< January 24 January 26 >
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 Nakon 17:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SAP Business Suite[edit]

SAP Business Suite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Reasons for my deletion request: 1) duplicate to existing article MySAP Business Suite, which could be moved to this name 2) lack of useful content, mostly advertising language Mopskatze (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More reasons: copyright violation of [1], see creator's talk page --Mopskatze (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - copyvio, spam; should have been speedily deleted as an advertisement. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:10, 30 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 WP:BLP concern can be addressed by editing the article. Article on notable subject can not be deleted unless by office action. JERRY talk contribs 06:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Lloyd (porn star)[edit]

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

Having consulted with Thomas Lloyd about this article over the last couple months, I am requesting on his behalf that it be deleted. He tells me that half of what is written on the page is true and half is not. In particular there is an insulting slur included that apparently is hearsay spread by someone who wishes to do Thomas' reputation harm. This can be considered 'unreferenced negative content in biographies of living persons'. Thomas was unaware of the entry before I brought it to his attention. I've known him over the net for several years as a friend. I offered to write him a proper biography here with actual facts, verified and approved by him. He thought about it for a few weeks. We discussed it today. He saw no point in repairing the misinformation. So I offered to have the entire entry taken down. He enthusiastically approved my proposal. Essentially, he has no interest in public attention these days. He still has his old website up from 2000, which contains as much information as he currently wishes to share. His entry at IMDB.com also remains and I am attempting to provide it with some level of completeness. Please contact me directly about the situation if you like. As for Thomas getting involved, I am can ask him to provide verification of his wishes. Otherwise he is not interested in discussing the matter. :-Derek Derekcurrie (talk) 00:15, 26 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, defaults to Keep. Nakon 17:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vista Transformation Pack[edit]

Vista Transformation Pack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, per WP:N. Visor (talk) 23:54, 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 Nakon 17:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vista Customization Pack[edit]

Vista Customization Pack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, per WP:N. Visor (talk) 23:52, 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 Nakon 17:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bookovsky[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. Myspace is not good enough to assert notability. No other links are given. Searches bring nothing but the myspace page. No major record label either. Delete Undeath (talk) 23:31, 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Schtick (game)[edit]

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

I came across this article while editing shtick, and saw that it was lacking in references. I decided to see if I could find some, since it seemed interesting. After a while on Google, I can find no references to this game's existence beyond this article (and mirrors of it) and the "official website" that is linked. And after a while spent investigating the claims of the official website, I find its authenticity to be dubious. For example, it claims that, "In Sydney, Australia, they have held World Pan-Pacific Schtick Championships multiple times since December 2001," but Google returns no hits on "World Pan-Pacific Schtick Championships" at all. Likewise, there are claims that it was "featured" at a Washington State University Ultimate tournament, but the website for that tournament makes no mention of it. After reading the History of Shtick page and seeing the prominent position of photos of a specific group of friends, I have concluded that this is at best non-notable, and at worst, something someone made up one day. Ig8887 (talk) 23:20, 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen Alcalá[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BIO. No link. Nothing to give notability. Searches yield nothing. Delete Undeath (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. If she's a "regional writer" then how come the reviews I referenced come from major newspapers published in three widely separated cities. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:29, 30 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) 08:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew David King[edit]

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

This article is about a precocious high school sophomore who edits a non-notable web site that publishes fiction/poetry by unknown writers. He has apparently been published in the apparently non-notable "Other Voices International Project" which has a web site. There is no evidence of other publications. The subject is thus not-notable per our guidelines at WP:BIO, specifically those in the section on "creative professionals." Apparently a smart, creative, and ambitious high school kid but not someone who warrants a Wikipedia article at this time. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Bigtimepeace,

Thank you for your comments. I understand the reason why you are nominating the article regarding me for deletion. But please, before you delete this article, allow me to explain myself and answer some of your concerns.

The citations provided on my page are of third-party publications, save for my Blogspot account, the Wings of Icarus webpage, and my nonfiction page. Everything else involves writing that was published by a third party. I have had my poetry published in many different venues, by many different people and different crowds. If you would like a complete list of these citations, please visit my Blogspot page at http://andrewdavidking.blogspot.com, where they are individually listed and cited, as well are critical reviews I have received from other authors.

Apparently, a while back, the page was edited to show all of my publication history—maybe you didn’t see that. Around 15-20 magazines were listed.

Also, the user Dissolve posed the issue that I had “no credible third-party publications”. Should links to all of my published works be posted in order to verify this? That is possible, if it is a necessity. However, I find this a huge irony given that Dissolve has absolutely no citations whatsoever for his own abilities and claims that he makes on his page.

In continuation of my argument, here is a list of pages on which no (or very little) citations are provided. These are only a few authors I happened to click on in the “B” section of “Category:American writers”:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Batson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davey_Beauchamp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Beinhocker
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leila_Bela
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hy_Bender
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Lundwall
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.172.169 (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these pages have no citations; some only have two or three. As I review my page’s History, I can see that at one point, it had eighteen references. Still, if you feel that my page is rightly being deleted, then I, of course, can reasonably expect the same thing to happen to the above listed pages. You can’t apply different standards of judgment to selective pieces—if this is possible, then by definition, no standards exist in Wikipedia.

Also, I disagree with you that the Other Voices International Poetry Project is non-notable. Participants in the project have been Luis J. Rodriguez, Ursula K. Le Guin, Jimmy Santiago Baca, Lisa Zaran, and Sheema Kalbasi. All of these people exist on Wikipedia. So, are they not-notable as well?

Thank you for your time, thanks for hearing me out on this. I'm leaving it up to you, now.

Andrew KingAndrew King (talk) 00:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RMX2245, you will probably find that calling other editors "blatant hypocrites" does not get you very far in an AfD debate (or in any other argument on Wikipedia). The fact that there are other articles which may warrant deletion but have not been listed for AfD does not mean that this article should be kept, just as the argument "other people were speeding too" will seldom convince a traffic cop not to give you a ticket if you were doing 64 in a 45.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. If anyone believes that a certain article is lacking in references and is non-notable, then they may nominate it for deletion. If the articles you (Andrew King) listed are lacking in references or importance, then they, too, should be deleted (or at least nominated for such). However, it is up to someone to put them forth for deletion, because this is an impossibly big encyclopedia, and everyone can't be expected to check every article every day for notability. It is the responsibility of users to call attention to articles that deserve review, and just because no one has done so for a specific article does NOT mean that the article is justified in existing. It just means no one noticed it yet. So in summary, the fact that your article was put up for deletion before those other ones is not a sign of some secret conspiracy, it's a sign of inefficiency in finding unacceptable articles. But there's a good chance that now that they've been brought to the attention of editors on this deletion debate that some or all of them will end up facing their own deletion nomination. In fact, if they truly offend you, you can put the up for deletion yourself. But either way, their existence will not weigh in anyone's decision regarding your article. --Ig8887 (talk) 15:30, 26 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 Nakon 17:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Codex of Ultimate Wisdom[edit]

This was proposed for deletion last week by Judgesurreal, and although the proposal was contested I have to agree that this is largely an in-universe plot repetition with no evidence of real-world notability or reliable third party sourcing. So here we are. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except that we already have an article on the virtues of Ultima, which is what your reference is really about. Is there any notability to the Codex that isn't actually notability of the virtues of Ultima? Not that I can see. This is simply an in-game object that you get when you've mastered the virtues. --Ig8887 (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As above, we have an article on virtues of Ultima. Therefore, this article needs to demonstrate notability separate from the virtues themselves and their philosophical impact on video gaming. The Codex is just an object in a video game unless a third-party source says otherwise. At best, merge the best part of this information into the virtues of Ultima article if you must. --Ig8887 (talk) 15:15, 26 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 1994 Fairchild Air Force Base B-52 crash Nakon 17:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bud Holland[edit]

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

This individual is notable only for a single incident. Almost all of the information in this article is also in the article for that single event, which is 1994 Fairchild Air Force Base B-52 crash. Also, since he died in that crash, there is little chance that he'll do be doing anything else that might make him notable. Cla68 (talk) 22:51, 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. Nakon 17:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emergy[edit]

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

When first I read this article I was left wondering it it might not be some elaborate Sokal-stye hoax experiment visised upon us. Besdides in the works of Fr. Odum and the charmingly named Scienceman, this nebulous concept of "emergy" does not appear to have achieved mainstream current, neither in popular media or in scientific puplications. (with the exception of a single EPA funded study "Environmental Accounting using Emergy: Evaluations of the state of West Virginia"} The blizzard of rererences given often have little or nothing to do with the ostensible topic of this article. It's not exactly a WP:HOAX, but ultimately it's a non-notable fringe theory.<eleland/talkedits> 22:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


1.Re: mainstream current. It is not the case that a concept needs to achieve "mainstream current" in popular media before being considered appropriate for Wikipedia. Hence there is no valid argument.

2.Re: emergy is not in current scientific publications. A search of science direct had 161 Articles Found which mention emergy in title, keywords, abstract. 9 to be published in 2008. It is current. Hence there is no valid argument.

3.Re: references. It is not the case that that a longer list of references qualifies an article for deletion. Hence there is no valid argument.

4.Re: notability. Criteria for the evaluation of notability are not specified. Hence no argument is possible. Sholto Maud (talk) 11:31, 26 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) 08:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People Talk[edit]

People Talk (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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haven (Stephen King)[edit]

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

This can be a notable fiction but not the village. Delete as per WP:NOTE. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 22:31, 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lethal Weapon 5: The Return of Sing Ku[edit]

Lethal Weapon 5: The Return of Sing Ku (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This was up for speedy, template was deleted by another user (who probably didn't realize he wasn't supposed to delete it without consideration). It's either: a) obvious hoax; or b) crystalballing, because there's no such movie. In fact, after searching Google, the only articles I'm coming up with about "Lethal Weapon 5" are random people speculating about it and the actors repeatedly saying "NO". Gromlakh (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Struck out "Speedy" per JuJube. I'll remember that for the future. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:11, 28 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) 08:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Shakespeare day"[edit]

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

Delete as non-notable event, possibly neologism per WP:NEO and possibly WP:MADEUP Mayalld (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


This is not something I made up (see various newspaper references: and there are more) and has been an issue discussed in the media and senior UK politicians, esp in late 2006. It is not a neologism.

I have nothing to do with theatre, literature or Shakespeare.

This page was "condemned" before the first sentence was even completed (i.e. before I could outline the discussion in national media and by senior politicians of this issue). It is not worth my time trying to do this now that the gauntlet has been thrown down.

The speed of its condemnation suggests to me that the issue here is narrow mindedness of the wiki-executors.

If you were to try adding it to the shakespeare page they tell you there is not enough room!

Comment none of the sources refer to an existing celebration where Elizabethan food is eaten. They refer to a proposed new public holiday. Mayalld (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are commenting upon something which you condemned before the very first sentence was even completed! You should give people a bit of time to do something before you condemn them for not do anything. Your objectivity as a deletor of wiki articles could be questioned by the speed of your deletion. If you do not like the contents (or do not think them relevant to the newspaper articles) then howabout suggesting ways to make it relevant, rather than just wiping it out?

There is obviously no point doing this now I have got your back up!

I expect that the issue of a shakespeare day will come back to the national media headlines (as it did in 2006) and possibly then to wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eminence2008 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 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 Nakon 17:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elbryan Wyndon[edit]

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

This article consists almost entirely of plot summary without real-world context or analysis, which breaks WP:NOT#PLOT, and has no secondary sources to indicate notability per WP:FICT. Google returns few hits that appear to be only non-reliable fansites and the like which indicates this topic has never recieved substantial coverage from acceptable secondary sources. As such, it is unlikely any amount of rewriting or improvement can bring the article up to policy by providing real-world significance or establishing notability. Once unencyclopedic, in-universe material is removed (per WP:FICT#Non-notable_topics), there would no content to merge into another article. Doctorfluffy (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've nominated another character from the series as well. The discussion can be found here. Doctorfluffy (talk) 22:18, 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 Nakon 17:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avelyn Desbris[edit]

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

This article consists almost entirely of plot summary without real-world context or analysis, which breaks WP:NOT#PLOT, and has no secondary sources to indicate notability per WP:FICT. Google returns few hits that appear to be only non-reliable fansites and the like which indicates this topic has never recieved substantial coverage from acceptable secondary sources. As such, it is unlikely any amount of rewriting or improvement can bring the article up to policy by providing real-world significance or establishing notability. Once unencyclopedic, in-universe material is removed (per WP:FICT#Non-notable_topics), there would no content to merge into another article. Doctorfluffy (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've nominated another character from the series as well. The discussion can be found here. Doctorfluffy (talk) 22:17, 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 Nakon 17:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snuttis.com[edit]

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

Self-promotional only, no notability, related to Andreas Swahn. Mats Halldin (talk) 22:05, 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 Nakon 17:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Festivalinfo.net[edit]

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

Self-promotional only, no notability, related to Andreas Swahn. Mats Halldin (talk) 22:01, 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Schmitty Robinson[edit]

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

Non-notable, probable partial hoax article about a "wrestler" who is a member of a trampoline wrestling league. Guest9999 (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A quick sampling of the links from the Media section of said website ([3], [4], [5], [6]) gives only youtube videos. Guest9999 (talk) 22:44, 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 Nakon 17:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Studentis Group[edit]

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

Self-promotional, non-notable, relatated to Andreas Swahn. Mats Halldin (talk) 21:54, 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. Nakon 17:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blogcatalog[edit]

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

Delete NN blogging site with no reliable sources Mayalld (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It is a discussion, not a vote, and "votes" that maintain a position that is at odds with policy don't count for very much Mayalld (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is definitely strange. I am getting all kinds of weird stuff when I look at the page. But I did finally see the same numbers as you. I am not sure if I think that a rank of 1,421 and barely within 500 in U.S.A. confers notability, so I will revert to an abstention. Matchups (talk) 03:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However – blog catalog has seen a meteoric rise in the following months as demonstrated by Alexa and is the 478 most visited site in the US, 475 most visited site in Canada. As for media references - clearly there is an interpretation of guidelines as it can be argued that the reference to Mashable meets notability guidelines. 1. The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster;[7] except for:  Trivial distribution such as hosting content on entertainment-like sites (GeoCities, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.) In these considerations we might consider looking at ‘cumulative’ evidence. There is not any dominate mainstream media coverage – the fact that it is mentioned on well over a thousand WebPages is significant evidence of notability. Blogcatalog is also referenced in a few books http://books.google.com/books?q=blogcatalog&btnG=Search+Books%20I But my contention is not to rereference this – the debate should be about the topic and not the article as Wikipedia is about collaboration. The Final argument for notability is that it is of International scope with only 25% of its members being from the U.S. – Alexa does a fine analysis – And notability guidelines for organizations presumes national and international organizations are notable. A US fortune 500 company would probably be notable for being just that. You are about to remove a website that has become the 478th most visited site in the US. This is clearly not a perfect argument and I doubt it changes any predispositions. The subject was attempted before me and the evidence of notability and growing notability is clear whether it is construed and accepted within Wikipedia guidelines – though by opinion it does meet guidelines. I doubt the article is accepted but hope this attempt does not bias it as another person will probably attempt it.--Kdgoodman (talk) 04:12, 29 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) 08:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Swahn[edit]

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

Self-promotional only, no notability, only contributor is the subject of the article. Mats Halldin (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note the related articles Snuttis.com, Festivalinfo.net, and Studentis Group; as well as the related redirects Snuttis, Festivalinfo, and Studentis.
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally: Swahn (logged in or not [11] [12] [13]) removed his own name from these articles to hide himself as associated with the brands he own.
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 20:37, 26 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 Nakon 17:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Bauer[edit]

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

Article concerns nutritionist and author of upcoming book. This appears to be a promotional blurb written by a publicist. Her only claim to notability lies in giving several media interviews as a spokesperson for Nu-train (a company that itself teeters on the verge of obscurity). ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:48, 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 Nakon 17:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World Natural Health Organization[edit]

World Natural Health Organization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No indication of satisfying WP:ORG. Google returns unreliable sites, directory listings, and other trivial mentions. Appears to be more of a website for one man to express political opinions than an actual organization with members. Doctorfluffy (talk) 21:44, 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. Punkmorten (talk) 22:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frits Thaulow[edit]

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

Article fails to establish notability. Article fails to cite sources. Based on the information contained within, all we know is that the individual existed and painted within the defined era. This is insufficient to establish notability without sources or actual content. Kershner (talk) 21:41, 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow hunter enter the ninja[edit]

Shadow hunter enter the ninja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable movie made as a school project. Delete. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 21:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating Shadow Hunter: Enter The Ninja (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 delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

89X, Saucier New Rock Alternative[edit]

89X, Saucier New Rock Alternative (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Apparently non-notable radio station. The article says the station transmits at just 0.3 watts, and a previous version of the page said the coverage range was only half a mile. No third-party references are given to establish notability. —Bkell (talk) 21:32, 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Power 89.5, Saucier Hit Music Channel[edit]

Power 89.5, Saucier Hit Music Channel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Apparently non-notable radio station. The article says the station transmits at just 0.3 watts, and a previous version of the page said the coverage range was only half a mile. No third-party references are given to establish notability. —Bkell (talk) 21:26, 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 Nakon 17:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HouseFront[edit]

