingHeads.tv_contributors, and the first AfD debate Gwernol 09:45, 11 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, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 03:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Crown Point Elementary School[edit]

    Crown Point Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Elementary schools are not normally seen as notable. There's no evidence for the notability of this particular school. andy (talk) 13:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm also nominating Loretto Elementary School (created by the same editor) for the same reason. andy (talk) 13:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 03:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Cadbury Kid[edit]

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

    Neologism with no evidence of widespread use and no sources. I declined speedy-ing this, but didn't feel good about it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Keep Non-Admin Closure. Tiddly-Tom 17:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unseen character[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Unseen character (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Like stated in the previous afd, this article is basically an original research "magnet" and most of the article is still unsourced. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 12:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was No consensus (default keep). JERRY talk contribs 02:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Homepage hijack[edit]

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

    Duplicates information from several other places such as articles about internet safety, hacking and viruses. Redundant article reads as a how-to. Hardly seems to be about its own title. Aquillyne-- (talk) 15:10, 11 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, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete. --VS talk 00:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    China at the 28th Chess Olympiad[edit]

    China at the 28th Chess Olympiad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    Similar AfD result of China at the 37th Chess Olympiad.

    It is a raw source statistics material without any further text or context. Please see similar AfD closing debate for another article above. Dekisugi (talk) 13:01, 11 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, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 father. Secret account 02:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dan Robbie[edit]

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

    Delete unsourced blp about son of a famous person - notability is not inherited. He was a co-owner of a defunct team, as many rich people owned defunct businesses of many sorts doesn't make them notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:09, 11 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, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Kurykh 00:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Splatterball[edit]

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

    Non-notable AOL game. No outside sources. Lots of vanity, how-to, and blow-by-blow context. Extreme amount of original research into terms used, system performance, game opinions. MBisanz talk 18:54, 11 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, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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


    Pretty sad you guys don't even know how to use Google. [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]75.111.18.86 (talk) 09:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Speedy keep; invalid nomination criteria. AFD does not consider simple page moves. JERRY talk contribs 02:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Easy Access[edit]

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

    Not notable as a proper noun. So it should be deleted in addition to moving the content to Accessibility. Zondor (talk) 12:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I would prefer to keep it. Tabletop (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Merge with Accessibility. Wongm (talk) 11:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Withdrawn with consensus to keep, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Gerard Gauthier[edit]

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

    Non-notable article subject, evidently not substantially covered in multiple reliable sources. Would seem very unlikely to ever become more of an article than at present. Ødipus 12:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Having found satisfying RS on the subject, I'd like to withdraw this nomination and apologize for wasting people's time. Ødipus 21:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    GHS (high schools)[edit]

    GHS (high schools) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This is just one of many similar lists masquerading as dab pages created recently by the same editor. The matter was fully explored at Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#Acronyms_that_can_refer_to_names_of_schools but the editor pressed on regardless. It's a pointless list of schools that are linked only by their initials, which no-one would ever search for and probably never stumble across but which will appear in search engines and create confusion. One such page may be over-enthusiasm by the editor but creating so many after a full debate is verging on vandalism. andy (talk) 11:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm also nominating the following pages:

    MHS (high schools)‎
    WHS (high schools)‎
    AHS (high schools)‎
    BHS (high schools)‎
    CHS (high schools)‎
    DHS (high schools)‎
    EHS (high schools)‎
    FHS (high schools)‎
    HHS (high schools)‎
    IHS (high schools)‎
    LHS (high schools)‎
    PHS (high schools)
    RHS (high schools)‎ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyjsmith (talk • contribs) 12:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So we need a dab page for TMK high schools as well - the only TMK entry in WP is for the Soviet space programme, completely missing the Malacca school and also Turk Maarif Koleji in Cyprus. Why stop at TLAs ending in HS - there are only 26 of them after all? andy (talk) 12:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What's your point? If you think a dab page for TMK is needed, then go ahead. We all know wp has a long way to go before it even approaches completeness but that is not reason to remove perfectly good dab material. As I said above, a better question than "should we disambiguate high schools?" is "should we separate out very large sections into separate dab pages or leave them with the main page?". Personally I think common sense says we should separate when it improves navigation. Abtract (talk) 12:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Under the circumstances, Abtract makes a good point for removing the links to high school acronyms until verified. That would solve the page size problem, as these pages would not be as grossly populated. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Keep - Non-Admin Closure. Tiddly-Tom 18:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Difficulty level[edit]

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

    Your first reaction to this AFD may be "Hey! Difficulty level, that's a notable term; it should be kept." But I'd like to ask yourself to slow down and actually have a look at the article. Now, think about it: exactly how informative could this article possibly be?