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

Promotional article on non-notable real estate search engine. This is a new entry into a field that includes dozens of similar services and there is nothing in the article to indicate significant membership or recognition. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:26, 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 Nakon 17:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Fawcett[edit]

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

Insufficient evidence of notability. Lost Congressional race by substantial margin. Article has been tagged since late August in hopes of more content, but nothing substantive has been added. Googling seems mostly to turn up pre-election expressions of hope. SlamDiego←T 19:48, 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 Nakon 17:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hakka-Pac[edit]

Hakka-Pac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails three things. Fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:BIO, and most importantly, WP:MUSIC. Delete Undeath (talk) 19:44, 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom arcade[edit]

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

Gaming website "set to be released in June 2008 to the public". Given that the external links don't work, CRYSTAL applies and possibly it is an hoax. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:40, 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 Nakon 17:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Chips[edit]

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

Fails both WP:NOTABILITY and WP:CORP. Delete Undeath (talk) 19:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. That's exactly what those Google News hits confirm. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:21, 26 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, defaults to Keep Nakon 17:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cordelia's Dad[edit]

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

Non-notable band. There is a thank you note from the band to the editor who created the article. That creates the appearance that this is a form of advertising. Jehochman Talk 19:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, not embarassed. Avruchtalk 20:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps somebody would volunteer to add them to the article? Right now it looks like any old Myspace band. Jehochman Talk 21:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Myspace bands don't get their albums produced by Steve Albini, nor do they get their albums released for the German market by one of the two major German alt-country labels, Normal Records. They also don't have their frontmen being asked to work as musical consultants to the soundtrack of Cold Mountain, get their albums reviewed in international music magazines or have a 900 word biography in Allmusic. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's all wonderful. Add references to the article and then it will not be deleted. This is easy to resolve. Do you use Firefox? Jehochman Talk 22:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is referenced to the tune of 4,000 words, in case you didn't look. Do you have anything to add in your defense that this is not a WP:POINT nomination, or can we close this as purely frivolous? ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 22:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stop assuming bad faith, and I have nothing to defend whatsoever. Everyone will have a chance to express their opinion. Jehochman Talk 23:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have to assume it. It#S right there in your nomination. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 00:27, 26 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 Nakon 17:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inez Cain[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:NOTABILITY. The parents are more notable than the actual person. Delete Undeath (talk) 19:24, 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brownfield architecture[edit]

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

Delete unsourced one-liner, no indication why this is notable or just a neologism or protologism. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:36, 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. (non-admin). brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feloni[edit]

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

Clearly unnotabe. At first I redirected the page to Coming Out Stories. Then I realized that it would be more appropiate to redirect the page to Felony, which is it's misspelling. The creator obviously disagrees. So I brought it here. Should it be deleted, kept, redirected to Coming Out Stories, or redirecred to Felony? brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:31, 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beauty Killer[edit]

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

Contested prod. Violates WP:CRYSTAL and WP:MUSIC. Proposed album is self-published (no major label), and its releae is far from certain. No independent sources. If the album does come out and meets WP:MUSIC guidelines, we can reconsider this then, but right now it's just a Mypace "celebrity" with one self-published EP. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:27, 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 Merge with CPS (arcade hardware) Nakon 17:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capcom CPS Changer[edit]

Capcom CPS Changer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It's just the home version of the Capcom Play System, not notable enough to deserve its own article. Can be merged into the CPS (arcade hardware) article. Master Bigode (talk) 17:58, 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 Nakon 18:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Givens[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer with unremarkable record - does not meet criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia per Wikipedia:Notability (people). Also, extremely dubious and unsourced statements contravening WP:BIO has been removed. Eqdoktor (talk) 17:55, 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 No Consensus, defaults to Keep Nakon 18:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Card Football[edit]

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

An IP user added WP:PROD tag five days ago and the article has got very little notable content. Delete TheProf07 (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I've added some more about the game--which incorporates elements of poker--and the names of the developers and some cites.Wageless (talk) 18:20, 30 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 but leaning slightly towards keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deepankar De[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:NOTABILITY. No sources. Searches yield nothing. Delete Undeath (talk) 16:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. WP:BIO says that actors "with significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions" are notable. The New York Times and San Francisco Chronicle sources which I put in the article confirms that that applies here. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is not inherited. It's a stretch to argue the man himself is notable merely by confirming that movies he's been in have reviews in newspapers. Sourcing is the basis for the establishment of notability and the films themselves appear to be barely notable based on available sources and the actor even less so. In fact, the sources you added shouldn't even be on this article. They say nothing about the man himself and are more appropriate for the articles on the movies. Ultimately, notability is a matter degree (which WP:BIO acknowledges) and in this case it hasn't been established satisfactorily. Doctorfluffy (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The quotation I gave above comes directly from WP:BIO, so simply asserting that notability is not inherited doesn't refute the fact that actors with significant roles in notable films are themselves considered notable. The sources I gave confirm that the subject had significant roles in these films. As for the films themselves being barely notable, did you take the time to follow the wikilinks in the article? If so you will have seen that Agantuk won the best film award at the National Film Awards in 1992, which is pretty much like getting an Oscar for best film, except that it is awarded in a country with a larger film industry than the country which hosts the Oscars. Also you will have noted that the director of these films, Satyajit Ray won an Academy Honorary Award (lifetime achievement award) at the Oscars in 1992, which hardly makes his films "barely notable". Phil Bridger (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am quite familiar with WP:BIO and was aware that you directly quoted it in your first comment. I don't think you really understood my point. That is, notability policy is flexible. Merely meeting one set of criteria does not automatically ensure that a subject is worthy of inclusion. One must exercise discretion and review each case separately. Virtually all policies and guidelines acknowledge this. In fact, WP:BIO states "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." I believe this is one of the latter circumstances. This actor has no mention in any reliable secondary sources. As far as I can tell he has been in only the two movies listed in the article which indicates his career was rather limited. Perhaps he was in a notable film or two, but ultimately no one seems to have taken any notice of him whatsoever. All of your comments above are about films he was in and, two degrees separated from the subject of this AFD, the awards those films won and the others involved in their production. It appears that the roles themselves are what's notable here and the fact he was the person who played the roles is incidental. I understand your argument and that you are likely to point out again that you quoted WP:BIO directly, but ultimately I feel this man is non-notable. Doctorfluffy (talk) 00:10, 28 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.   jj137 (talk) 22:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Con Tinta[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTABILITY. No reliable information. No other sources other than their own site. Non notable. Delete Undeath (talk) 16:24, 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 redirect to National Maximum Speed Law. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

55 mph[edit]

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

There is nothing particularly notable about a speed limit of 55 miles per hour that isn't already exhaustively covered in Speed limits in the United States or National Maximum Speed Law. There is also nothing really unique about this speed in a scientific or transportation engineering sense; it's just one of an infinite number of speeds you could pull out of a hat, each of which has its own unique but hardly notable set of costs and benefits.

What next, do we need 65 mph because lots of (most?) rural US Interstates had 65 mph speed limits between 1986 and 1995?

By allowing this page to exist, we would create notability where it does not exist or validate what is most likely an arbitrarily-picked number. Nova SS (talk) 16:02, 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. This is Articles for deletion. No-one wants an administrator to press a delete button here. This is an ordinary editing dispute that is addressible with ordinary editing tools. It was pointed out a Deletion Review that that was the improper venue for discussing this, and that the proper venue was the article's talk page. AFD, too, is not the proper venue for discussing this. What 81.104.39.63 (talk · contribs) wrote at Deletion review is quite correct. Articles for deletion is for discussing deletion, the pressing of a delete button by an administrator. Do not bring articles here if an administrator pressing that button is not what you want. The correct venues for discussing redirects, mergers, and other ordinary editing matters (which do not involve deletion in any way) are, as 81.104.39.63 pointed out, the articles' talk pages, employing Wikipedia:Requests for comment if necessary. There is enough traffic at AFD discussing articles where deletion is genuinely involved. AFD is not a way of gaining a wider audience to a talk-page discussion. That is Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Other venues for raising matters for general discussion are the Wikipedia:Village pump, and Wikipedia:Centralized discussions. Uncle G (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid closing statement stricken. This was a procedural nomination per WP:DRV so reasoning addressing editorial nominations does not apply. In any case, this is a snowball keep. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bulbasaur[edit]

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

Listed at deletion review because a long history of edit warring led to a protected redirect to List of Pokémon (1-20). Since "delete and redirect", "redirect without deletion", "merge" and "keep" are all possibilities, a community discussion on content is needed. Procedural nomination, I have no editorial opinion on the topic. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:46, 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 & redirect for Munchee cheese (the recent page move): I did some google research and figured out that it is Mun-chee cheese. There is no reason to propagate ignorance by redirect from "munster" `'Míkka>t 01:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Muenster cheese[edit]

Sweet Muenster cheese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Previously speedied but restored as controversial per WP:CSD. Procedural nomination, I have no opinion on the merit of the article. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:52, 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 Nomination withdrawn with no !votes placed; nom's concern has been taken care of . Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Susana A. Herrera Quezada[edit]

Susana A. Herrera Quezada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Most of the article is still in Spanish. The article was created on November 3, 2007 and has been tagged as not english and listed in WP:QTN since January 8. SWik78 (talk) 15:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I translated it from Spanish to English, but see, if I done any mistakes! Kubek15 - Talk, Userboxes, Contributions 15:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, can you say on this AfD that you end it? I translated all of the article! Kubek15 - Talk, Userboxes, Contributions 16:15, 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 delete g11 ad, a7 no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hero Film School[edit]

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

All I'm finding on this are trivial mentions. No substantial secondary source coverage. No claim to notability. Fails WP:N. Redfarmer (talk) 15:32, 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Albert[edit]

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

Article was recreated after previously being deleted via the AFD process. Not only does she still not meet WP:BIO, but according to this article, she quit modelling about a year ago, so she isn't even pursuing "notability" in that arena anymore. To top it all off, as it is now, the article is a possible copyright infringement, with the text largely stolen from here. Dawn bard (talk) 15:19, 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 both. JERRY talk contribs 00:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DW Three Kingdoms[edit]

DW Three Kingdoms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Also nominated for deletion:

The Greatest of Heroes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A relatively new publisher whose only claim to fame is, as of now, one book, The Greatest of Heroes, which I am also nominating for deletion because it is no more than fanfiction that managed to get (self-)published. The articles reference themselves (primary sources/original research) and a blog that gave it a passing mention about pretty pictures. In short, no claims of notability. _dk (talk) 15:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The main thing is its well written, but granted if has no notability then cant have its own article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattpikous (talk • contribs) 03:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have received many replies from emails I sent to them at info@dw3k.com but I presume none of that information is admissible as evidence. Please know that I wrote these articles as a fan which I've become since I got an advanced copy a couple months ago which I'm now reading a third time. I have been a longstanding fan of Three Kingdoms, and know san guo yan yi very well.

If you haven't read any of the story I can only recommend it to you, or at least to read some of the free chapters on the website (especially before you dismiss it as fan fiction - because if you get a copy you will see it is serious work).

In the end I guess it will be up to the admin, and I can only request that they give this a bit of a chance, at least more than 5 days. I hope that others will contribute to the page, because even I have criticisms of the story which I am yet to add.

Thankyou to those who concern themselves with this page, and I too appreciate the care for Wikipedia, however I hope the community can give a little faith that this is actually a serious article that connects to alot of things on Wikipedia.

Lukedddd (talk) 07:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I cannot fathom anything that calls Cao Cao "Kao Kao" being anything more than fanfiction. _dk (talk) 09:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to _dk That's because you're chinese and you fully understand the name. For the vast majority of westerners who first read 'Cao Cao' they wouldn't fathom its pronounced 'T'sao T'sao', rather they always say 'Cow Cow', or what is 'Kao Kao' in chinese. Look at KOEI - they still call him 'Cow Cow' amongst all their other mispronunciations, yet KOEI is half responsible for the tens of thousands of foreigners who are now fascinated by Romance of the Three Kingdoms.

Ignorance to foreigners who pay interest in chinese culture and make mistakes is no excuse to dismiss them. Your conclusion is invalid. 88.134.80.117 (talk) 14:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the book tries to be anything serious it would have tried to correct that assumption. I've never said that calling Cao Cao "Kao Kao" is a reason for deletion though, my argument for deletion still stands. _dk (talk) 23:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to _dk so now you say: I've never said that calling Cao Cao "Kao Kao" is a reason for deletion...

but you said: I cannot fathom anything that calls Cao Cao "Kao Kao" being anything more than fanfiction. and that you are: ...nominating for deletion because it is no more than fanfiction...

so buddy, you were nominating it for deletion because its really fanfiction? or you just don't like the work? I don't think either reasons are valid for deletion - only the fact the articles are new and incomplete. Why don't you show some respect and offer this up and coming thing a chance instead of trying to wipe it out in its opening hours?

Don't forget - from Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion: before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD.

and: # first do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself, and invite discussion on the talk page by using the ((notability)) template, if you are disputing the notability of an article's subject. The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth.

-Well, these do look like good articles to me, and I hadn't heard of them either until now, but I'm interested and I appreciate them.

Caocow (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated these articles for deletion because, primarily, they failed to demonstrate notability. The notion that they are fanfiction is secondary to the nomination. The template was used on the article before, but Lukedddd removed it. I'll withhold the rest of my refutation to assume good faith. _dk (talk) 03:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I think I should point out those who say delete this article, apart from _dk, I don't think know of Romance of the Three Kingdoms, and that is actually what I am saying is famous/ or notorious - not this new book itself. Because of my articles' relation to the very famous ROTK I felt it was worthy enough to have its own pages (especially because I love the new book). If it was an ordinary unheard of book (that I still loved) I wouldn't have put in the effort.

Yes, I removed the tag you said _dk, sorry about that. The secondary source I just threw in their swiftly because it was the first I could find, even though I couldn't read it myself (its chinese). My aim is to satisfy proving 'notability' now, because that is what seems to be the greatest opposition here. Any help will be appreciated, but I will endeavor to find some myself.

And can I just ask - are wiki references required to link to things online, or can you refer to non-online evidence? I would have thought referring to the book itself would allow for huge amounts of writing, just like in the Romance of the Three Kingdoms and related articles themselves. Lukedddd (talk) 06:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place for a general discussion of "how to write for wikipedia", but I've put a link and a few words about sources on your talkpage. --Paularblaster (talk) 21:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am really working on these problems now, and should have the requirements within a matter of weeks or days. I never really got the chance to fulfill these requirements because _dk felt this was merely fanart and not 'notable' stuff and so put it up for deletion almost straight away.

I think he has since agreed to have good faith and let me (and hopefully others) develop the pages, so it is unnecessary to delete them because I would just replace them with appropriate ones in the very near future anyway.

Anyone who is interested please visit the TGOH talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Greatest_of_Heroes

Lukedddd (talk) 04:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see some reliable secondary sources to prove its notability, seeing that you claim to be able to fulfil those conditions. Keep in mind that the articles can still be deleted if you fail to provide those sources. _dk (talk) 04:55, 30 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 03:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Altrisuoni[edit]

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

It doesn't quite meet WP:N / WP:MUSIC. It has WP:COI issues, and has become a PR spam clearinghouse of sort. Evb-wiki (talk) 14:42, 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 no consensus, default to keep. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NeoGAF[edit]

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

Non-notable video game message board site. Fails WP:WEB. It should be noted: the article was deleted in the 2nd nomination, but then it was re-created only a few months later. In that time, I highly doubt the site just became notable. Also: [16] shows the article has been deleted 4 times already. I think if this does get deleted again, it needs to be protected from being recreated. RobJ1981 (talk) 14:39, 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Freed (name)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTABILITY. I think it's just nonsense. Delete Undeath (talk) 14:14, 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. JERRY talk contribs 00:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buffalo Club[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be a useful disambig page; I don't see how Buffalo (drinking game) could possibly identified as "Buffalo Club", and the nightclub in Vancouver doesn't seem to be notable. Also, the album link is a redirect to The Buffalo Club, a band that does meet notability criteria. I could have just redirected this dab page to The Buffalo Club, but I felt that this merited discussion first. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 14:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Despite the nightclub not having an article at the moment, I do think it is notable.--Kiyarrllston 15:37, 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 Merge/Redirect to Federation for a Democratic China. Action to be taken by others. JERRY talk contribs 04:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chin Jin[edit]

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

No sources. No cited works. Does not meet WP:BIO. Delete Undeath (talk) 14:05, 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. --MCB (talk) 08:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Desmond Fannin[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BIO or WP:NOTABILITY. Delete Undeath (talk) 13:59, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Allerian Empire[edit]

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

Non-notable forum based game, searching for sources brings up nothing but press releases and fansites. Seems vanispamcruftisement-y. PirateMink 14:39, 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Rausch[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BIO. No sources. No links. What makes this scientist notable? Nothing. Delete Undeath (talk) 13:50, 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 per WP:SNOW and per discussion at AN/I. Keeper | 76 17:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Italian political crisis[edit]

2008 Italian political crisis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Obvious soapboxing that is not notable. I merged this in full over at Romano Prodi. [23] Anything worth keeping the folks in that article can worry about, after this article is deleted. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 14:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Very notable event, the article is well written and well sourced. I grant that an extension may be needed, but that's no reason to delete the article. There are multiple similar articles on political crisises resulting in a government's regignation. JdeJ (talk) 13:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JdeJ, this belongs in a political blog, not a Wikipedia article. The "2008 Italian political crisis" is such a generic, broad term and even calling it a "political crisis" seems to be POV-pushing.