    Let's break it down.

    First, we have the lead. Which gives us an obvious description to an obvious term. "In general usage, difficulty level refers to the relative difficulty of completing a task or objective." Duh. Does anyone really need to have that spelt out for them to understand?

    The rest of the article crumbles into a slew of examples about how "such-and-such games has such-and-such difficulty options", "playing on this difficulty in this game changes this aspect" and so forth. Try this experiment: read the article while ignoring every example. Not much real content is there? What the article boils down to is this: glorified cruft. No matter how many examples get added, there will always be more to thrown in, since every game handles difficulty differently. Wikipedia is not a game guide, we shouldn't be spelling out every way difficulty can be changed in a game.

    I rest my case. SeizureDog (talk) 11:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Merge/Redirect. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 06:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Maureen Graty[edit]

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

    This character only appeared in one episode (and that was on a TV screen), and was heard on the phone in two more. Clearly not notable enough. Philip Stevens (talk) 11:34, 19 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, Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 02:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Kurykh 00:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hebrew Programming Language[edit]

    Hebrew Programming Language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Seemingly dead project (last news update was five years ago, forum on site is broken) with no established notability (no programs written in it deployed, < 500 ghits). Chris Cunningham (talk) 11:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was keep (non-admin closure) ChetblongTalkSign 03:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Champagne Salon[edit]

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


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ahmed Salim[edit]

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


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Peter Psihos[edit]

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


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

    The result was delete. Secret account 02:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Damn fast Fourier transform[edit]

    Damn fast Fourier transform (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This topic is mentioned in exactly one book, and makes no sense. There is insufficient context or explanation, but I've decoded it and can state that it is clearly not a "fast" was to compute a FT or DFT; it is an incremental DFT, giving the DFT on an sliding window, which is very different from what it claims to be, which is some guy's idiosyncratic idea. Let's get rid of it, since it's not notable (that is, it does not have multiple independent reliable sources). Dicklyon (talk) 08:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    But wait – those are both ARRL publications by Doug Smith, KF6DX, the guy who made it up. There are no independent uses of this concept or name. Dicklyon (talk) 00:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JERRY talk contribs 03:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fnu Lnu[edit]

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

    Totally unsourced; not really notable or interesting. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 07:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was nom withdrawn. Kurykh 00:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Beyond the Darkest Veils of Inner Wickedness[edit]

    Beyond the Darkest Veils of Inner Wickedness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Demo cassette tape, limited to 500 copies. Prod tag removed, no sources for notability provided. Aipzith (talk) 07:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sony Ericsson W760[edit]

    Sony Ericsson W760 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Newly announced phone with no established notability. Wikipedia is not a Sony Ericsson catalog. Wikpiedia is not a cell phone guide. Too few substantial third-party references are available to create an article that itself not a review or advert. Mikeblas (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm starting to come around to Mikeblas's point of view, but I would like to request that this be frozen until the discussion concerning cellphone notability at the Village Pump is resolved. TMSTKSBK (talk) 04:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Googling (searching using the Google search engine) for "W760 review" or "W760" brings up significant numbers of results for this phone. Some sites include MobileBurn, Engadget Mobile, Cellphonedigest, Gizmodo, Mobile-Review, Esato, CNet, and PhoneArena. CNet, Engadget, Esato and MobileBurn are all pretty well-known consumer electronics websites. Would you consider any of these to be adequate as a 3rd-party source? If not, what would you like for me to provide? TMSTKSBK (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:N for information on "substantial", and WP:V and WP:RS for information on "reliable". -- Mikeblas (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I read those. Now please tell me your thoughts on the matter and let's discuss. TMSTKSBK (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you tell us anything notable about it? It seems to be a phone with things that all phones usually have. Does it have anything new or different about it? Is it the first phone to have something interesting? Or is it known for being the least innovative phone of 2008? Seriously though, I'm sure there's got to be something going for it. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 07:50, 19 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, Tony Fox (arf!) 05:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JERRY talk contribs 03:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Estée Lauder pleasures[edit]