It might seem notable... if you live in Italy, now. But 5 or 10 years from now, there will be dozens and dozens of political scandals in Italy, even several more more potential "political crises" in Italy, in 2008. Unless the Prime Minister was beheaded and the people were rioting in the street, I see no reason to keep this article. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 14:46, 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.

<edit conflict with closing> Merge - at this stage all the information currently in the article would be more appropriate as a section in other articles such Prodi II Cabinet or Romano Prodi. Wikipedia is not a news service and currently the independent notability of the event based on impact and cultural significance will be impossible to document. This should no more be an article on it's own than the Death of Heath Ledger - also currently porminent in the news. Guest9999 (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2008 (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 delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Little Green Footballs awards[edit]

Little Green Footballs awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a list describing "awards" given by Little Green Footballs, a politically extremist blog, to various individuals. No reliable, third-party sources are cited, so this list fails verifiability requirements. Furthermore, the "c" section is in violation of the BLP policy, since its only purpose is to repeat criticisms that were never published in reliable sources. I don't see any reason to believe that this will ever be a valid encyclopedia article and I think it should be deleted. *** Crotalus *** 13:19, 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 Delete. --VS talk 03:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NorthamptonParkFC[edit]

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

Is this club really notable? I have my doubts. A "Sunday League" team formed in 2007. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:17, 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Thorpe[edit]

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

Hoax article about non-existent physicist. I can find no independent evidence online for any of the supposed research articles by this physicist. Page creator has removed hoax tag multiple times without attempting to substantiate claims or providing reliable sourcing. Scog (talk) 13:04, 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 Merge to Minor characters in CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. Tikiwont (talk) 11:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Keppler[edit]

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

Recurring character on CSI: Crime Scene Investigation for four episodes while William Petersen was gone. Does not meet WP:FICT and probably never will since his character was killed off in his final appearance. Redfarmer (talk) 10:39, 22 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, Redfarmer (talk) 11:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would personally prefer someone merged and redirected the thing to CSI:_Crime_Scene_Investigation#Past main characters --Sin Harvest (talk) 12:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He's not a past main character, though. He appeared in four episodes of the show. The characters in that section were regulars on the show spanning multiple seasons. Redfarmer (talk) 12:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He did get a major character arc in those four episodes, and CSI:_Crime_Scene_Investigation#Past main characters would seem to be the best place for him. Or, maybe, having read the page, expand the section under notable guest stars so the section for Keppler contains the useful information for the characterRed Fiona (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's against the current consensus of the major contributors on what should be on that page. The page at one time became overly messy because every recurring character, which CSI has a lot of, were listed on the main page. Redfarmer (talk) 22:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He's a bit of an awkward character because he's not major enough to have his own article, but he's a little too major for just a two line, 'was in episodes X, and was played by Liev Schreiber'.Red Fiona (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Minor_characters_in_CSI:_Crime_Scene_Investigation then. He really would not fit with the characters on the main page. Redfarmer (talk) 00:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Minor characters in CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. It would be great to get rid of the "Guest stars" section from the main article, merging it (with Keppler) into Minor characters would be perfect.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 19:11, 27 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, Redfarmer (talk) 09:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Minor characters in CSI: Crime Scene Investigation seems like a good idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sin Harvest (talk • contribs) 11:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to minor characters per Peyton Driscoll. Good idea, User:Redfarmer to try and have the same standards for the minors across all three CSIs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by travellingcari (talk • contribs) 12:58, 29 January 2008


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 03:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swordfish EDM[edit]

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

Advertising for a product with no claim of encyclopedic notability. Weregerbil (talk) 11:19, 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. --MCB (talk) 08:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline: Philippine Standout Events (2006-2007)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Timeline: Philippine Standout Events (2006-2007) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article/list/whatever is basically a rehash of 2006 in the Philippines and 2007 in the Philippines, excluding some events that shouldn't be in encyclopedias. --Howard the Duck 10:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The archived things there stated: "Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page." I am sure that a 2nd nomination for deletion might be improper since it said that all further comments must be on the discussion page, but not on a new one like this. I respectfully petition therefore, for NON-deletion of this article since most of the events thereat are fairly neutral and one of the top events in 2007. As PROOF: *Inquirer.net, top 10 Most Read Stories, Columns on INQUIRER.net in 2007- Our top newspaper Philippine Daily Inquirer published the top events of 2007, above. I browsed about ON WHAT WIKI IS NOT as suggested by the Bot that notified me. I am sure, that I am entitled as creator of the article, to be given a Bill of Particulars that is, what sections or sub-sections of that Wiki rule inter alia did I or the article violate to merit deletion upon consensus or vote by the editors and admin here. While I admit that it is the first time I saw that there were 2 previous article already covering my article, still, my article satisfies very well the neutral and notable view of Wiki. There are lots of articles in Wiki that cover same thing, person or event example: Jesus, University of the Philippines, Ateneo de Manila. Many written articles on these overlap. WHEREFORE, premises consider, I ask that I be enlightened as to what rules of Wiki like What Wiki is not, inter alia, which makes my article squarely FOR DELETION. Thanks. -- --Florentino floro (talk) 13:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that other articles already exist with the exact purpose and arguably better formatting and presentation means that this should be deleted.
Note: The original author has a penchant for creating parallel and redundant articles, his The Joseph Estrada Verdict (created 15:22, 12 September 2007) which now redirects to Trial of Joseph Estrada, which was created hours earlier on 09:40, 12 September 2007. --Howard the Duck 13:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment: don't take anything said here too personally. It's clear just from looking at the page that you've put in a lot of work on this, and several parts of it are more detailed and better sourced than the articles 2006 in the Philippines and 2007 in the Philippines; on that score commendation rather than condemnation is in order. But given that there are already those two articles in existence, and that they follow the more usual format found here on wikipedia (so will more easily be found by people looking for digests of Philippine events), can I make the suggestion that you put in a little bit more time to transfer the information to those articles (thinking of yourself as an editor of the encyclopedia, rather than the creator of a particular article)? --Paularblaster (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the term "standout event" is just an unconventional way of saying "notable event", so you might like to rethink your rationale for supporting deletion. --Paularblaster (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question: as an article it's redundant to those you mentioned, but some of the content is more detailed and better sourced; "merge" would be preferable to "delete". --Paularblaster (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these "detailed" accounts are not fit for an encyclopedia. Although I'd like to see the sources in the timeline article of the events already found at the 2006 and 2007 articles to be added there. --Howard the Duck 04:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If so, then why create a separate article, when you could actually include them from the articles I've mentioned? That is, if those information are notable and referenced enough. Starczamora (talk) 05:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment. The five pillars of wikipedia make mention of combining the qualities of "general encyclopedia, specialist encyclopedia and almanac". I'd be the first to argue that these details shouldn't be given a string of individual entries, but as a list of almanac-type material it seems fine. Of course, my familiarity is mainly with 17th-century almanacs, where all this (including the editor's rationale) would be par for the course. Perhaps almanacs have changed? --Paularblaster (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd read the 2006 and 2007 articles, there are several entries that don't and won't have articles. The timeline article includes the most mundane of events such as fires, and so-called "assassinations." Actually the almanac "quality" isn't really an almanac where every event that made it to newspapers gets in, otherwise the articles about per-game results of the Premier League would not have been deleted. As you can see, as long as there's a reference, it gets in. Wikipedia isn't like that. --Howard the Duck 03:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
rejoinder. Without going into the details and finer points of the 5 pillars and Wiki rules, suffice it to say that even learned jurists are highly divided on matters of paramount import. The United States Supreme Court Justices would often be highly divided on freedom and religion issues, not to mention education or abortion and even lethal injection. Who are or will be the readers of Wiki articles and bios? Are they just or will be Filipinos, or in generations to come, will Americans or British or French read my articles or these articles when they or their children would later study law and current events or history? Even [[[Vincent Van Gogh]] took his life since his paintings were not on the 5 pillars at that time. There are finer points and gray areas regarding deletion of articles. FIRES, yes mystic fires. As to whether they are common or not, it depends upon the reader/s or the time and places. 2007 mystic fires, do they happen in decades or just in 2007? Deaths, yes; if a janitor dies, that is not notable. Neither is the death of a parent of a judge. But when 3 parents of Philippine Supreme Court Chief Justices, all died at once after the dwarf decision was released on BBC, etc. on April 6, 2006 and these 3 deaths (heart, heart, heart, respectively for Luz, Narcisa Puno and Hilario Davide, Sr.) 2006 - 2007, well, I really want to end this debate if someone would say that such is not in the 5 pillars. Now, if Rene Saguisag and wife Dulce Saguisag met their fate on Nov. 8, 2007, that would not be notable if one forgets how powerful they were in the news from 1987 until today. He is my counsel of record whose very own lawyer Atty. Bibing Timbangkaya made, drafted and finalized my decision - ruling that I consult elves. Oh, never mind Nancy Reagan or George Bush who talk to astrologers and Chang the mystic warrior to defend the Iraq Invasion, respectively, but not to pen decision. Forget Antonin Scalia and the 9th Circus Court of California, the penis pump Judge. Oh they have no Duende (mythology). Rene Saguisag is also the counsel of Joseph Estrada, and when he met his fate on Nov. 8, all the top officers flooded the internet with news like paparazzis. Alfredo Benipayo who caused my 7 years suspension, might not be the cause of the University of Santo Tomas curses (read the news on the 2007 UST trauma), and when he was operated angioplasty on Feb. 21, 2001 as I predicted in writing filed with the Court, in disbarment cases I filed against him, etc., and when he was nominated 7 times and failed, you would not say that the healing dwarves made it, but his 2006 resignation is not a farce, it is utter pain and ended his career. Is it not one of the 5 pillars. Well, I debate this way, as mere follower of law, since I am handicapped here to debate and discuss on the 5 pillars, pardon me if my mind cannot yet as of this time comprehend these basic Wiki laws, except if you give me TIME. But since we editors or users want to expand and create a good and neutral encyclopedia, let us not be scared of the gray areas or finer points on the deletion of the article. Lest I be misconstrued, I boast not and I do not claim to be endowed with the power to annihilate in broad daylight as I wrote, and my dire predictions happened with impeccability. All I say is that in good faith, I made this article and I debate and discuss that it is sufficient in form and substance to remain here for eternity. Submitted for decision. Amen. -- --Florentino floro (talk) 08:18, 29 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 00:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kolath[edit]

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

Sorry for nominating this-lengthy-written-(but no proper source) to AfD. I think Kolath is quite prominent family in Central Kerala. However, the question is that do we really need an encyclopedia article? A google search has some results (but many are not clear and talking different, [note kolath naadu & many other kolath' accessible]). Earlier I had a post on this. But nobody responded. In my opinion, a minor section about this family may be included in Saint Thomas Christians article. Thanks. Avinesh Jose  T  09:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

59.91.253.73 (talk) 05:38, 27 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. Wizardman 01:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Symbolicks[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be verifiable. A quick google search turns up nothing related. MER-C 09:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No sources to prove that this item was notable in any way. DarkAudit (talk) 15:46, 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 Delete article was a copyvio from here. --VS talk 02:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Banquet[edit]

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

A protestant Christian ministry. Written too much like a sermon with very little attempt to demonstrate notability. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as copyvio of this. Redfarmer (talk) 11:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Copyvio, and also it's one event at one church. Definitely not notable. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Definitely not one event at one church, (cursillo movements) occur at hundreds of churches worldwide - see the community listing at (http://3dayol.org/Communities/Communities.html) for just a small listing of locations (multiple locations in every US state, and locations in at least 40 international countries). Not copyvio - see discussion message. Rmsphoto (talk) 22:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you quote secondary source coverage? Event listings are not enough to establish notability. Redfarmer (talk) 23:27, 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bioethinomics[edit]

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

No references so must assume that this is a neologism / original research. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:09, 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. The article has been trimmed nicely, and as a stub, it is referenced enough to be kept. Keeper | 76 17:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generation Z[edit]

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

Good god, where to begin. Gen Z is a basically blank article when we remove all the original research, dealing with what is essentially a US media buzz word. There is absolutely no real scientific source or research and a surprising majority of the sources refer to the Delaney incident. It had had a deletion debate resulting in a delete but has apparently been recreated. +Hexagon1 (t) 08:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete potentially Speedy/CSD G4 (Previous AfD)-- RoninBK T C 08:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Let's wait until this generation described here gets into middle school before the media slaps an unnotable (and dare I say, lazy) 'buzzworthy' label on them. Right now they're just kids and that's good enough for me. There's also another tag which unfortunately will define them a bit more and is in more common use; Generation 9/11. Nate • (chatter) 11:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete G4 and salt. Second recreation of deleted material. Redfarmer (talk) 11:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with all above. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is no longer relevant because the section that was objected to as a "recreation" has been deleted. Please delete this request for deletion and help write a better article it you object to stubs. Can anyone doubt that the article will grow in the future? It is a good stub. Don't pull up crops just cuz they are not full grown. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With the OR removed, the article is now essentially a dictionary definition. Thus, I maintain my delete vote under WP:NOT#DICT as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Also, would seem to fall under WP:NEO as this seems to be a term which is new to come into existence and does not have an agreed upon definition. Redfarmer (talk) 15:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Goggle shows 18400 hits for the term. Let the article live long enough to become more. "Not being a dictionary" does not we delete all stubs. WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed your separator, I did not object on grounds of recreation, I merely noted that after my objections to the article in order to provide a complete picture, as I would have assumed was obvious. The editors who voted did so fully able to look at the article and its history themselves, without your guidance. +Hexagon1 (t) 05:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Maybe I've missed something, why do the nom and others think this is not notable/unsourced when it seems to list several articles, a book etc that reference it, some of the articles in reputable newspapers? Perhaps you could all take another look at the article, maybe it has changed from the version upon which you are commenting. We might find the idea of this annoying, but it is well sourced. It doesn't need to be based on 'serious/scientific research'- not saying that's bad/wrong, but for wiki purposes we're not a solely science-based wiki, it just needs to be discussed in reasonably reputable media. Merkinsmum 17:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what I mean is, several articles in fairly mainstream media (even if it's not highbrow). Merkinsmum 17:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear Keep How is this not notable? Washington Post article alone does it. Further, it clearly is going to be a widely used term, so salting it is just crazy seems unwise. Hobit (talk) 19:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to whom, exactly? There is no one authority on generational terms and they can just as easily change if some other event defines a decade. Let's also note that the Washington Post needs features articles to fill out their paper so they write these stories that do so and generate debate about what a generation cshould be called. What may be correct now may not be so at the end of 2009 or 2019, and I could come up with quite a few names off the top of my head that could be credible (The MySpace/Facebook/vogue social network of the day Generation for instance). Nate • (chatter) 21:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure, it might not become hugely popular. But a Washington Post article solely on the term establishes notability (plus the other sources). And I think it would be unwise to salt a topic that is at least likely to be a common part of our cultural vocabulary. I'd certainly take an even money bet on this one. Hobit (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree that salting isn't the best course of action at least (too rash), but I stand by my statements. Nate • (chatter) 23:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • At the top you said "Let's wait until this generation described here gets into middle school". This article applies to everyone born after 1990; 18 years old and younger as of 2008. You "stand by" your claim that media judgements about them are too early? The media does not agree with you. Are you wikipedia's authority or are reliable published sources? WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The media also collapses into a collective orgy every time Paris Hilton replaces her slippers but we don't publish that. We don't have to give in to every whim of the media, let alone a place-holder buzzword. And the sources are shady at best. As for "media judgements", let's not go down that slippery slope. +Hexagon1 (t) 05:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as I noted above, the article has changed enough so the reasons given to delete no longer apply. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Gen Z is a basically blank article when we remove all the original research, dealing with what is essentially a US media buzz word. There is absolutely no real scientific source or research..." - which part of the primary objections doesn't apply? +Hexagon1 (t) 05:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak Keep Most of the references given were to unreliable newsletters and blog postings, the apparent result of taking everything however marginal to be found in Google. I have removed them. I am less than happy about two of the remaining ones--there is no good documentation for the relations to the book Generations, and the Corey article is as close to a blog posting as a newspaper can get. I think it is probably a notable term, but it will need much better documentation. DGG (talk) 02:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In response to the initial reasons given to delete the article, I removed what was claimed to be a recreation of a deleted article on a specific person noted widely as a representative of Generation Z and added the first half dozen google hits. Goggle shows 18400 hits for the term. I in no way added everything Google could find. Maybe we should add back the specific person noted widely as a representative of Generation Z? WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have ignored all what I've posted in reply to you. Please re-read it. My initial criticism wasn't the fact it was recreated, as I explain above. I fear you may have misunderstood my qualms with the article. And if by the person "noted widely" as a representative of gen Z you mean Delaney, I'd like to see some sources backing up such an assertion. Multiple, if possible. Thank you +Hexagon1 (t) 06:07, 30 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 03:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kun-Hee Yoo[edit]