    Estée Lauder pleasures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Sources can't be found which afford this product encyclopaedic notability inline with WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS. Also goes against WP:NOT#ADVERTISING Russavia (talk) 06:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 03:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Greenwood cricket club[edit]

    Greenwood cricket club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Prod was contested about 5 weeks ago. Concerns over notability: I find a few (34) ghits, but only in personal webpages, sports listings and community guides for Perth, and so on, and nothing in Google News. The city of Wanneroo (in which league they play) has a population of 110,000, and the town of Joondalup, Western Australia (in which they are based) has a population of 7000, so not making this a major sports association. No major sporting awards or other stories to establish significance. — BillC talk 06:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as CSD A7 by Vegaswikian (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 06:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Charles S. Panek[edit]

    Charles S. Panek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Does not meet WP:BIO. No references supporting notability given or found. CSD and prod deleted by anon IP. NeilN talk ♦ contribs 06:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    page under construction, notable person —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.200.200 (talk) 06:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Kurykh 00:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Robert Abbinanti[edit]

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

    insufficient/hopelessly unclear notability - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:10, 11 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, Tony Fox (arf!) 06:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Kurykh 00:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note to admins: The content of Jill King (singer) was moved to Jill King after the deletion was made. I ask that the page on the singer not be deleted as a G4. I had this happen before with Shane Minor, and I don't want it to happen again. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jill King[edit]

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

    This article a couple of claims to notability, but I don't think that it's quite enough. Claims that her art is in the Brookfield Zoo and Encyclopedia Britannica are unsourced and appear unverifiable. Only reference is to a redlink and appears primary. A search for reliable sources turned up none.

    (Note: This AfD is not biased in any way by the fact that I have just created Jill King (singer), a page on an unrelated country music artist. However, should this page be deleted, I would appreciate if the content from Jill King (singer) were moved here, to conform with naming conventions.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Eh, never mind. I'm not sure how much I can do with this article. The reviews generally don't give me much to work with, and it seems her best-known work is just a mural in a suburban theater. Zagalejo^^^ 19:26, 11 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, Tony Fox (arf!) 06:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 16:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Cultural Vibe[edit]

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

    Non-notable remix musician. Corvus cornixtalk 05:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Secret account 02:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Pretty Ugly[edit]

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

    Non-notable rapper, has yet to releae an album. Corvus cornixtalk 05:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Has appeared on Grand Theft Auto, has done work with many notable rappers, including Hi-Tek, 50 cent, DJ Whoo Kid, Royce Da 5'9", etc, releasing album sometime in 2008. (Joelasaurus (talk) 06:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

    Are you going to argue your point at all? (Joelasaurus (talk) 06:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

    Unless you decide to argue your point I'm gonig to take away the delete thing, because the page reaches notability guidelines. (Joelasaurus (talk) 08:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dream Satellite TV[edit]

    Dream Satellite TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Article is WP:SPAM#Advertisements masquerading as articles also fails Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Request for non-primary sources are removed by anon editors Diff there does not appear to be any attempt to meet Wikipedia expectations. Jeepday (talk) 05:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Kurykh 00:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    2007-08 Lake City Timberwolves Basketball[edit]

    2007-08 Lake City Timberwolves Basketball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    High schools, in general, barely squeak by on the notability list. Their basketball teams do not. A year by year discussion of the basketball team's matchups is not notable by any criterion. There was a prod added, but the article creator removed it. Corvus cornixtalk 05:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    PLEASE CAN WE LET IT STAY?! IT TOOK ME A LOT OF TIME AND HARD WORK TO CREATE ALL THIS, AND IF I KNEW IT WAS JUST GOING TO BE DELETED, I WOULDN'T HAVE STARTED IT..SO CAN WE *PLEASE* LET IT STAY, I'M DOING IT FOR FUN, AND SO THE KIDS AT LAKE CITY HIGH SCHOOL KNOW WHAT TIME THE GAMES ARE, AND WHERE, AND ALL THAT. I'M ASKING YOU TO LOOK INTO YOUR HEART, AND PLEASE LET THIS ARTICLE STAY. THANKS. 76.178.129.228 (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Roper76.178.129.228 (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • It certainly does look like it took you a lot of work! I'm really very sorry, but Wikipedia is simply not the place for this, unfortunately. Maybe you could think of another way to get the word out about games, perhaps flyers or a noticeboard at school? I do feel guilty about voting delete for something that obviously took a lot of time and effort to create. You could save the source text for the article in your computer to preserve it for posterity, and maybe the essential bits can be merged into your school's main article. SeanMD80talk | contribs 04:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    man...but i've seen worse things on wikipedia dang. 76.178.129.228 (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Roper76.178.129.228 (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    Re-keep; non-admin closure per WP:SNOW; three more straight keep votes. Also, the person who pressured User:SeanMD80 to relist it had questionable reasoning. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 03:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Montenotte, Ireland[edit]