Kun-Hee Yoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Some kind of combination of non-notability, hoax, and/or crystal ball gazing. "Ever since he was 5 month old, he showed the potential to be the greatest mixed martial arts fighter." Riiiigt... Jfire (talk) 08:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Utter hoax. All English GHits are copies of this article [25]. Putting the name in Korean order [26] or searching in Korean language combined with "mixed martial arts" or the name of his birth city gives nothing related [27][28][29]. cab (talk) 11:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per CaliforniaAliBaba. Definite hoax. Doc Strange (talk) 14:39, 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irish wrestling[edit]

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

Article appears to be about a non-notable online club or phenomenon at best and a complete hoax or fabrication at worst. Since none of the CSD criteria fit and a prod tag (added a little bit after the article was created) was removed by an anonymous I.P., it's time to bring it here for discussion. jonny-mt 08:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. A bit confused still about what the club actually does, after visiting their site, but still non-notable and as for the phenomenon of Irish wrestling described in the main body of the text, it is unreferenced, unsourced and... well...., it doesn't exist. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Notes on "druids and wrestling in ancient Ireland" unsourced and decidedly dubious. Remainder looks like total fabrication. (Frankly I think could be a speedy candidate.) Guliolopez (talk) 23:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought of that, but given that it is coherent and identifies the subject (thus clearing G1 and A1), doesn't fall under any of the A7 criteria, and isn't really disruptive enough to qualify as vandalism (and thus G3), I thought it best to bring it here. After all, should it be deleted here and then recreated in the future, it could be quickly deleted again under G4. --jonny-mt 02:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's nothing non-notable (let alone non-existent) about Irish wrestling, but this (no doubt humorously intended) article has absolutely nothing to do with the subject. Rather than keep a hoax at the root of an edit history, delete this without prejudice to a future article actually on the topic. --Paularblaster (talk) 21:56, 27 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 21:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zipera[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Nothing has been added to this substub since the no-consensus AfD in 2005. Jfire (talk) 07:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles that have survived an AfD are not eligible for speedy deletion. Jfire (talk) 08:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. My intention was to get people interested in keeping this one-sentence stub to do some serious looking for sources. How the other AfD ever went down as a keep is simply beyond me. User:Dorftrottel 09:52, January 25, 2008
  • Keep. AfD shouldn't really be used as a way to get people to edit an article, but anyway I've copied over the discography from the Polish Wikipedia article which indicates that they have have had two albums released on Prosto Records, which satisfies WP:BAND as the label has been established for 9 years with a significant roster of performers. Also Google news reveals that they have been reported on regularly by Gazeta Wyborcza, Poland's highest circulation non-tabloid newspaper. Unfortunately the Gazeta Wyborcza web site seems to be unavailable as I'm writing this, but the Google summary of the second item in that search list, entitled "Hip hop ze stolicy (Hip hop from the capital)" starts with the words "Gwiazdy krajowej sceny hiphopowej - zespoły Zipera, Flexxip i Grammatik... (Stars of the national hip hop scene - the groups Zipera, Flexxip and Grammatik..." (my translations). If Gazeta Wyborcza reports on them regularly and calls them stars, then I think they also meet the general notability guideline of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Phil Bridger. And, as Phil says, an AfD should not be used to encourage people to edit an article! Bondegezou (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are these "not what AfDs are for" comments replies to Dorftrottel's comments or my nomination? It seems to me that the nomination was perfectly valid given that there were no substantial edits since the previous no consensus AfD and little to no English language sources. Not everyone speaks Polish, you know... Jfire (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I intended my comment as a reply to Dorftrottel - I certainly didn't mean to imply any bad faith on your part. The article in the state that it was nominated was certainly a reasonable candidate for AfD. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would never nominate an article for deletion in order to motivate editing, but agreeing with deletion as an incentive for others to come up with half-way reliable sources that I couldn't find is ok imo. User:Dorftrottel 09:20, January 29, 2008
Well, I think your tactic worked - you spurred me into action, anyway! I only meant that remark as a piece of harmless banter, so if it offended you in any way I am happy to apologise for that. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did I sound offended? User:Dorftrottel 09:53, January 29, 2008
  • Keep - Looks to meet notability. Maybe we can get some of the Polish article translated to better demonstrate it. But remember, neither lack of English sources nor lack of activity is a valid reason for deletion. matt91486 (talk) 21:42, 31 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seigo Nakao[edit]

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

Article fails to assert notability per WP:NOTE. Musashi1600 (talk) 07:12, 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. Wizardman 17:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fifteen Minutes (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. Bebo and Myspace are not good enough sources. Delete Metal Head (talk) 06:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete Non-notable Myspace band. Lugnuts (talk) 18:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not sure a speedy is really appropriate here, but failures at WP:MUSIC combined with misplaced WL's make it otherwise a no-brainer. SingCal 22:00, 26 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. --MCB (talk) 08:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony R. Rodriguez[edit]

Tony R. Rodriguez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The only claim to notability is that the author published 3 books. The article fails notability guidelines set at WP:BIO#Creative professionals and fails WP:V by lacking any reliable sources that are not self-published (WP:BLP#Sources). dissolvetalk 06:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Regardless of literary skill or merit, there is no evidence provided of a significant critical or cultural response to the subject's work. --archym (talk) 11:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and lack of notability. See also this similar AfD.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable minor writer. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:24, 30 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 with no prejudice towards the subject matter. If anyone would like a userfied copy of the deleted material for continued work towards encyclopedic writing instead of orginal research, let me know on my talk page. Keeper | 76 17:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spiritualism (philosophy)[edit]

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

A POV article full of original research and lacking in any reliable references. WebHamster 06:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The topic was repeatedly tagged and flagged with an AfD nomination, and others, within only 9 minutes of its creation, this was as I was working on it and by individuals with no specialism in the subject. No commitment to discussion nor cooperation offered and despite my drawing my development of the topic to the individuals' attention.
Currently the Wikipedia appears to have no topics on the philosophical use of the word spiritualism at all. My reasoning for using this page as a starting point is that, a) it is an important contrast to the starting point of my other work, on spiritualistic topics; and, b) in an environment designed to inform and broaden the interests of a fairly general audience, it is often easier to teach by broad contrasts in the first place rather than specifics that might go over heads. Is it my WP:OR, no. Its class 101 level, in the longer term I see topic arising in each of the specific definitions of the word ... but one needs time and and encouraging atmosphere and the Wikipedia needs experts not thuggery of the sort I experienced.
I do not mind it being peer reviewed by individuals within the specialisms but I do feel to be beset by the bullying I received from entirely unqualified individuals is against the spirit of the Wikipedia. I have taken the time to flag it up on specialist portals and am continuing to work on it. The comments are qualified by the links to the main articles. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 10:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have continued to work on this topic and have moved it to Spiritualism (philosophy) with a redirect from [[Spiritualism (philosophy)]. Some of the comments below might be out of date.
Its kind of amusing in a way because the topic appears to have brought up in individuals the very dispute that featured in the debate between the great Spiritualist and Materialist philosophers ... which remains unresolved. Its latest reincarnation being the dispute between the religiously spiritualistic and the pseudoscientific/paranormal lobby. I am not taking sides, I think there is room for both ... but that always was the position of spiritualist. I do not mean spiritualist as in spooks.
I am concerned that some individuals being engaged in this debate are NOT reading the literature and not discussing it on the talk page before pushing their POV. WebHamster, thankfully for more than a few of us, has now retired himself from the Wiki. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 07:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And the relevance of that WQA to this AfD is what? I'll give you a clue... it has none other than to demonstrate that you were pissed off at me for AfDing your article. --WebHamster 14:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A clear case of original research. I have no doubt that it was created in good faith, however, as the editor is very new. Lucyintheskywithdada, nothing personal is intended here, it's just that this kind of article isn't suitable for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia:Five pillars might be a useful read. --Nick Dowling (talk) 06:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:Lucyintheskywithdada has informed me that they are an experianced editor who is using a new log-in after having lost the password to their old account. They have also asked me to expand upon why I think that this is original research. In short, I think that it's OR as the table comparing the two concepts isn't cited. These comparisons need precise citations. From looking at the titles of the references, only the work by Tamm appears to make a comparison rather than describing the two concepts. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article was created not even an hour ago, so I think it's a bit early to tell what it'll be. At least give the poor author a chance to work on it a little. Wow... Equazcion •✗/C • 07:08, 25 Jan 2008 (UTC)
Keep Give the article time. A search shows that the topic has lots of debate and articles like this, so it is likely notable. Hobit (talk) 19:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Citing NPOV now is ridiculous this soon. The articles existed for about a day. Everything interesting is controversial. Every person has a POV. Hence every interesting article needs time to develop, for the input of multiple editors with varying POVs. If we apply NPOV and AfD this quickly, we will have NOTHING new on WP. How come so many articles that clearly need work wind up here? Isn't there somewhere to send "needs work" articles!? (This is actually a serious question, is there somewhere? I'm still learning my way around!) The Zig (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment articles can be prepared on user pages or offline until they're ready. It's quite common for new articles to be AfDed because they're fundamentally flawed, which I would argue is possibly the case here. The deletion process lasts for a week, which gives editors plenty of time to improve the article. --Nick Dowling (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Fair point. Although, I'd still say it's impossible/impractical to achieve a true NPOV in the solitude of a user page. Everyone has POV. More eyes neutralize. So my last argument holds, and POV or biased is a rather unfair argument to throw at something so new. I also feel it's over-stepping our bounds a bit to declare someone's work fundamentally unsalvageable without making an honest effort to salvage it first! Wouldn't it be better to first attempt to neutralize the bits you see as POV, and call it fundamentally flawed after it's been given a fair shot? The Zig (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Judging from the books in the bibliography, this is an established topic. It isn't the articles creator just slamming together two things on a whim; there are books on precisely this. This quite clearly proves this is not OR, and the synthesis of these topics was not the work of the creator of this article; these are topics that are already juxtaposed. The Zig (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, they are established topics and yes they are referenced. What isn't referenced and so far is a perfect example of synthesis is the actual comparison(s). Now given that this is what the article is about you can see why the allegations of OR and synthesis are being made. The article's writer has read one set of definitions then read another set of definitions then used her own research to synthesise the comparison table. Add to that that any comparisons being made between two subjective abstracts can only mean POV is at work. --WebHamster 05:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the first articles in the Bibliography are "Tamm, J.M. (1979). Materialism and spiritualism: the dualistic way of Western thinking. and "Bahm, A.J. (1947). Spiritualism, materialism, organicism" Surely these show that this isn't an original synthesis on the part of the author? The Zig (talk) 12:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - violates all the big ones -- WP:V, WP:N, WP:POV, WP:SOAP, etc. To be kept, this needs significant rescuing. Bearian (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This will inevitably be OR, with the approach being taken. Perhaps a sourced comparison of some sort can be undertaken, but it would better to start over for it, basing it on the sources, not basing it on original writing and adding some sources at the end. DGG (talk) 03:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment/question There are whole books on this topic. I don't see how citing them will create OR. Hobit (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Changed to Weak keep. WP:FRINGE research at best, WP:OR and WP:SYN more than likely; none of the current standard reference works use the terms in this fashion. Skomorokh confer —Preceding comment was added at 17:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article has problems but has changed radically since its deletion nomination and now qualifies per WP:HEY. скоморохъ ѧ 10:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete I was going to give it the benefit of the doubt, but then I ran into its creator, User:Lucyintheskywithdada, who has been plastering the solely Spiritualism related template ((Spiritualistic_small)) all over the place, including barely related topics like paranormal and topics that also relate to other religions equally, like spirit. I explained that this was "categorical ownership" and removed the inappropriate ones, but then watched the editor put them all back up, twice reverting. I can only assume POV fork after talking to him/her this evening and watching something that looked more like "marketing" than encyclopedia writing. The template, slapped on the related-to-all-religions article spirit, says "Part of a series on spiritualistic topics" and links to Spiritualist Church under "Beliefs and practices", basically saying that the Spiritualist Church is claiming ownership of the article on "spirits". The actions of the article creator are more than a little questionable. --Nealparr (talk to me) 05:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And it is somewhat WP:OR in the form of WP:SYN. If you read this article, and the one at Spiritualism (beliefs) (not the one on the religion, see the fork?), they both make the claim that "spiritualism" is the base of all religions, equating "spiritualism" with the belief in spirits, which is really just animism (the belief) and shamanism (the practices). But then when you examine the sources for both articles, many or most of them are either about Spiritualism the religion or just about spirits in general, rather than sources that use the term "spiritualism" explicitly instead of animism to describe the belief in spirits. Both of these articles are suppositioning the term "spiritualism" as a replacement for animism (which has probably been done before, but how commonly?), but also in a dubious way. After watching the creator of the article plaster ((Spiritualistic_small)) all over Wikipedia, a template that links topics related to "spiritualism" as such things like fortune-telling, you have to start wondering why Wikipedia needs three articles (Spiritualism (beliefs), Spiritualism (religious movement), and this one) to assert the point of view that a religion founded in the 1800s is the base of all religions. Because that's what they collectively synthesize, using sources talking about spirit in general along with Spiritualism the religion to promote a collective "ergo, Spiritualism is the base of all religions that believe in spirits". Sounds like a lot of POV pushing nonsense to me. --Nealparr (talk to me) 05:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am sorry from the context of the philosophical debate between spiritualists and materialists that raged thoughout Europe this is an entirely out of place comment that underlines the individuals lack of understanding of the use of the word and should really be excluded.
Neal confuses it time and time again with the modern American religion of spiritualism and now animism. Partly this is cultural. I am discovering that amongst American editors, with an inward looking nature, spiritualism is related more to what we would call Modern American Spiritualism. I am sorry but the rest of world ... and history ... uses it differently.
I am also concerned that this discussion is taking place entirely without regard to the literature or any discussion of the references and citation. And NO ABSOLUTELY I am not suggesting that a religion founded in the 1800s the base of all religions. Hold on whilst I pull myself back into my chair --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 08:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad to hear that, but it doesn't explain the plastering of the Spiritualism template all over the place, nor does it demonstrate why this article isn't a POV fork when Soul and Dualism (philosophy of mind) and Idealism already talk about souls/spirits/mind and the difference between them and materialism. The article even says in Europe it's synonymous with Idealism, so why two articles? Nor, if it's as you say not related to Modern American Spiritualism, does it explain the sources you used that are totally related to the religion of Spiritualism, like Arthur Conan Doyle for example (a Spiritualism (religious movement) writer), or the definition (4) off The Dictionary of Philosophy which says "(4) means the faith that spirits of the dead communicate with the living through persons who are 'mediums' and through other forms of manifestation. The word Spiritism is more properly used for this faith." That's a clear demonstration of why this article isn't simply a philosophy article (a philosophy already covered by other philosophy articles) and is instead religious-ish (a quasi-religious view also already covered by other articles). --Nealparr (talk to me) 09:02, 31 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 leaning towards keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Gavin[edit]

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

prod, then deleted. Recreated later, then db-repost. db-repost removed with the comment "Article seems to have been deleted by PROD.", which is funny; either it was or it wasn't. This is a non-notable fictional character in a television series. Fine for inclusion in the series (which itself is notable according to Wikipedia rules) article, but not demonstratably notable for its own article. -- Mikeblas (talk) 06:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC) Mikeblas (talk) 06:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I really hate to use "other stuff exists", but have you seen List of Rescue Me characters? A lot (22 to be exact) of the characters have their own article here. So if we're going to delete some, I'd start with some that aren't the main character of the show. Thinking about guidelines though, I think this particular character could be considered pretty notable because of a few events, like this one, which received a lot of coverage from several publications. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Indeed, other stuff exists. There's always other articles that need deleting, and unfortunately, we can't tag all of them at once. Suggesting that the article shouldn't be deleted because the deletion was filed before other articles that should have been deleted is nonsense. What the character did was slightly controversial but hardly notable in spirit, though it might fit the letter of the law. A section in the show's main article would be more than enough to cover what happened once, in one episode. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strong KEEP: I started the page for a reason Thomas Gavin is the first major main firefighter character in drama's popular culture history. Rescue Me is also the first show to star firefighters lives, making it quite important to popular culture history also. There are plenty of articles on wiki that does not need to be here but Tommy Gavin is not one of them. May I add that I also agree with Rjd0060.Hank Richards 17:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)•
        • Comment - Rescue Me isn't the first show to "star firefighters lives" - check out London's Burning. - fchd (talk) 10:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please: I know about Londons Burning, however I still feel this article is important enough to hardly even be considered. I mean they have a page on girlfriend and that isn't a theres other stuff argument they both deserve a page though. Hank Richards 13:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Denis Leary has been nominated for an Emmy and a Golden Globe for playing this character, which makes the character notable IMO. Some information about the character in New York Times articles [30] [31] The character's article is notable and verifiable. Bláthnaid 17:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. These nominations go to the actor's notability, not the character's. -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Such a nomination generates a lot of press coverage. These sources often provide information about the character. Nominations for lead actor/actress are also an indication that the character is well known. For example, along with Denis Leary the actors nominated for a best actor in a drama series Emmy last year played the roles Tony Soprano, Jack Bauer, Alan Shore, and Gregory House. The character was also involved in a very controversial storyline that generated a lot of press coverage, eg [32] [33]. I've trimmed the original plot section and added real world information and sources to the article. It meets WP:V, WP:N, and WP:FICTION. Bláthnaid 16:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Dennis Leary was nominated, not Tommy Gavin. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • coment Are you high nobody said Tommy Gavin was nominated, and you have to face the fact Tommy Gavin meets wikipedia standards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.17.19.95 (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 98.17, you are more than welcome to edit here, but please note that Wikipedia has a strict policy against insulting another editor. Bláthnaid 19:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Rescue Me characters. --Reinoutr (talk) 07:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I have merged SOME of the characters articles to list of rescue me characters but the main character in a high profile t.v. show deserves its own page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.17.19.95 (talk) 22:38, 28 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 all Nakon 21:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of contemporary and crossover bass-baritones[edit]

List of contemporary and crossover bass-baritones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Overly broad and unnecessary listcruft. AniMate 05:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also overly broad and listcrufty:

List of contemporary and crossover tenors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of contemporary and crossover sopranos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of contemporary and crossover contraltos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of contemporary and crossover mezzo-sopranos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of contemporary and crossover countertenors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Delete. Per nom. Speedied twice as no-context and nonsense (although I disagree with the application of the latter criterion). Dethme0w (talk) 05:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What is wrong with this article?

Ineversigninsodonotmessageme (talk) 05:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Ineversigninsodonotmessageme[reply]

As I said in my nomination, it is an overly broad list. Contemporary music and Crossover music are pretty difficult and subjective genres to define, and the potential for a list that is both massive and subjective doesn't seem to be a very productive article. AniMate 05:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhhh ok, so if I narrowed it down to only Crossover music, it won't be deleted? Ineversigninsodonotmessageme (talk) 05:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Ineversigninsodonotmessageme[reply]

Not necessarily. It's still a pretty broad genre, and I'm not sure that it adds anything to the encyclopedia. You can try and improve the list, but you should also present reasons here why you believe it should be kept. AniMate 06:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. Ineversigninsodonotmessageme (talk) 06:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Ineversigninsodonotmessageme[reply]

  • Delete also entirely original research, as I see no evidence that there is any way to verify that these are bass-baritone singers. Also, as noted, the basic premise of the list is insanely broad. Contemporary= modern and crossover= fits in two musical genres. This is not a very informative list, based on that criteria. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 07:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hopelessly OR/POV. --MCB (talk) 07:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Again, why are the other articles going to be deleted as well? They have been around for a while, so why all of a sudden are they candiates for deletion?

Ineversigninsodonotmessageme (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Ineversigninsodonotmessageme[reply]

    • Because a) The reasoning for deleting them is identical to deleting the Bass-baritone article (inadequatly broad criteria; no way to verify content) and b) Length of stay is no measure of the quality of an article. Wikipedia doesn't really operate on a seniority system. Lots of stuff goes under the radar, and all articles are subject to the same criteria, even those no one noticed until now. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Looks like original research. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as original research and mostly unverifiable. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep I strongly disagree with the pages being deleted. Is there another reason why they should be deleted besides due to "lack of criterion" or "lack of references"? I also think its a personal attack against the pages because some of the administrators were against them since day one. Ineversigninsodonotmessageme (talk) 03:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Ineversigninsodonotmessageme[reply]
  • Hi, INSISDNMM (heh). The main problem with these lists is that they are incredibly difficult, if not impossible to verify to WP's standards. It's not enough to put someone's name on one of these lists and say "I know that he/she is a <whatever>". Any information added must already have been published in a reliable, third-party source to ensure factual accuracy - which is not the case for nearly all the singers listed here. I tagged some of the lists as unreferenced a while back in the hope that someone would add the required references - but it seems not to have happened (in fact, someone seems to have purposefully removed the tags). These lists simply can't stay on WP in their current form.
  • Edit: I don't suppose that there's any reason that you couldn't request that the lists be copied to your userspace if they are deleted, to enable you to work on them some more and get them up to scratch in terms of refs. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Kurt, I know what you are saying about the pages not having much references, and some people putting their favorite "pop" stars on the forms. But like I said before, there were and still are some references on the Contralto and Mezzo-Soprano pages as well. How about someone or myself make the pages all over again, starting from stratch?

Ineversigninsodonotmessageme (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Ineversigninsodonotmessageme[reply]


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

The result was delete. Wizardman 00:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yuo[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTABILITY. No sources. No links. Non notable. Delete Metal Head (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It's a theater group. It's in Istanbul. And? Nothing here to prove it actually exists or that is any more notable than the next theater group in Istanbul. DarkAudit (talk) 15:51, 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. The article's current state does raise concerns, but not enough to warrant a deletion/transwiki. -- lucasbfr talk 15:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Girlfriend[edit]

Prior deletion discussions for this article:
Girlfriend (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Should be turned into a dab page, or rather the dab page should be moved here. RightGot (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Survived 6 nominations. Georgia guy (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, WP:POINTy nom due to user's own recent deletion history. Chris Cunningham (talk) 22:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Encyclopedic, I don't see how it is a dictionary entry. ♦Ace of Silver♦ 22:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It discusses the etymology of the word. Etymologies are for dictionaries. RightGot (talk) 22:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - spurious nomination by troll. See User_talk:RightGot, User_talk:RightGot/Archive_1 and WP:ANI#RightGot andy (talk) 23:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I can't see how this can be a _spurious_ nomination if it's already been round six times. RightGot, whatever his motives, is _not_ the first editor to doubt the notability of this article. Tevildo (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This article _is_ just a dicdef. Tevildo (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep- It is more than a dicdef, but this point is not even relevant. It's notable, and if you think it is just a dicdef, then expand it. SeanMD80talk | contribs 00:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; encyclopedic.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per Chris Cunningham. Jonathan 00:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. User is pissed off his own articles got nominated so he's going on a WP:POINT rampage.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 00:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. If the issue here is merely RightGot's behaviour, I'm more than happy to renominate this article without (I hope) appearing to have an ulterior motive. The "Keep" opinions in the 3rd AfD (the last genuine debate, held eighteen months ago when our standards were much laxer) very frequently mention the article's "potential for improvement"; I see no evidence of such improvement having occurred, or, indeed, for the existence of the potential in the first place. Tevildo (talk) 00:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: At this point in the discussion, user:Canley closed the debate as "speedy-keep". However, because another user had commented in apparent good faith agreeing with the nomination, this was not eligible for closure under the speedy keep rules. I have reopened the debate and relisted it to the current day to correct for the premature closure. Rossami (talk) 05:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Given user's edit history, this could be a POINTy nomination. Either way, it's far from a great article, but it contains sufficient information to be more than just a dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 05:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Encyclopedic, and this article has survived about 6 or 7 nomations for deletion of this article. Daniel5127 (talk) 05:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reread the article three times now and I can't find anything on the page that I wouldn't expect to see in a truly great, unabridged dictionary (like Wiktionary). I see a thorough discussion of the meaning and usage of an english word. I don't see anything here that goes past lexical content into encyclopedic content. In all the prior discussions (excluding the speedy-closures), the consensus seems to me to have been "it's not a very good article but it might have potential so let's give it the benefit of doubt for now". After three years, I'm coming to the conclusion that there is no potential here for this page to ever go past lexical content. Delete (following a merger of any useful content to wikt:girlfriend) unless someone can actually point to something on the page that is encyclopedic as opposed to merely lexical. Rossami (talk) 05:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Disruptive repeat nomination. Also the article is not properly tagged. The article is easy to improve as I have just demonstrated with a cite of an academic journal - one of 80,000 that I found in Google Scholar. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The tagging was my mistake. I overlooked that when repairing the premature closure. Now fixed. Rossami (talk)
  • Keep: Obviously keep it, per all of the above. Also keep because the AFD tag was removed less than 4 hours after this nomination. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - One of the most notable articles on Wikipedia! TheProf07 (talk) 17:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to demonstrate notability beyond a mere dictionary definition. The fact that another AfD is being created this article spits in the face of WP:CONSENSUS, established over four substantive AfD discussions in the past few years. The goal appears to be to ignore any consensus through repeated AfDs until the only acceptable result -- deletion -- is achieved. More deletionism run amok. Alansohn (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant but Strong Delete. The entry is essentially that of a dictionary, rather than a referenced encyclopedia article. —SlamDiego←T 19:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Several people have argued here that the article itself is somehow "notable". Could someone please explain what evidence there is to support that assertion? Or why it's relevant? The only question on the table is whether this article has any reasonable potential of expansion past a mere definition. Rossami (talk)
  • Comment. What decides when this article will close?? Georgia guy (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please see the Guide to deletion. AFD discussions run for a minimum of 5 days unless either the page is determined to meet one of the deliberately narrow speedy-deletion criteria or the discussion itself meets the equally narrow speedy keep criteria. Since neither of those apply, this would now be scheduled to close on or about 30 Jan. Rossami (talk)
      • It was nominated on the 19th. So that would be 11 days. Or are these nominations 7 (the one before the speedy closure) and 7A (the current one)?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Often times a relisting of an AfD resets the clock, and since it hasn't been closed yet, that appears to be the case with this situation. -- RoninBK T C 22:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Correct. The time between a premature close and relisting do not count on the clock. 5 days are for open discussion. Rossami (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. AfD is not clean-up, per WP:AfD - if an article can be improved through regular editing it is not a good candidate for AfD. Yes the article needs work on the origins/etymology, different uses in different cultures and a notable usages section. Just because it is neglected doesn't mean it can't be greatly improved. Benjiboi 22:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep** Why the constant stupid debating about deleting this article, delete the boyfriend article as well then. --88.108.50.63 (talk) 23:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I sorta agree that we should move Girlfriend to Girlfriend (person) and make this a disambiguation. So, I'll go move. ViperSnake151 23:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • How does the dis-ambiguation page deserve equal-topic dis-ambiguation here?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: really think its an interesting article that deserves to be part of the topic puzzle. its subjects that I can type in and have pop up like this that makes wiki so amazing. I do think it could be written a bit better/improved though. User:Mattpikous —Preceding comment was added at 04:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • AfD is not Cleanup®. The problems the nom raises do not really raise the need for a deletion. These sort of problems that can be fixed by other means should be handled through ordinary article discussions. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I get fed up when people constantly relist just to get the result they want. Give it up. Mike H. Fierce! 21:22, 27 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 Notability requires multiple independent sources and the telegraph doesn't actually discuss in detail any of the content of the article and all you could glean from that was that the beer was adequate and the food was pants and such details does not a rounded article make. Spartaz Humbug! 10:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Royal Standard of England[edit]

The Royal Standard of England (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable English pub, no references to back up any of the claims made in the artcle. Basically a non-encyclopaedic article. WebHamster 05:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Although the article does not mention it, the pub is the oldest free house in England. MortimerCat (talk) 07:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete

    "...the pub is the oldest free house in England."

    You state this as as fact but how do we know that it is true? Where is the evidence?
  • Keep. Non-notable? [34]. That was a quick search for the first UK news source I recognized (which is a short list). The article needs references, but that isn't a reason to delete. Justin chat 08:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You did read that article in the Telegraph didn't you? Did you count up how many "it claims" there were? Sounds like they are unverified to me thereby not making it a particularly good source for a reference. --WebHamster 08:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Absolutely none of the claims made by the pub in the article are verified. There are no sources quoted, presumably because there is none. In a recent article in the Bucks Free Press, local author and historian, Miles Green pointed to the Tithe Map of 1838 which lists the building now occupied by the RS as being an "orchard with cottage" - i.e. not a pub nor an alehouse. This article, and other similar entries elsewhere should be qualified with source references or deleted.The claims are unverified which indicates that the RS is more than likely not a notable English pub. Buckshistory (talk) 10:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and allow time to develop. The WebHamster's wheel was turbocharged this morning ... he kept hit a page I was working 9 minutes after I started it and as I was working on, despite that I informed him. He also has a wikiquette registered against him. Bully and offensive in language. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 10:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your personal views on the nominator have no bearing whatsoever here, and are counter to Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Please give a rationale for keeping that is based upon our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and that actually addresses the article at hand. Uncle G (talk) 13:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Before spreading your temper tantrums far and wide I suggest you look at the article history and history log before pontificating about giving it time. I'd say that three years is a reasonable amount of time to demonstrate notability and to supply verifiable sources, but that's just me. --WebHamster 14:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
? What 3 years?? Created less than 2 weeks ago, unless I'm missing something. All the editor's edits have been promoting this pub. In some of them he even says where it is. Johnbod (talk) 14:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't look at the history log did you? --WebHamster 14:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah no, but the 05 seem irrelevant & the 06 ones are presumably about the flag not the pub, judging by where they were ripped off from. There's zero evidence the pub stuff has been put up before. Johnbod (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to recreation. So little useful information here it will be no loss. The history info is complete b******t. Doesn't even tell you where it is. PR rubbish. Johnbod (talk) 12:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to the editor - please just add reliable sources to the article and this discussion will be closed to keep quickly. I googled and it gave some reliable ones. No need to attack other editors. Dekisugi (talk) 13:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't find anything on Google or Yahoo! to support the historical claims written by the pub (Cavalierinns admits in his Wikipedia profile that he lives there). The fact that these claims about the pub's age have been perpetuated over several years (if not decades) without challenge is surely no reason to accept them as true. Indeed, there are publicly available historical records which indicate that the building now occupied by the RS, while old, did not become a pub (or alehouse, beerhouse or freehouse) until the mid-19th century - hardly 900 years ago in Saxon times. Here are some key dates of record which can be supported by documents held in the Buckinghamshire County Records Office in Aylesbury and of which the local historian and Penn Parish Council Clerk, Miles Green has copies:

1577 No record of The Royal Standard (or its previous names, The Ship and The Britannia) in the Register of Alehouse Keepers.

1753 Still no record in the Register of Alehouse Keepers.

1838 - Tithe Map lists the RS building as an "orchard with cottage" - not a freehouse or pub or similar.

1841 Census shows RS as a beerhouse (not a licensed pub)

1872 - The Licensing Return is the first record of the RS as a pub, indicating that the building was first licensed as a public house in 1863.

I believe that the most simple and fairest way to resolve this debate would be to ask the contributor/inhabitant making the claims, to quote his or her sources?. Buckshistory (talk) 14:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep These entries on the pub and comments below made by Buckshistory are from the rival pub in the next village commenting on this pub. Look at their history and you can see they've uploaded pictures and made entries for The Red Lion and Knotty Green.
The Royal Standard of England claims to be the oldest Freehouse not the oldest pub. The pub is privately owned not owned by a pub chain or brewery - therefore it's a freehouse. Unlike the Red Lion who is owned by Enterprise Inns.
The pub's own tradition or stories says it's the oldest freehouse not public house, or when it was licensed to sell beer without food. The pub will need an entry in wikipedia and a simple description of its folk history. The Pub claims to be haunted but can you obtain a source? - only from its traditional verbal history and customer stories.
Buckshistory will you change the other pub's entries in wiki who claim they are the oldest in England by asking for their sources. Their claims are in their folk tradition - not by an appearance on an old map. (Old Maps are not sound either). Did the English make beer in domestic alehouses for centuries? Did they not make it before the church parishes appeared? Little villages had their alewife brewing away long before purpose built pubs came into being. This pub survived by being under the radar used by locals avoiding the eyes of the authorities - and that is the point - how it managed to survive in its location. I live in the pub. Why would I want my nearest pub to write my pub's folk history? And why would he??? User:Cavalierinns 25 January 2008
*Comment Above comment refactored back in order. No need to top-post to upstage the nominator, and it creates confusion about who opened the discussion. One emendation made due to change of order. --Dhartung | Talk 03:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of these comments are relevant. WP is not here to document local stories or tradition. If the pub wants to use unverified claims in its publicity and its entry in a pub guide then so be it, but that is not the way it's done around here. Claims need to be backed up with verifiable and documented evidence. Cavalierinns has all but admitted that there are none and that it's claims are are only backed up by word of mouth of the locals. Including general history elements of the evolution of drinking houses is just a smokescreen and can be equally disregarded. As regards the comment about who should write the article, well all I can say is that comes under the heading of WP:BOLLOCKS, at least Buckshistory has come up with verifiable info, which is more than the current resident has been able to do even when their WP:COI is obvious. --WebHamster 05:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unsubstantiated claims do not an article make. - fchd (talk) 10:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For the record (and hopefully to stop any more false accusations against another pub) I am not the owner, landlord or landlady of the nearby pub you refer to nor do I live there nor do I work there. Another case of Cavalierinns not backing up his claims?

This isn't a case of pub rivalry - the solution to the debate on this page is all too simple. Show the sources for the age claims for the RS and the pub is notable. No sources or evidence - and the article must be deleted. Them's the rules. Buckshistory (talk) 11:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • What are you talking about? I write websites for musicians and bands, I don't write them for pubs. Now if you wish to prove your allegation with evidence there's plenty of space below. If you don't then I shall perceive it as both a personal attack and an attempt to get your own way using out and out lying as a tactic. Neither option looks good on your or your defence of the article. So please shit or get off the pot! --WebHamster 19:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I can't say keep, because I can't find any sources, but I know by my own original research that this pub ought to be notable, because I can remember drinking Owd Roger there in the 1970s, which was brewed on the premises and described by CAMRA as the strongest beer available on draught in Britain. I might have an old copy of the Good Beer Guide somewhere in a box in the attic that would confirm this, but it will probably be some time before I have the time to look for it. Maybe someone else could follow up this line of enquiry? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query. Serving beer at least since 1841, and licensed premises since 1863, and possibly with singular mentions in CAMRA from the 1970s ... Is that not notable enough despite the blatant WP:BOLLOCKS to be found in the current version of the article? --Paularblaster (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Well chaps let me explain my paranoia...perhaps there is no link...But please look at the entry of Knotty Green – that Buckshistory contributed to - photo copyrighted to Red Lion and its the same picture on their new website. See a history of the the village and a history of the Red Lion, and you can buy even the book as "available in the pub". Please read this and then consider why I feel uneasy that Buckshistory wants to delete the entry for The Royal Standard of England.