    Montenotte, Ireland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Unsourced, no indication of importance/significance, prod reverted. According to Talk:Montenotte, Ireland it's a large neighborhood but that's not sourced, google show hotels, houses for sale, nursing home but no notability, books.google show it listed as an address several times. -- Jeandré, 2008-01-19t05:04z

    • I would like to point out that OUTCOME is an unsourced essay, and thus has no actual say over whether an article is kept or deleted. Please cite actual guidelines and policies (which DO have say) when commenting. TJ Spyke 06:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I would like to point out that WP:OUTCOMES is as valid as any other argument. AFD is about WP:CONSENSUS. If it were just about rules we wouldn't need a discussion. --Dhartung | Talk 07:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OUTCOMES is still just an opinion piece. That means actual guidelines and policies always over ride OUTCOMES (this mainly applies to school related AFDs, where some people think they should be kept even if they fail WP:V and WP:N). TJ Spyke 00:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Places have time and time again been shown to be notable after consensus. I'm not sure tagging the outcomes essay with an unreferenced tag was appropriate either, being that it's not an encyclopedic article and therefore doesn't really require citations. matt91486 (talk) 07:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. SeanMD80talk | contribs 13:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]
    I must remind you as the one who closed this AfD early (?) that if AfDs were just substitutes for applying "policy" then we would have no reason for them. AfDs are about determining which action the community feels is right and appropriate. If the consensus is to ignore "policy," then it can do that. Policies on Wikipedia are not laws, but reflections of the community's previous general consensus. Policies change when consensus changes. Wikipedia is governed by the people that participate in it, not by the people that read it, and has no formal responsibility to those people as such. SeanMD80talk | contribs 01:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Kurykh 00:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    William Matthews (head of school)[edit]

    William Matthews (head of school) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    There are two links to New York Times articles, but this school rector simply still feel sufficiently notable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 04:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm now wondering which of the schools in Concord, New Hampshire would be regarded as major? Are we going public or private here? Concord, New Hampshire#Education. I checked a couple Concord High School (New Hampshire)#Notable alumni and faculty and St. Paul's School (Concord, New Hampshire)#Notable faculty. I'm leaning towards delete as the first ref only an incidental mention. Second ref doesn't mention the subject and third ref is a school website. Sting au Buzz Me... 07:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As creator of the article you are certainly allowed to vote here. However AfD is not actually a vote as such. We are after consensus. So please add your opinion (and reasons) to keep here in this discussion. Having squash and hockey first played there makes the school notable. Not this articles subject. Likewise Hearst and Kerry give notability to the school but it could be argued that their notability had nothing to do with the school (or the current head). Sting au Buzz Me... 10:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, noting that nobody has argued for deletion here. With respect to the target, I'll rather cleanup the redirects / dab pages related to Lar/LAR, though. Tikiwont (talk) 10:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Las[edit]

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

    Mistagged for speedy deletion as a non-notable bio. Procedural nom. Keilanatalk 04:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It's a carbon of the last paragraph of Patroclus#Life before the Trojan War. Wikipedian 04:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I moved it, as I'm guessing that the "third nomination" was a bug/mistake. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 03:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was keep as notable, but the references need cleanup. Bearian (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oxide radio[edit]

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

    Unreferenced, WP:COI issues, and while Oxford University is notable, this particular online radio doesn't seem to be. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 04:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. After digging I found our article on Intermediate Units, but there's nothing in the article to demonstrate the notability of this particular one. KrakatoaKatie 08:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Colonial Intermediate Unit[edit]