Beer lovers - Owd Roger was brewed in the pub - I have a card dating 1938. The landlady would allow you to have 2 half-pints only, though the locals managed to dodge this!- Sorry no written sources just local traditions. Notable? - its has been in every Good Beer Guide since it began in 1974. And recently won 2 Publican national awards. The pub should have an entry in WP and no doubt will one day it will. Cavalierinns (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Dear Cavalierinns - as I have explained both here and on your own User talk page. Wikipedia is a reference source - and as such is meant to be accurate and verifiably so. If the RS is as old it claims - then it is a notable pub and, as such, is worthy of its own page in Wikipedia. However, as I have outlined, the historical evidence strongly indicates that the RS is not 900 years old and does not date back to Saxon times. The Register of Alehouse Keepers of 1753 required all beerhouses, alehouses, freehouses and pubs to be registered by law - otherwise an offence was being committed. The RS does not appear on that register (nor that of 1577). Then there's the Tithe Map of 1838 which has the site now occupied as the RS listed as an "orchard with cottage". If you have evidence to the contrary - that can support the pub's age claims - then great. Otherwise, I think you have to concede that the RS does not qualify for its own Wikipedia entry because those age claims are not verified by historical sources or records. It is one thing to, shall we say, embellish things on your own website and signage (there are lots of pubs that claim they have ghosts or that Charles I stayed there or that it was a favourite haunt of Dick Turpin). But it is quite another to present unverified claims as facts on Wikipedia, which is a worldwide reference source and requires entries to be factually accurate and verified. Otherwise the whole thing would be a mess. That's my motive. As I have said, I don't work at the Red Lion, am not the landlord or landlady - my "connection" is that I have enjoyed a very nice pint or two there (as indeed I have at the RS and other Penn Parish pubs) in the past.Buckshistory (talk) 11:47, 29 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 school district was pointed out to merge to, and none of the other suggestions make sense. Wizardman 16:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Five Forks Middle School[edit]

Five Forks Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. No assertion of notability. Delete. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 05:11, 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 - The article failed to establish any of the notability requirements of WP:MUSIC. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 19:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

II Trill[edit]

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

I actually want the page kept, but since it was being nominated by an arbitrary deletion prod, I decided to move it to AfD instead, as this is a case where consensus should be reached first. So, discuss away! Tom Danson (talk) 05:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps, but it still fails WP:Music for not being notable in itself. Delete -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Bun B has announced via his Myspace that II Trill is dropping April 1, with the first single being That's Gangsta featuring (Sean Kingston). And as for the album being non-notable, it is the second solo album from half of UGK (and their surviving member). I do think a lot of unproven info needs to be cut out, but that can be done by a simple cleanup. Tom Danson (talk) 17:01, 29 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 17:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TEAM (company)[edit]

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

Delete this ad. It's a recreation of a previously deleted article. Notability is not made clear. Quality and reliability of sources cited is questionable -- look at the Quixtar web page addresses. This adverticruft should never have been recreated.[36] Doczilla (talk) 04:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, after rewriting. It was not created as an ad. This version was fairly NPOV. Around that time, TEAM coincidentally left Amway/Quixtar. This was followed by a legal and PR war which has spilled over into this article. It was difficult to clean up the POV because of the edit-warring from both camps and also the fast sequence of events. The current version is unacceptable for Wikipedia, but can be cleaned up.
TEAM happens to be among the most notable of the Amway/Quixtar training organizations (others include Network 21 and Britt World Wide). Much of the above dispute with Quixtar has for example been reported in independent media sources, e.g. [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1910683/posts here] and here, which should be used instead of the POV sites cited in the article. --Knverma (talk) 10:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given some time, I will try to collect sources available on the net.
Regarding COI: I never had any links to TEAM. Some people connected to me have been (low level) Amway distributors, but again not in Quixtar and not in US, hence not with TEAM. --Knverma (talk) 23:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Google News, on searching for quixtar and woodward, returns this mix of press releases and news articles. Many of them require subscription which I don't have. Another old news article is here. I'll leave it there and let others form their opinion regarding notability. --Knverma (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's an awfully tiny list, the brevity of which illustrates the lack of notability. Also, TEAM does not equal Quixtar. Anyway, you're right: We need to let others evaluate this. Doczilla (talk) 22:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I re-created this page back in August. Yes, this page has been crapped on many times since I initially wrote it; I haven't had the time to go through and clean things up, but given that it is up for deletion, now seems to be the right time. I will do what I can over this weekend. I have to admit that it would be disappointing to me to delete an article I spent a lot of time researching and writing. Trevor Talk 00:33, 27 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 title to Jody Lloyd. Please note, I will not be merging content. Use the history tab to access the material that is replaced by the redirect tag. Ask for help on my talk page if you need it. Keeper | 76 17:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She'll Be Right Records[edit]

She'll Be Right Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:CORP and WP:MUSIC. Not notable. Delete Metal Head (talk) 04:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge & redirect per Grutness. Lloyd's enterprises are collectively notable. Limegreen (talk) 23:25, 28 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) 05:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the Midst of the Staggering Tree[edit]

In the Midst of the Staggering Tree (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable film per WP:MOVIE. Zero hits on Google outside of Wikipedia and mirrors. Nearly impossible to verify its existence or to establish notability via reliable secondary sources. Doctorfluffy (talk) 04:37, 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 Merge/Redirect to Slaad; action to be taken by others. For further decision rationale see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Ygorl. JERRY talk contribs 08:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ygorl[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:NOTABILITY. It is just describing another game character. Delete Metal Head (talk) 04:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep There's a 30 year history behind the character in question, spanning books in three editions of D&D, and yes also in a relatively recent platform game. There is plenty of room to improve the article based on that alone. Before trying to delete something, it would be nice if you took things to discussion to suggest improvements, or attempt to make improvements yourself. I mean, the notability tag (as much as I disagree with its unilateral placement in the first place) is new as of this month. There simply hasn't been the time to respond to that and improve the article. This AFD is seriously jumping the gun.Shemeska (talk) 04:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For starters, Ygorl appears by name in the 3rd party Tome of Horrors by Necromancer games.Shemeska (talk) 11:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This does not deserve it's own page. It should be with the D&D article. Not on it's own. On it's own, it is just a character. That is not notable.Metal Head (talk) 04:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are suggesting this merge to the main D&D article? That seems odd. Hobit (talk) 03:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question - The character has, as you say, been around for almost 30 years -- plenty of time for it to garner significant coverage and commentary from third-party sources if it were indeed notable. So, where are those sources? --EEMIV (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they don't show up by the time the AfD closes, recommend the same merge as webwarlock and others. Hobit (talk) 03:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Out of spite, mostly, and because my arbitrary definition of "notable" can beat up yours. -- Poisonink (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, well my definition of "notable" was an honors student at Wiki Middle School so there. :-P —Quasirandom (talk) 15:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Shemeska & Poisonink.--Robbstrd (talk) 15:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the slaad article. There's not enough notability separate from the concept of slaadi in the first place. This isn't, say, Orcus or Demogorgon we're talking about here; I have trouble believing Ygorl has gotten the same level of coverage they have. The character hasn't even had stats published for him in 3.0/3.5 edition, to my knowledge. Since there's already a heading for the slaadi lords in the slaad article, it should be condensed and merged there. Ssendam, too, frankly. --Ig8887 (talk) 16:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, Paizo had accepted my Slaad Lords article, but Dragon went out of print before they could fit it in.  :( Bummer, I tell you! BOZ (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 10:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to List of Greyhawk deities as there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability of this stock character outside the game guide from which this fictional character is derived. This article fails WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:WEASEL and WP:WAF, so there is no encyclopedic content in the article worth keeping.--Gavin Collins (talk) 10:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment OK, now I've seen you throw the "stock character" around so often that we might as well as well call it your "stock response". I really need to ask on this one; are there enough froggy quasi-dieties of entropy and chaos who ride dragons that it has really formed its own archetype yet? With your ever-broadening definition of "stock character", we might as well assume that all fictional characters are stock characters, and therefore it need never be mentioned again. BOZ (talk) 13:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • that's because you do not even bother to read these articles or any of the source material. Ygorl looks nothing like a frog but rather a "black skeletal humanoid". But if that means "frog" to you then hey, I can't help you. Web Warlock (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, he is vaguely frog-like in appearance... you know, that makes him exactly like all the other slightly froggy charred skeletal characters out there. It's a long-standing cultural archetype featured in countless books and movies over numerous generations. I mean, there are so many even I get confused. BOZ (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gavin: Please quote the first sentence of stock character here in this debate, just so we can be sure you've seen it. Then explain how Toad of Toad Hall matches it. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ygorl and Toad are both Anthropomorphisms, a type of stock character. The difference between them is that Toad of Toad Hall is a lead character, has his own dialogue and is the central to a notable book, whereas Ygorl has no dialogue, and was created for a game guide.--Gavin Collins (talk) 12:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try again. Please quote the first sentence of stock character here in this debate, just so we can be sure you've seen it. Then explain how Toad of Toad Hall matches it. Don't just assert that X is a stock character because you say so. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your inabilty to do the simplest of research tasks boggles my mind. From the Fiend Folio "Ygorl always appears as a skeletal, black, bat-winged humanoid standing about 12 feet tall. He wields a huge scythe in his hands with various runes inscribed on the blade. Ygorl does not possess the alternate form ability of other slaadi, and it is clear that the form he assumes on the Material Plane is not the same one in Limbo." Given that you don't even know what this article is about and make claims for it's deletion based out of ignorance I say your claim is null and void. Web Warlock (talk) 12:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And you know that Ygorl has no dialogue because... you've read at least one book that he appeared in, right? Or saw something somewhere that said he's never spoken? Or maybe you've played Demon Stone, where he was voiced by Michael Clarke Duncan? I haven't played that video game, but generally if there's a voice for a character, one assumes that there's dialogue also. BOZ (talk) 13:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps if we're going to be talking about stock characters, then some time should be devoted to actually locating sources for *that* article (listed as having no references since November 2006). As is, that article seems like it could have lots of orginal research, possibly dubious claims, and (to me at least) a whiff or two of copyright violation (some of the language sounds like it's straight from a scholarly source, but I have not found anything to back up these feelings as I haven't searched for such sources). In other words, is that a suitable article for deletion? <shrug> --Craw-daddy | T | 13:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no third-party coverage. Possibly redirect to a list of deities. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is third party coverage in the "Tome of Horrors" published by Necromancer Games. Several pages on Ygorl (and Ssendam) in fact.Shemeska (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment that sounds like a primary source rather than an independent secondary source to me. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Having not seen the book myself, I've not idea how you could conclude that for the title of the book. Hobit (talk) 16:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment looking at [37] I see a sourcebook, containing in-game information on Ygorl and hence a primary source, rather than a discussion of the real-world history or impact of Ygorl, which would be a secondary source. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Slaad article. Doing so will improve the slaad article, which currently has a nearly-empty section on slaad lords; I believe that info on Ygorl (and Ssendam, for that matter) would be given better context by being included there. Also, many refs in Ygorl are equally or more useful in the Slaad article. Finally, it would be easier to maintain by editors, since much info is necessarily duplicated between the three articles. See also arguments by Ig8887 above, which I fully support. Freederick (talk) 11:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or merge if there's a more appropriate list-of) -- two sentences about the real-world (identifying creator and appearances) -- are insufficient to sustain an article. --EEMIV (talk) 15:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - but I would also accept a merge of this and the Ssendam article into Slaad. Web Warlock (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Slaad and add any appropriate references to that article (instead of this one, of course). Doing so will make for a more substantial Slaad article as suggested by Freederick. --Craw-daddy | T | 21:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- One better Slaad article is better than two iffy Slaad and Ygorl articles. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge. No assertion of real-world notability per WP:FICT. Eusebeus (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars, as it has notability to a real-world audience, plenty of refereces, and is therefore consistent with a "specialized encyclopedia" concerning fictional topcis with importance in the real world. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those references provide only an in-universe perspective absent information on development and critical response. I also do not see an assertion of the character's supposed notability. --EEMIV (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ygorl appeared in more than just one fictional medium and was voiced by a notable actor. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Once again, that is not notable. He was in a video game. Big whoop. He was voiced by someone important, once again, notability is not inherited. The character, by itself, is non notable. If not deleted, it should be merged with an important article. Undeath (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • A character appearing in multiple works of fiction and voiced by a mainstream actor and with verifiable information meets our guidelines and policies. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • If that was true, there would be thousands of articles about minor characters in video games. Sometimes, an actor does multiple voices in a game. One character being voiced by someone important does not assert notability.Undeath (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • We do have a large number of articles about characters in video games; I don't know if it's in the thousands, but I have come across many. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • We do have articles about MAIN CHARACTERS. Minor characters do not need an article. Ygorl was not the main character of that video game. Notability is still not there.Undeath (talk) 03:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • I might be inclined to agree were this a minor character in but one work of fiction, but due to its appearances in Fiend Folio (1981), Tales of the Outer Planes (1988), Tales From the Infinite Staircase (1998), and Forgotten Realms: Demon Stone (2004), it seems to have cross-media notability. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • That just tells me that it should be merged with a larger page. Maybe the D&D page itself. (make a section for notable characters) But once again, it only appeared in those other works. It was not the subject of them.Undeath (talk) 03:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I am not opposed to the information being merged into a list of characters and then per the GFDL the article redirected without being deleted; my opinion is that the sourced material should be kept in some capacity, as losing the verifiable information does not improve our project and I do not want any editors who contributed to the article to resent Wikipedia if it's deleted.. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                      • People should not resent Wikipedia if their article gets deleted in the first place. For one, this article is not very big nor very well written. The creator of it probably did not spend too much time in making this article. This article should be Merged.Undeath (talk) 04:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to Slaad. around for a long time and developed by a notalbe author. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Longevity ≠ notability, and notability is not inherited from a notable author. --EEMIV (talk) 11:38, 31 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 Delete. Lara❤Love 17:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barokai[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NOTABILITY. No sources. Delete Metal Head (talk) 04:06, 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. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teomara Rutherford[edit]

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

Non-notable photographer per coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources requirement of WP:BIO. Using either the page title or the shortened first name mentioned in the article itself, Google returns only business directories, forums postings, and trivial mentions which indicates acceptable sources do not exist to establish notability. Doctorfluffy (talk) 03:51, 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 Result was Speedy Delete. Non-admin closure.--Lenticel (talk) 06:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Sarquis[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:MUSIC. No sources. Why do people put freakin stubs on these things? Oh well. Delete Metal Head (talk) 03:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Not even a claim of notability - A7. SingCal (talk) 04:41, 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 (non-admin closure), per WP:SNOW. ChetblongTalkSign 19:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xenakis Ensemble[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:MUSIC. No sources. Nothing notble. Delete Metal Head (talk) 03:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep - As an editor working to improve articles related to contemporary classical music, an article on a specialist ensemble (with four CDs on major labels) focusing on performances and recordings of the music of Iannis Xenakis, one of the top five world composers of the second half of the 20th century, is certainly something we should have here. Such a disruptive tagging does a disservice to our users. Four CDs on major labels and being one of the most notable ensembles performing contemporary classical music easily satisfies WP's notability requirements for musicicians, so the tagger does not seem to show familiarity even with our own notability guidelines. Improve, don't delete. Badagnani (talk) 04:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Discography shows notability, and there's enough information to merit its own article (rather than being merged with Iannis Xenakis. SingCal (talk) 05:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems to meet notability. matt91486 (talk) 06:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Tagger clearly does not know what he/she is talking about. It would be well, however, to provide some better sources than mere external links.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This is to Jerome. I nominated this when it was a "baby" article. It had no sources. It had no notability whatsoever. I do plan on taking this off of AfD now.(though, i still cannot find much about them online.)Undeath (talk) 13:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems notable within its niche market. If the external links were linked instead as footnotes using the <ref> and {reflist} tags instead, the perceived issue would vanish. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I would say "be diminished", rather than "vanish". Under Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources, external links, especially to "self-published" material such as the subject's own website, are not as reliable as one might wish. Still, it is a start.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:01, 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. JERRY talk contribs 22:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xenophilia (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. No sources. No record labe. Delete Metal Head (talk) 03:42, 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 Per W.marsh this appears to be a real concept but this article appears to be original research and the article name is too pov. I'd be more swayed by Dhartung if I understood all the latin words he is using but the conclusion is clear. No prejudice to creation of a npov article discussing the subject of the sources that W.marsh is referring to. Spartaz Humbug! 11:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tax slavery[edit]