    Colonial Intermediate Unit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Tagged for speedy deletion for lack of context, however, a Google search turns up some references. Procedural nom. Keilanatalk 03:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Real estate trends[edit]

    Real estate trends (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    The content is partly speculative; the topic seems to be more appropriate to a trade publication than an encyclopedia. Beland (talk) 17:09, 13 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, The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. KrakatoaKatie 02:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Chip Tha Ripper[edit]

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

    The page doesn't show enough notability; external links are mostly of self-made pages; only one interview mentioned; discography shows mixtapes but no studio albums. Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 23:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete This was a tricky one, but he's not that well known so it currently doesn't meet notability standards. ― LADY GALAXY 22:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JERRY talk contribs 20:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Syntax Records[edit]

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

    Probably not notable per WP:MUSIC. There are no third-party sources. The external links include Myspace. I suspect COI. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:33, 13 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, The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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:MUSIC. KrakatoaKatie 08:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Skilf[edit]

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

    Prod removed by WP:SPA. Really thin on reliable sources, and no evidence of major radio, charts, awards, multiple albums, or anything else to establish notability. Shawis (talk) 05:37, 13 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, The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was No consensus (default keep). JERRY talk contribs 20:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Laura Cosoi[edit]

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

    Article about a non-notable actress with no career to speak of. No coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO. Valrith (talk) 08:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    She also appeared in a strictly come dancing romania but i didn't write it down, if she's been on playboy she's significant, plus she's breathtaking lol Gaogier (talk) 11:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC) Ps: she was actually a playmate[reply]


    keep: if she appeared in Playboy then I am sure there are people who are going to want to know something about her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Love2run (talk • contribs) 09:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many people have appeared in Playboy over the years and there aren't verifiable or reliable sources on most of them. They would, therefore, fail WP:N. Playboy appearances themselves are not inherently notable. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:10, 17 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, The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was No consensus (default keep). JERRY talk contribs 20:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Greg Benson[edit]

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

    YouTube comedian currently ranked 19th with 18,000 subscribers. Several weak claims to fifteen minutes of fame, I'm not sure that there's enough here to establish notability. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 12:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Just removed the section about the show. Article now lacks sources, and thus fails WP:BLP as well. Please note that the addtions of references (in reliable sources) would fix this problem. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Bear in mind that there are strict limitations on people editing their own pages; in a nutshell, it doesn't count that he can supply info from his own memory, but rather, only if it comes from a verifiable and reliable source that other people could check for themselves. So for example, if he has a newspaper clipping that isn't available online or through electronic databases, that's an example of info that can be checked that the person himself can point us to.Lawikitejana (talk) 02:14, 17 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, The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    While it's nice to know the subject's views on the matter, they're actually not relevant to the process of deciding whether he qualifies as notable, nor whether the article sufficiently demonstrates that point (though I appreciate your diligence and his flexibility). Lawikitejana (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - This process is not a vote! It is a consensus. We do not count up the Keeps and Deletes and the one with the most is declared a winner! Shoessss |  Chat  10:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I know that, you can't comment Keep twice in a AFD. Secret account 18:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment – I do not believe there is a limit on the number of times an editor is allowed to comment. Just consider my second Keep vote a stutter of the fingers :-) Shoessss |  Chat  20:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep. Various reliable sources are now cited, including a second honor for film work. Also, the Tribeca item (now properly sourced) represents being selected as a finalist in a prestigious competition involving weeks of being featured on Amazon.com's main page. I'd argue at this point that notability is made.Lawikitejana (talk) 08:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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:BIO. KrakatoaKatie 08:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Rita Stone[edit]

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

    Seems to be a hoax. I can't find any reference to this British actress with "literally hundreds of films" in IMDb, nor several random film credits I checked. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was snowball delete - very clear consensus has formed to delete this, and as such, there's no need to extend this process longer. Also, this is very similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008-09 Vancouver Canucks season, and the reason for deletion here is is identical, that it utterly fails WP:CRYSTAL. --Maxim(talk) 14:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    2008-09 Montreal Canadiens season[edit]

    2008-09 Montreal Canadiens season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The current season is not over yet. There really is nothing that can be written about any of these team's 2008-09 season until after this one is complete, as this empty template shows. Recreate after this year is done and activities related to the 2008-09 season begin. Pparazorback (talk) 02:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I am also nominating the following related pages for the exact same reason as the above:

    2008-09 Ottawa Senators season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    2008-09 Phoenix Coyotes season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    2008-09 San Jose Sharks season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    2008-09 Toronto Maple Leafs season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    2008-09 Los Angeles Kings season‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KrakatoaKatie 08:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Evolve Festival[edit]

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

    Prodecural nom; seems to be a non-notable music festival. Keilanatalk 02:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. No sources to verify the chart positions were provided after 15 days of discussion. Fails WP:MUSIC. KrakatoaKatie 08:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tempo Tantrum[edit]

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

    Article fails to assert notability. No 3rd party independent sources. Fails WP:BAND. ScarianCall me Pat 16:28, 4 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, Keilanatalk 17:06, 13 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, The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Merge to List of Oz episodes. I'll do the redirects only though, since it is not clear to me how the target should look like. Including the mentioned references there, would be a good idea as well.Tikiwont (talk) 10:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    To Your Health[edit]

    To Your Health (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Also nominating the related articles: The Routine; ‎ Visits, Conjugal and Otherwise; ‎God's Chillin'; Capital P‎; Straight Life
    ‎ Delete all - all articles fail WP:NOT#PLOT as being nothing but plot summaries of the episodes devoid of any real-world context or content. Attempt to redirect to List of Oz episodes was rejected by article's creator, who I assume would also object to a prod, so here they are. Otto4711 (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • The existence of Seinfeld articles has no bearing on whether these articles should exist. See WP:WAX. It may be that the Seinfeld episode articles shouldn't exist either. Otto4711 (talk) 20:26, 13 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, The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 03:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Marching Trojans[edit]

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

    Should be merged with North Hall High School, and in fact, the encyclopedic portion of the content is already present there. However, this article should also be deleted because the article name is too general and thus prone to collisions. DachannienTalkContrib 18:45, 13 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, The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete both. KrakatoaKatie 07:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Imagine Your Life[edit]

    Imagine Your Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Also included in this AfD:

    Imagine Your Life is a non-notable unreleased album which says it was to be the follow up to a second non-notable unreleased album, Wrap Your Lips Around This. Article admits albums were never released and makes no claim to notability. A couple of the songs on Wrap Your Lips Around This had videos made of them but that makes the songs notable, not the unreleased album. Fails WP:MUSIC. Redfarmer (talk) 19:26, 13 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, The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 16:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bollywood Breaks Vol. 1[edit]

    Bollywood Breaks Vol. 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Non notable compilation album. RJC Talk 20:33, 13 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, The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bernie Dresel[edit]

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

    I'm not quite sure about this one. It was marked for CSD as a NN bio, but seeing as he's apparently performed with Andy Summers and people like that, he may have a claim to notability. The lack of citations concerns me though. (Procedural nom) Keilanatalk 21:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If the external links are supposed to be references, they should be so labeled. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:53, 15 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, The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 03:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Georgina Bencsik[edit]

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

    lacks notability —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayumashu (talk • contribs) 22:34, 13 January 2008

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Withdrawn with consensus to keep, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Good Time (album)[edit]

    Good Time (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Crystal balling here; still a little too early to warrant a page on this album in my opinion. The one-paragraph Billboard citation doesn't warrant substantial coverage in my opinion. The same is true of the only other reliable source I could find about this album -- this two-paragraph bit from GAC. Suggesting deletion, but with no prejudice against re-creation once more info is known about the album. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC) Withdrawing per addition of verifiable information by User:Eric444. However, as others have !voted delete, I can't close this one up yet. Closed per change of "delete" !votes to "keep". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Neutral, leaning towards keep. References look fine now. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 13:52, 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, The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    *Delete, crystall ball work here. Recreate when there is more substantial material so that we can verify claims made in the article. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 13:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSD G11. Keilanatalk 02:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    LaCollinaTuscany[edit]

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

    Article is unsourced, lacks context, and written like a travel brochure VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 01:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was No consensus (default keep).JERRY talk contribs 20:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Edward Manukyan[edit]