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

This looks like Original research to me, the article has been deleted twice in the past but has not been to AfD. I looked for references and found somethings that did not seem to be in the same point of view as this article. I am not sure if it is possible to write a WP:NPOV that is encyclopedic that would meet policy on this topic. I am suggesting delete, possibly with a Transwiki to Wikitionary as a combination of WP:NOT#DICT, original thought WP:NOR and no history with a WP:NPOV to revert to. The footnotes in the article seem to indicate there is some reliable source supporting the article as it is, but a search ("Tax slavery" Noonan) did not lead me to anything I would call a reliable source for the article. Jeepday (talk) 03:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. This would need a retitle and rewrite from sources to stay; as it is it's a WP:COATRACK/WP:NEO. The general concept relates to In re Noonan (Robert Noonan aka Willie Nile) who had a dispute with Arista Records ca. 1981. There is some case law that references 17 BR 793 and some entertainment law writing that discusses it more than triviallyGoogle, so it's arguably notable enough, but the phrase "tax slavery" is sui generis. --Dhartung | Talk 04:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this might actually be a real concept: [44], [45] and [46]. There appears to be both a modern and historic use for this term. --W.marsh 02:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To the extent that may be true, it has nothing to do with bankruptcy law -- it's about the taxpayer being a "slave" to the taxing entity (see Tax Freedom Day, which various U.S. political entities have announced for at least 50 years), but this article is about debtors and creditors. It's not clear at all why the term is connected to the material discussed. --Dhartung | Talk 08:14, 26 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; merge considered, but info already in appropriate targets. JERRY talk contribs 22:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shando Vernius[edit]

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

This article consists almost entirely of plot summary (in fact, direct quotations) without real-world context or analysis, which breaks WP:NOT#PLOT, and has no secondary sources to indicate notability per WP:FICT. Google returns very few hits that appear to be only non-reliable fansites and the like which indicates this topic has never recieved substantial coverage from acceptable secondary sources. As such, it is unlikely any amount of rewriting or improvement can bring the article up to policy by providing real-world significance or establishing notability. Once unencyclopedic, in-universe material is removed (per WP:FICT#Non-notable_topics), there would no content to merge into another article. Doctorfluffy (talk) 03:41, 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. Content not suitable for transwiki, due to entirely unreferenced OR. JERRY talk contribs 22:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Šiptar[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NOTABILITY. There is a long word that this falls under, but I forgot it. Delete Metal Head (talk) 03:38, 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. Merge was considered, but content lacks reliable sources. JERRY talk contribs 23:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solomani Confederation[edit]

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

This article consists almost entirely of plot summary without real-world context or analysis, which breaks WP:NOT#PLOT, and has no secondary sources to indicate notability per WP:FICT. Google returns only non-reliable fansites and the like which indicates this topic has not ever recieved substantial coverage from acceptable secondary sources. As such, it is unlikely any amount of rewriting or improvement can bring the article up to policy by providing real-world significance or establishing notability. Once unencyclopedic, in-universe material is removed (per WP:FICT#Non-notable_topics), there would no content to merge into another article. Doctorfluffy (talk) 03:36, 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 lacks sources to establish notability. Spartaz Humbug! 11:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Villa (Panyu)[edit]

Austin Villa (Panyu) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unnotable gated community in China. See here and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riverside Garden (Shenyang) for precedent cases. Poeloq (talk) 03:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 09:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Precedent cases are unconvincing; I see absolutely no evidence of anyone trying to look for sources in the language of the country where the development is actually located. Sources for this one: Nanfang Daily [47], Ming Pao [48], Sina News [49]. cab (talk) 09:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, confused it with another development by a similar name (南天名苑) in the same city. Still looking for sources on this one. cab (talk) 09:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This one is called "名苑別墅" in Chinese; horribly generic name (and thus hard to search for), but searching for that + Panyu in Chinese [50] just gives real estate agents' websites, not any actual news about the place. Many of these large developments in China are notable (e.g. the one I found by accident above, or Country Garden), but this one isn't. cab (talk) 09:31, 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 per unanimous consensus. ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gyorn[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional rank. Google returns under 100 hits with no reliable sources devoting substantial coverage to the rank itself, which fails notability guidelines in WP:FICT / WP:N. Additionally, what little content the article has is plot summary and it has not been expanded upon in over a year indicating there is no real-world significance or analysis available. Doctorfluffy (talk) 03:24, 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 no consensus, I also find it hard to fit this article into WP:NOT#DIRECTORY requirement, so I didn't weight it in as much. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Blackwell's Ten Worst Dressed Women - 1990s[edit]

Mr. Blackwell's Ten Worst Dressed Women - 1990s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Funny as it is, it does not meet WP:NOTABILITY. It is just a pointless, funny as hell, list. It's not wikipedia worthy. Delete Metal Head (talk) 03:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wikipedia is not a directory, which is all this is. No information presented, and even if we sourced it I doubt it would be eligible for an article. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 03:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per preceding comment. Earthbendingmaster 03:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteOhmygod Bekki, look at her butt, its so big! per nom. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 03:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mr. Blackwell's annual "worst dressed" list has been a newspaper favorite, year after year, and for decades. Easily sourced, and this is by no means a "directory". Maybe Blackwell is passe' (he's in his 80s now), but there was a time when people could say, "Everybody's heard of Mr. Blackwell!"Mandsford (talk) 03:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sources? -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 04:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Who cares if it has been a "newspaper favorite". For one, there is no source that states this. Also, a list about who dressed the worst is pointless, people could say it on his page.Mr. Blackwell's page has a section for this. Metal Head (talk) 04:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep historically notable lists. Silly, but there you go. Commonly discussed in entertainment rags back in the day. Sources exist, but good luck finding them on the web. Hobit (talk) 04:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We don't necessarily need web sources, but the point is, none can be found at all... it is the responsibility for the keep voters to assert notability if the pages notability is in question. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 04:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really. Both sides need to show that notability is either likely or unlikely. Sources help, but so do arguments/proof that sources don't exist. Though some (good) sources have been found, most of these sources are going to be entertainment rags that often don't have a web archive. Hobit (talk) 19:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - these lists are very well publicized when they come out on a yearly basis, and I'm sure if someone went through the effort to find newspaper articles or news clips from the era, it could be sourced. They may not easily be sourced, but they certainly can be. It's an important yearly pop culture item. matt91486 (talk) 06:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)  ::Here's a link to a New York Times article from 1997: here. This isn't without really searching other than going to the New York times and entering the search term. Obviously going to more resources or even searching a little harder in the NYT could come up with more. It's ludicrous to say that no sources could be found at all, Librarian. matt91486 (talk) 06:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, to clarify, that article was about Rodman winning in 1996. Here's an LA Daily News article about the actual 1997 list: here. But, really, I hope this ends the debate on whether or not sources could be found. People just have to be willing to look. matt91486 (talk) 06:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Still, it does not deserve it's own page. There is a section on the blackwell list for this. If not delete, Merge.Metal Head (talk) 06:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think you've really given a convincing reason for why it doesn't deserve its own article. If its publication is covered yearly in major media, it seems to clearly meet notability. matt91486 (talk) 08:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The list is already mentioned on the page for Richard Blackwell, and I see no reason why it merits its own article. The list may be a source of pop-culture discussion, but that seems to be the only reason why it should be kept. Musashi1600 (talk) 07:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't being a source of pop culture discussion, when that discussion is carried out in major media, a sign of notability? matt91486 (talk) 08:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge to whoever-he-is Mr. Blackwell. A non-notable list. Dekisugi (talk) 13:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Decades-old institution that has drawn international press attention every year since the '70s or before. —SlamDiego←T 19:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or, if there is something worth saving, merge it to the appropriate page. It seems non notable to me. --Stormbay (talk) 22:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sources have been added. I'm not sure that it will change any minds, but the annual list was was printed in newspapers the world around. I can't remember who wrote, "Who cares if it was a newspaper favorite?" but that's what people got their news from before the Internet came along. Mandsford (talk) 02:39, 26 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. Wizardman 17:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Epidermic menace[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NOTABILITY. No notable links other than it's own site. Biased comments on the page itself. Delete Metal Head (talk) 02:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I could not find any sources on Google that attest to the existance or notability of this particular game. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 14:29, 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 all. Redirection to appropriate targets is left to editor discretion. JERRY talk contribs 23:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Days Till[edit]

Ten Days Till (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC, no Reliable sources, prod removed by creator, delete-- Secret account 04:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also adding Lifford Shillingford and OD Hunte Secret account 04:37, 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]
  • Delete doesnt seem notable to me. --neonwhite user page talk 18:34, 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, JERRY talk contribs 02:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's been two weeks and no one's bothered to fix it. Wizardman 02:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bundle nom, does your recommendation apply to all 3? JERRY talk contribs 03:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the original article and OD Hunte for failing WP:MUSIC and not having enough sources. Weak Delete for Lifford Shillingford, appearing on a hit like that might be notable, depending on the magnitude of his contribution. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 14:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment their song appeared on the NBA Live 07 soundtrack. Dunno if that satisfies notability. --Howard the Duck 07:54, 27 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 22:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Winsock packet editor[edit]

Winsock packet editor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I noticed that User:RancidKraut tried to list this at AfD but didn't list it properly (i.e., it was placed in the log, but the user didn't place the tag or create the discussion page).

Anyway, this has been tagged for notability since October and has not had any improvements. It doesn't seem to assert any hint of notability as web content. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:21, 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. JERRY talk contribs 17:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B.A.D[edit]

AfDs for this article:
B.A.D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fixing 2nd nomination per request left on my talk page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Here is my information. For one, the site given on the B.A.D page is defunct. Also, the source sited during the first AfD nomination is only a music buying site. It is a German online music store. It as NO reviews of the band, it only has their cd's. It's just like going to the metal encyclopedia and saying that all of those bands are notable because they have an album for sale. All music guide doesn't even know of B.A.D. (note that it is B.A.D. not B.A.D) I have searched Google for B.A.D. ,B.A.D. taiwanese boy band, and taiwanese boy bands and nothing containing B.A.D. ever comes up. The only boy bands from Taiwan that come up are Farenheit(spelling?), and F4. B.A.D. has no site, they have no revies, and that one site brought up in the first debate is just a music shop. It's almost like Napster. You can buy the songs, but that is it. The site does not even offer background info. on the band. This fails notability.Metal Head (talk) 02:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, the defunct site used on the page is a KPOP wiki =? -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 03:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment They deleted it from the KPOP wiki site. XD Metal Head (talk) 03:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So much for that argument [51]. Pandacomics (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It would have been appreciated if this were actually posted at WP:CPOP instead of leaving us in the dark, and having us watch our watchlists. If Chinese language sources count:

(in Chinese)
Nomination List for the 3rd Global Chinese Music Awards. September 22, 2003.
TOM Online. Nomination List for the 14th Golden Melody Awards. August 1, 2003. (see also: Golden Melody Awards)
From The Beginning of A Dream, B.A.D begins to admit wrongdoings. March 21, 2004.
Compilation album to be released; is B.A.D's Ben going solo? September 29, 2003.
Are they done releasing? B.A.D dishes out own money to continue singing. December 24, 2004.
Lead single in B.A.D's new album, "Zhe Mo", completely destroys evilness. December 27, 2004.
Lianhe Zaobao. Members of Taiwan's B.A.D were bad when they were students. November 19, 2004.

One could argue that because only Chinese-language sources exist for B.A.D, we shouldn't include them in the English Wikipedia. On the other hand, Wikipedia is striving to counteract systemic bias. My vote is to keep this article, and to rewrite it if someone has the time. Pandacomics (talk) 05:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment The links are in a language that I could not read without translation. Even with translation, they seem to be local reportings on the band. Still not notable. No one cares if they were bad students. The yule site is talking about something bad the band admitted to doing. Once again, not notable to WP:MUSIC. The ent sites are the sites that just say that B.A.D. will release or it asks if they will release again. It does not give light on the importance of the band.Metal Head (talk) 05:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Plus, if this band was notable, KPOP wiki would not have deleted them.Metal Head (talk) 05:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow I think the notability guidelines were glanced over.
A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
  • Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury or Grammis award. The Golden Melody Awards are notable enough to warrant their own article.
  • Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). All those albums in the article were released with EMI Taiwan. Any online store that has their CDs on sale will tell you that. KPOP wiki has nothing to do with notability. There are a bunch of Chinese artists who are notable (Jackie Chan sings, in case you hadn't known) and aren't included there. Pandacomics (talk) 05:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Then you should be the one who translates all the sites so that the English community can see. I can't read chinese. This band belongs on the Chinese wiki, not the english one. At least, not until it can all be translated.Metal Head (talk) 05:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Care to point to a policy that requires translation of foreign-language sources? There isn't one. Granted English-language sources should be used when available, but only quotes used within the article need to be translated, and that is policy. Justin chat 08:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, there is no rule or policy that sources have to be in English, although its certainly encouraged and desirable. Under the circumstances, I think we'd best give this article the benefit of the doubt. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 13:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • Comment Policy may not require translation, but a lack of English language sources prevents the majority of readers of the English Wikipedia from being able to verify those sources. DarkAudit (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 17:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I believe that if an article is to appear on the english wikipedia, then the sources must be translated to verify to the english readers of the article's importance. This article is very poor. I think it should be deleted for now. If any sites come up in the future, any translated sites, then the page could be re-made.Undeath (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, see Wikipedia:V#Non-English_sources, it says nothing about requiring a translation to English. (Although we should get a Chinese speaker to come and assess the sources and tell us if they're notable. If not, then I have no objections to deletion). Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 00:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep if the only objection is the language of the sources. We write the articles in English, using whatever are the best sources; though it does help avoid deletion for people to explain the content a little in cases like this. DGG (talk) 03:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Yes, we do write the articles in English, but if no one can varify the sources because they are in Chinese, then how can we truly know that the article is notable?Undeath (talk) 06:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Improve or Transkwiki to Chinese WP. Because Eastern languages don't happen to be my specialty I couldn't tell if CWP has an article on them already, but if they don't this should be transwikied. Setting aside Wikipedia policies for a second, an article on a notable subject with absolutely no sources available for readers to follow-up on is really of very little use to anyone. If the language barrier is going to keep us from imparting any more information than is already in the article, then this article really isn't serving any purpose. Send it to Chinese WP, and the editors there can evaluate the subject's notability and improve the article; if this group is truly worth writing about for an English-speaking demographic an informed editor will write a translation at some point. SingCal 22:02, 27 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. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

V-COM Records[edit]

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

Delete Meets criteria for immediate administration of the Banhammer per WP:CORP. Every single blue link on the page links to something completely unrrelated to the article itself. 0% notable. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per all above. Midorihana~いいですね？ 02:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because their dismissal of my record contract killed my musical career. Just kidding: never heard of them; doubt we ever will. --LeyteWolfer (talk) 18:28, 29 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, snowball clause; invalid nomination criteria. JERRY talk contribs 02:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Game sweatshop[edit]

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

Has been sitting too long, needs a delete or a merge, or a complete rewrite Something X (talk) 01:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Needing improvement isn't a valid reason for deletion. Rray (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep No valid reason for delete, article is well sourced. Suggest this is closed under the snowball cause --neonwhite user page talk 02:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep WP:SNOW!!! -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no notability concerns with this article -- the external links indicate there's extensive mainstream news coverage of the subject, so there's no reason whatsoever to delete or merge it. A complete rewrite is not a valid AfD argument, and it's really bad form to bring an article to AfD just to prod it into cleaning up. Especially since, per official policy, it doesn't matter how long it takes to improve it, and AfD is too danged choked up dealing with, yanno, actual deletion issues. Obvious keep. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:16, 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. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Johnson (Duke)[edit]

Steve Johnson (Duke) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I think this article just barely escapes A7. I prodded it, but the ((prod)) was removed without comment by an anonymous user. Although Duke is, without question, a notable basketball program, the subject is not notable just because he is associated with the program. I performed a google search[52], which revealed more than 2,000 hits, but none of which were the result of significant coverage. Thus, the subject is not notable. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 00:53, 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. For details, please see AfD talk page. JERRY talk contribs 00:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Makuta[edit]