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

    Biography of young classical composer: Independent sources are scarce as are other indications of notability Tikiwont (talk) 09:48, 10 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 01:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 although leaning more towards keep --JForget 03:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    North Asia[edit]

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

    The phrase "North Asia" is not commonly used, and does not have a commonly accepted definition. (Web search shows a few uses with various conflicting ad hoc definitions.) The other regions (E,SE,S,Central,West Asia) have UN geoscheme definitions but this does not. JWB (talk) 04:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    North Asia before meant Soviet Asia, with the breakup of the USSR, the former Soviet republics in Asia except Russia and the three Caucasus republics became "Central Asia" while the Caucasus either became European or SW Asian depending on which authority and category you consult, then Russia east of the Urals became North Asia. So the most logical thing to do is to redirect this to Siberia. --Howard the Duck 05:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Where are you getting that definition of North Asia?

    Search on "north asia" shows the term has wildly different definitions, many of which do not contain Siberia at all.

    United Nations geoscheme does not include a North Asia.

    The most accurate thing to say about "North Asia" would be that it does not have a generally accepted definition, and is only used when it is arbitrarily defined for convenience, from various incompatible viewpoints. --JWB (talk) 04:06, 11 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 01:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    West Asia is little used (although it gets a bit more use in places like India and Australia) but at least it is a little better defined. North Asia seems to vary between Siberia and various ad hoc combinations of East Asian countries. I only wonder whether we should have a page (or a subsection of Asia) that actually explains this. --JWB (talk) 04:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't there a policy that search results are not citable as references? People have deleted my references before, claiming this. --JWB (talk) 07:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merge as necessary. Pastordavid (talk) 17:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Psycho Dad[edit]

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

    Delete - prod removed by anon, which, whatever. Fails WP:N as there are no reliable sources that demonstrate that this fictional TV show has any real-world notability. Otto4711 (talk) 01:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • In looking through the results of a Google search on this term [27] I was surprised by how many of the 91k hits for it were relevant, and by how many were fan pages for it (this [28] is from the 32nd page of the search), by how many references there were to it among fictional TV shows and dads (e.g. [www.tvsquad.com/2007/09/13/top-ten-tv-psychos/] from the 33rd page of the search), and by how many blogs, bands [29], etc. use it as a reference. Not the most compelling case ever, I'll grant, but I was surprised by its prevalence. Many of these hits have the lyrics so unlike [30], [31] it's easy to tell it isn't a coincidental use of the term. JJL (talk) 14:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    •Keep - The Psycho Dad fictional TV show has real-world notability like youtube which is a reliable source that reflects popular culture- Psycho Dad YouTube Search- Psycho Dad Compilation and Psycho Mom,people on MySpace also use it as their profile name- MySpace PsychoDad- Another MySpace PsychoDad, and there is also a fan-made lyrics page - Psycho Dad Fan's Lyrics therefore I recommend it should be kept.Seralph — Seralph (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 03:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The McQueen Sisters[edit]

    Redirect Nonsense. Totally unnecesscary beside from the BB thing. Easily redirected to one of the character's articles.--Hiltonhampton (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 00:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 03:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Kappa Alpha Kappa[edit]

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

    Fails N. Only one chapter located at one college. Also, the article looks like an advertisement. miranda 09:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    weak delete Being located at only on school is certainly not grounds in of itself for being deleted. Many one school organizations are very powerful with long and storied histories. The machine at Alabama the secret societies of the Ivy league are just a few better known. However in this case the article is poorly written reads like an advert and when i did a search to see if i could expand it i came up with nothing. Still i want to stress that i believe that using a one school notability criteria is treading on dangerous ground and could run the risk of bias or just plain old losing good articles on good organizations.Trey (talk) 19:06, 10 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, KrakatoaKatie 00:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Secret account 19:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Native American Indian Dog[edit]

    Native American Indian Dog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Article has been deleted in the past by Proposed Deletion. Article subject is a new proprietary dog breed; there are no third party references listed, and after an internet search no reputable sources of information were found. Article contains a number of commercial external links Pesco (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC) To clarify, I think the real issues are that it's hard to find reliable sources on the article subject and, since there doesn't seem to be any independant commentary on the breed, it hasn't demonstrated its notability. --Pesco (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes I'm starting to agree with you. I still haven't heard back from the dog breeder? It also states on the article that they were going to continue working on it but nothings been done and that tells me they are just using it as an advertisement. Sting au Buzz Me... 10:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    EDIT 3: I was unaware that there were any puppy-mill associations with NKC. Is there some more authoritative (no offense meant) source available on exactly what's wrong with them? I'll do some Googling, but, honestly, that post didn't contain enough information for me to determine if it was a good warning or just sour grapes from an AKC supporter. Incidentally, the charges about them being bred for appearance alone are untrue -- Night Eyes, at least, is very insistent upon breeding for temperament. My experience with this breed and its breeders is the diametric opposite of what the hoax pages would lead you to expect, which is precisely why I wanted to make a relatively neutral page for the breed. They do exist, they will continue to exist, and while I can't speak for Majestic View, Night Eyes is an ethical kennel which takes extremely good care of its dogs and is very choosy about who is allowed to buy one. She's about as far from a puppy mill as it's possible to get. So I'm a bit skeptical about this NKC = Puppy Mill business, no offense meant. Nanimwe (talk) 05:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    That Dogbreedinfo.com was an interesting site actually.[32] Add any reference sources you can fine. Any articles about them been published in papers. I'll say more on your talk page. Don't reply here please. Keep comments on AfD page short. Sting au Buzz Me... 12:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Thanks for your input. I'm not sure if allowing an article topic that only has unverifiable and possibly biased sources to exist merely because it might be created again based on the same sources is the best reason to keep an article, but I do understand the thought. In your opinion, is there a dog breed article that would serve as a good model for this case? --Pesco (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result wasDelete and create redirect to List of Mortal Kombat Conquest episodes. JERRY talk contribs 05:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Cold Reality[edit]

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

    This article violates WP:PLOT, even a television show needs to have more information than simply a plot summary. -- Atamachat 00:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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:MUSIC. KrakatoaKatie 07:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Lukki[edit]

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

    Appears to have no qualification under Wikipedia:Notability (music). Perhaps asserts enough notability to not qualify for a speedy delete. CitiCat ♫ 00:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Keep per WP:HEY. Article has been cleaned up greatly following nomination and consensus has shifted to keep (non-admin closure). SeanMD80talk | contribs 18:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Roseland Public School[edit]

    Roseland Public School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This article is a not notable school. It has been put with a ((prod)) tag, which was then removed by the original editor. It claims to have 600 students (not exactly exceptional), with some events that is not unique. Doing a google search, I see nothing asserting importance. Soxred93 | talk count bot 00:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Delete. Editors are free to create a redirect if it is deemed useful. Pastordavid (talk) 17:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Carol Paul[edit]

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

    Completing unfinished nom by User:Burzmali. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC) No notability on her own, medical information isn't appropriate and might need oversighting, fails WP:BLP1E. Burzmali (talk) 00:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was keep. Consensus is slight with only two opinions. It would improve the article if some of the info Lquilter found could be incorporated. I'll try to add one or two sources. Pigman☿ 05:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ASPIRA[edit]

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

    While no doubt a very noble organization, the article claims notability (sortof) but doesn't establish it with any sources. If adequate sourcing that proves notability can be provided I will withdraw nomination. Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 20:27, 11 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 02:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was redirect to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Freedom's Five[edit]

    Freedom's Five (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable comic book group. They appeared in a flashback in an issue of Invaders in 1976. Outside of this flashback the group has not made any appearances. Stephen Day (talk) 05:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    NOTE: Redirecting to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations seems like a sensible compromise to me. I'd like to withdraw my nomination and close the debate. Stephen Day (talk) 03:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was speedy keep. Canley (talk) 00:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes[edit]

    Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Note how the word no is a dab page, as it should be. RightGot (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was speedy keep all. Canley (talk) 01:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    God (word)[edit]

    Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is dictionary material. I'm nominating the following entries for deletion for the same reason:

    RightGot (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    ‎

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

    The result was speedy keep. Canley (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I (pronoun)[edit]

    Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I'm also nominating the following similar entries:

    An etymological history belongs in a dictionary. RightGot (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    RightGot (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hehe, Max Naylor. Max Naylor (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    ‎

    More