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

contested prod. Original research essay about a non-notable character from the fictional bionicle universe. No real world context and the only sources are primary sources. Ridernyc (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not notable outside its own fantasy world. Pharmboy (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hate to recommend dl for such a lengthy, detailed article, but the "sources" are mostly posts from one discussion board, and there's no evidence of WP:N. I'm sure someone appreciated finding this info. here, but it should be somebody's web page. JJL (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Makuta is the primary antagonist from the cult Lego franchise Bionicle. If you delete the Makuta article you might as well delete every other Bionicle article out there save the Bionicle article itself. As for BZPower, the comments posted on that webpage were by the author of the Bionicle books, Greg Farstey meaning that everything on said discussion board (or at least the things said by Farstey) is gospel truth or at least, the things said by Greg meaning that more or less everything in the article is adequately and reliably sourced so I see little to no original research. There is a variety of different subjects in the article all detailed and sourced so the article appears to be in tip-top shape or at least, in no fit state to be deleted. --Illustrious One (talk) 01:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I just tried editing to add a cite but the article seems to be locked in some way I don't understand. This invalidates the AFD since the article has lost some of its short window for improvement. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    May have been a database lock, which is what happens when the servers get swamped, and the master can't keep up with the slave servers. It locks it so they don't get out of sync. It happens often, and usually passes in a few minutes. Pharmboy (talk) 15:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I just edited it without problems. JJL (talk) 14:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried again so I suppose it was a glitch. Anyway, that was by way of demonstration that the article can be improved by someone like me who doesn't know the first thing about the subject. Here's a bunch of news sources that I didn't use... Colonel Warden (talk) 14:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
as with all the deletions for this series, sources are great to prove the notability of Bionicle, they do nothing to support the endless min-wiki of ever character and object that has been created here. if people want to do this they need to start from scratch with the main article which is little more then a stub and do the whole thing over from a real world perspective. Also can you please site something specific from that book about this character. Ridernyc (talk) 21:32, 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, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
read WP:OTHERSTUFF. Ridernyc (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Doubtful reliable secondary sources exist to establish notability. Doctorfluffy (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are plenty of articles here on fictional characters and this is arguably the most significant one in Bionicle. Look at the sheer amount of information on him listed here- How could it be merged in a reliable fashion with any other page? For six out of eight years of storyline he's been the main villain and I think that puts him pretty much on par as far as importance goes with Matoran and Toa as species. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.242.128 (talk) 08:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty (87) of references to him in the | news some of which looked non-trivial (http://www.macworld.com/article/44174/2005/04/bionicle.html was the first one). I think the real problem is that the folks writing this are unable to quite get how to write an article to wiki-standards... Hobit (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete WP:CSD#G1 as patent nonsense. "Legend has it Mayo can stare intensely into and through one's soul. Because gingers do not have souls, Mayo is unaware of their existence." Resolute 01:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle Mayonnaise[edit]

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

I really can't tell what this is. Seems like it might be a bio, in which case it clearly fails WP:BIO and seems WP:MADEUP. References aren't actually related to the article. — alex.muller (talk • edits) 00:34, 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. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yugioh toon monsters[edit]

Yugioh toon monsters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nothing more than a laundry list/essay about non-notable Yu-Gi-Oh! cards. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 00:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't want to say fancruft because people are trying to dispute it now, but I'm sure someone will. It's unreferenced and doesn't meet notability. Lady Galaxy 00:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect into Yu-Gi-Oh!. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is NOT Yu-Gi-Oh! Wikia. Zerokitsune (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per reasons above. Earthbendingmaster 01:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete essay, unreferenced. JJL (talk) 02:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fancruft, damn it. JuJube (talk) 03:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Cheers, LAX 03:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Google search show that Toon decks did not make waves in the TCG. The Yugioh Wikia's articles regarding this series of cards are superior so no need to keep this information on Wikipedia.--Lenticel (talk) 10:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sorry, but it's cruft. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 12:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per nom, this is not the place for personal essays. (jarbarf) (talk) 03:12, 27 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. --VS talk 23:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IZArc[edit]

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

Does not meat wikipedia notability guidelines. Editor list 400K google hits and listed on 7 other wikipedia's as reasons for notability. These reasons do not meet wp:note. I quickly scanned the top 50 google hits and did notice a single independent review. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it gets 414,000 results on Google search, and 54,600 results on Google Blog Search. Since many websites (whether they are "reliable sources" [personal websites, blogs and threads on web forums are considered "unreliable"] or not) do mention IZArc, and it supports more file types than many other compression utilities. Also it was rated 5-stars on Toget[54], it has high notability (notability means worthy of being noted, important or outstanding, according to Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Therefore, it should be kept.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Daniel, you're right, 414,000 Google hits and 7 other Wikipedias are no evidence of notability, but they provide some indication nonetheless: A non-notable subject is much less likely to have both as many Google hits and interwiki links. You say this program "doesn't meet wp:note". However, wp:note only lists highly general guidelines and links to more specific guidelines for various topics, such as people, books, music etc. - but not software. Don't get me wrong, I'm surprised there are no guidelines for software and think there should be some. However, for as long as we don't have any, a curt blanket statement like "doesn't meet wp:note" isn't very helpful. And even if they existed, I doubt that this program would fail them. As for reliable sources, I quickly scanned the top 50 google hits and found several of independent reviews in the mainstream press, including CHIP [55], FAZ [56], Stern [57]. That's probably because I had my Google interface language set to German (English indeed produces different results), but I daresay non-English sources count as much, right? Let me stress that I'm in no way associated with this program or its author, I'm not even a user. I hadn't heard of it until yesterday, when I was watching a screencast on how to install DokuWiki [58]. Apart from Firefox and FileZilla (popular and trusted open-source programs) it recommends using IZArc. That made me curious. The Wikipedia article was helpful insofar as it pointed out issues (faulty 7z support and no unicode support), preventing me from wasting my time on it. No other sources seem to mention these. Thus, even if you dislike the program for whatever reason, you might want to reconsider your delete vote. Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 10:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Two of those German reviews do not appear to be independent reviews, rather just rehash of the main web page and offering the tool for download. The third one is questionable. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A highly notable software.--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Popular software is not criteria for wikipedia article. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC) this comment was by the nominator, recommendation struckthrough, as it is implied in the nominationnstatement.JERRY talk contribs 22:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepWikipedia is always my first port of call to checkout downloads etc Aatomic1 (talk) 18:17, 24 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 00:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'd say that it is popular enough that it is notable. I found a large number of largely simple reviews (it works and does it's job well) but the raw number of reviews was scary. Many were rehashes/copies of each other, but I found at least 6 that were independent (though short). Hobit (talk) 04:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is just a comment, not new vote. Daniel, two things: I get the impression you're on some crusade to get this article deleted. Again, I don't use this program, I only learnt about it a few days ago, but I found this article helpful enough when I did (see above). That's about it, so if it does get deleted, it won't actually ruin my day. You, by contrast, seem to be hell-bound on deleting this no matter what. Regarding your new arguments, all German reviews are from the respectable, mainstream (read non-geek) press. Fair enough, the first two appear to be part of software catalogues rather than typical reviews, but they're still maintained by major media that quite probably don't accept just any program that comes along. What's supposed to be "dubious" about the last, "genuine" review remains a mystery to me. Care to enlighten us? BTW, is it actually correct to start a request for deletion and then discreetly cast yet another delete vote in the discussion?? :O Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 11:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In this current form, the article should be deleted because it does not meet WP:NOTE and it serves more as a WP:SPAM article. If editors can show me non-trivial coverage or reviews of reliable and independent secondary sources (not here, but in the article) to show that the article is verifiable, I'll change my opinion. Dekisugi (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)d[reply]
    • Please recall that the standard is that sources exist, not that the article needs repair. 141.212.111.116 (talk) 15:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please remind that we have standards for inclusion of all articles in Wikipedia, one of which is WP:V. As long as you don't show verifiability in the article, it is subjected to deletion policy. Dekisugi (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • And I'll raise you that both WP:V and the deletion policy require verifiable sources exist, not that they be in the article. Of course they should be there, but per policy that's not the standard. Hobit (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The onus to prove WP:V is in the editor, not the reader. As long as you don't provide them in the article, I'd say delete. Dekisugi (talk) 09:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If this article meets Wikipedia's WP:SPAM guidelines then most articles about products or services in Wikipedia would meet those guidelines. The problem , to me at least, is that some of the most vocal Wikipedia editors aren't native English speakers or don't have the reading comprehension necessary to accurately interpret Wikipedia's guidelines. I think this article passes the notability test. Public Menace (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 17:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And another comment (to Dekisugi). I absolutely don't understand the "spam" argument. The article lists the program's distinguishing features in a matter-of-factly manner and duly mentions the downsides, too (see my point above). One man's spam is another man's steak and all that, but that isn't my idea of "spam". Also, no implausible or unverifiable claims whatsoever are made here, so verifiability isn't really the issue. I mean, we're not talking celestial teapots here (which WP:V was obviously written in mind with), but bread-and-butter software. Even if none of the 400k+ Google results were trustworthy, one could simply download and try the program to verifiy the article. Of course, not everyone is willing to do that (I wasn't), but that doesn't mean the possibility doesn't exist. (When I want to buy a used car, I won't ask the dealer for "non-trivial coverage or reviews" or "reliable and independent secondary sources" about this particular car, not when I can always take it for a test-drive, right?) Also, I took the time to compare this article with every single the 41 other file archivers listed in the footer. Turns out that out of those 41 articles, just 7 have any "independent" references at all: Alzip (14 references, all in Korean!), StuffIt, WinZip, WinRAR, Izop, PAQ, PK-ZIP. By Dekisugi's logic, all others would instantly qualify for deletion. Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 12:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment to Jimmy Fleischer - Let's stick to WP guidelines to write articles here, okay? There states WP:V with refer to reliable sources. Prove it in the article, then I'll change my opinion. Saying millions of Google hits does not prove WP:V. Oh, and it'd be very interesting to hear you asking car retailers about WP:NOTE guidelines of a car when you buy it. ;-) Dekisugi (talk) 09:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another comment - one last thing. Don't compare with other articles. WP:WAX doesn't apply here. They are all subjected to AfD if meets the criteria. We only discuss this article in this debate. Dekisugi (talk) 10:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment to Dekisugi: Funny how you always have WP:THIS or WP:THAT handy without ever talking down to earth. Rules are fine, but what counts is not their letter but their spirit. How about some less rule-citing and some more common sense? Common sense tells us that there must be a more or less consistent standard to judge articles by. If you want this article deleted because it only quotes a single external source (incidentally the same as WinRAR), but wouldn't even dream of deleting WinRAR (I bet you don't), then obviously there's something wrong with your standard. Also just as obviously you didn't get the drift of my example, but never mind that now. Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 11:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Right, it's handy, huh? And I don't have to re-talk about what's inside in WP:THIS and WP:THAT. It's all clear there. How about if you read WP:V first? That's more handy word for you. ;-) Sorry, we work with guidelines and rules. If somebody put WinRAR or others to an AfD debate, then I'll give my opinion about them there. Dekisugi (talk) 13:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is getting so silly, but here we go. I did read WP:V first, but I just don't see how this article is supposed to violate it. You simply claim it does. Your argumentation goes like this: "X violates WP:V. / But why? What's the difference between X and Y, which obviously does not violate WP:V? / I won't tell you, and shut up about Y, you're violating WP:WAX." So let's have a look at WP:V then. It states, in a nutshell, that "readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged". Quite apart from the fact that this article doesn't contain material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, at least one such source is provided in the article. It seems to be reliable enough for WinRAR, so I don't see why it shouldn't be deemed reliable enough for this article.Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 19:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Why? You just stated yourself. There is no single reliable sources in the article, by the time I'm writing, that support WP:V. None. Zip. Niks. Nothing. That's it. Only one source of a bulk review with other softwares that you added later, but it is not enough to support the inclusion of this article in WP. Dekisugi (talk) 08:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.

This article seems to me to provide valuable information for those seeking information on free software that handles a large number of proprietary formats. I found it *very* useful, for I got the information that I wanted quickly and concisely - avoiding the need to search the Internet for such a program. I was redirected here from the "ISO" page - and found out exactly what I wanted to know! That is what an encyclopedia is for, isn't it? Fast, accurate, useful information. I say keep the article (or, if must be, it could be combined with other compression/decompression articles. But I prefer it as a stand-alone, because it eliminates the need to search and evaluate a long article in order to get the information I need.)

81.184.56.47 (talk) 10:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its a rehash of the web page. People might find being pointed to the web page more helpful. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 14:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a rehash of the program's website then why didn't I find any mention of downsides on that website, but did so in the article? Also, as long as the article doesn't violate copyright, is neutral and verifiable, it doesn't really matter whether or not it's a "rehash". Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 11:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it does not violate WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR (the problems of it can be verifed by checking the official forum [for the threads in it are release notes, wishlists, bug reports and questions] or downloading and using the software). Also Softpedia rated IZArc five stars (see IZArc Review - IZArc Download).--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tout[edit]

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

Transwiki to wiktionary and delete - Wikipedia articles are not dictionary definitions. Otto4711 (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Wiktionary I agree with you. Lady Galaxy 00:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Transwiki Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Earthbendingmaster 01:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • … so it can have an encyclopaedia article on touts, what they do, and the tricks that they pull when touting; for which this is a wholly unsourced, but otherwise reasonable, beginning. Sources apparently exist for doing so. ISBN 1740593561 page 94 documents what touts do in Thailand, for example. Please read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Stubs with no possibility for expansion. Wiktionary is not an encyclopaedia. Uncle G (talk) 03:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there is plenty of material that can be drawn upon to write an encyclopaedic page on touts. In the UK, the complex legal position can be explained and it currently has been the subject of a parliamentary debate here, the heavyweights report the problems touting brings here and here and it sometimes causes international concerns here. BlueValour (talk) 04:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I think a good article could be written on this. Needs sources, but they should not be too difficult to find (yes, I know, I know, WP:SOFIXIT). Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 12:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. I'm inclined to agree with Uncle G here. We have an article on chavs, why not one on touts? The term is commonly used by West African law enforcement bodies such as Nigeria's Economic and Financial Crimes Commission; this article could easily be expanded. Heather (talk) 12:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's little more than a stub now, but has growth potential. −Woodstone (talk) 13:48, 29 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. Wizardman 17:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kracko[edit]

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

This is a non-notable article that has already been merged as the result of a discussion. It has no reason to exist. TTN (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. TTN (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's been merged, then its reason to exist is as a redirect. It has, however, no reason to be at AFD. Grutness...wha? 00:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It has to remain a redirect either way to keep the history, but this is the only place available to get past a wikilawyering user. TTN (talk) 00:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If I am the wikilawyering user, then by those standards you certainly are. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 01:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comments in the first AfD for this article. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 01:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -No assertion of notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need third party sources that talk about something that isn't primary in order to have a valid argument. TTN (talk) 01:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sources that talk about something that isn't primary". TTN (talk) 01:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand. Did you mean primary sources? I'm not sure whether Absoluteanime is primary or secondary, but I think it can be used as a reference. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 01:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Per above. Earthbendingmaster 01:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Kirby characters#Kracko, lacks multiple reliable and non-trivial sources needed to establish notability, but deletion isn't an option. Individual character articles need to be well sourced and show out-of-universe details such as how the character developed, what was the reaction to the character etc. Kracko's just a minor boss, until someone demonstrates that a separate article is justified because quality information exists it should be a component of the character list. Someoneanother 03:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article seems reasonably sourced. A merge and redirect per someone another would not offend me. Hobit (talk) 04:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, as its already been merged. Can't be kept as separate for the reasons outlined above. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 12:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Merge/redirect my !vote from the first AFD stands Will (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've added more sources the the article. Summing up my reasons for keeping: This article should be treated as a section of its parent article, as described in WP:FICT. The introduction and the Anime section of the article could be merged into Characters in the Kirby video game series without making the list quite big, but the "Appearances in Kirby Games" section would be too much to merge. The "Appearances in Kirby Games" section is also quite easy to find sources for, as it's easy to find sources that describe the games, and mention Kracko's role. Whether or not this article is kept, it is not going to solve the problem of sources (though I believe there is no problem). Whatever has been merged into Characters in the Kirby video game series (which does not include the games with Kracko, and which is harder to source) won't be different in sources. Wikipedia absolutely cannot fail to mention Kracko's role in different Kirby games, which is what many readers want, and is easy to source. It makes complete sense to treat Kracko as a section of Characters in the Kirby video game series. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The information in the list is meant to describe the character, so that it can be referenced from game articles. We do not describe every minor aspect of every single minor character. And again, the summary style articles are lists and only lists. They will never be single characters. TTN (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the minor information can easily be sourced, it makes sense to create a separate sub-article. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sufficient information on this character to warrant an independent article. Everyking (talk) 04:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep outcome of previous discussion is clear. There has been little discussion on the article's talk page with regards to a merge. Catchpole (talk) 16:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Judgesurreal. Sources are not sufficient to establish notability and do not appear to provide a basis for out-of-universe, real-world analysis or commentary. Doctorfluffy (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am satisfied by the previous discussion that this subject is notable enough for our project and has significance for people in the real world. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. No real-world notability. Eusebeus (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect for the reasons explained by someoneanother. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All the article actually says is that Kracko is a one-eyed cloud with spikes, who first appeared in Kirby's Dreamland and has appeared in several games since, as well as a single anime episode. That's the article, more or less, with an oversized list of games he appeared in which can be summarized or cut away completely. He's a minor character, listing every single game he pops up in is overkill. The Ebay article cited is a copy of the wikipedia article, the anime listing used to cite him first appearing in KDL doesn't even mention a single videogame, let alone the character's origins within them. The sixth cite is a forum post in German, the others refer to him in passing as being a character. There's nothing there to justify a seperate article in the first place and no reason that the character can't snugly reside in the list. Someoneanother 22:20, 30 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 Acalamari 01:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bing bong[edit]

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

Textbook example of something made up in school one day. I would also like to point out an earlier version, which went so far as to list players. No references, citations, or reliable sources of any sort. Heather (talk) 12:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as per my nom. Heather (talk) 12:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NFT Doc Strange (talk) 15:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lack of notability. Earthbendingmaster 15:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable! TheProf07 (talk) 17:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. The nominator has this exactly right. —SlamDiego←T 19:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Stupid article. Fails notability. Will always fail notability.Undeath (talk) 23:22, 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.
More