< July 21 July 23 >
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 Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp×g 22:53, 17 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Crusties[edit]

Crusties (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Why would you delete this page? How does that fit the policy? Silverwood (talk) 13:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome To The Darkside[edit]

Welcome To The Darkside (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

EP album from an artist whose article (R.O.C. (rapper) was voted unanimously to be deleted. EP thus is not notable per WP:ALBUM JForget 23:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

not speedy--a proposal to that effect (which , incidentally, I supported) was rejected by the consensus at WT:CSD a few days ago. DGG (talk) 04:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before the Rains[edit]

Before the Rains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Original reason was, "Article lacks sufficient Attribution for Verifiability of the WP:MOVIE notability criteria." SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1/4 inch[edit]

AfDs for this article:
1/4 inch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails to meet WP:N and verifiability (one search engine hit). Fleetflame 23:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frenzy (World of Darkness)[edit]

Frenzy (World of Darkness) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is nothing more than regurgitation of plot summary and game rules with no reliable sources given to demonstrate notability. I don't think there is any relevant content to be merged into another article. The "real world parallels" section, while seemingly logical, borders on original research with no references to support the statements made there. --Craw-daddy | T | 23:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jahanara Foundation[edit]

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

No apparent notability. Speedy declined, so here we are. AndrewHowse (talk) 13:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Odd pop[edit]

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

subject lacks any claims of notability. At best it is a neologism but there isnt really enough sources for even that. Seem to be entirely based on a joke made on a comedy show. neon white talk 15:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:MADEUP only applies to things made up by editors, this article is based on a brief convo in a comedy show and lacks secondary sources. --neon white talk 15:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, though I have always interpreted it to go beyond just a potential editor .... the policy states "freinds" also ... which I tend to interpret more loosely than I should at times. Based on the MySpace reference, I inferred that this article was written by a band member or someone cloasely associated with the band. LonelyBeacon (talk) 16:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article lacks useful context and lacks importance. --Stormbay (talk) 02:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 , though no valid target was suggested. I am redirecting to List of angels, further redirects and/or mergers are left to editorial decision. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 14:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aristaqis[edit]

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

Mythological creature that fails WP:V. The article is unsourced since its inception in 2005 (and is entirely written in an in-universe style, to borrow a phrase frequently used in fiction AfDs). No on-topic search results. The sole Google Books search result seems to indicate that an angel of that name is mentioned (by name only) in the Book of Enoch, but that one mention doesn't support the content in this article.  Sandstein  17:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 , though this assumes the addition of more sources to the article. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 14:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo Smile[edit]

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

Non-notable individual known only to attendees of various fan 'cons'. No refs, links to apparently orphan website. This appears to be a neglected vanity or cruftisment article. Prod tag removed by an ip so here we are Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 18:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced - the first is a website and the second a student newspaper. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's additional coverage that is hidden behind pay walls. " Apollo Smile, a New York-based actress and singer, says another advantage of Internet celeb status is that it's easier to keep your integrity intact. ... " from [1] which appears to be part of an overall piece on internet celebrities. Taken in whole with the voice acting and whatnot, it scrapes by. -- Whpq (talk) 21:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

S3M[edit]

S3M (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

S3M is a commercial venture rather than an independently recognized software development model or standard. This article appears to be a form of advertisement for the company and associated web pages with no independently sourced references from appropriate standards bodies. The cross-references with standards such as CMMI have been recently included and are also inappropriate. If S3M was worthy of mention it would be on a list of consultancies which specialize in software development and operational standards.—Ashleyvh (talk) 07:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly a bogus commercial entry. The owner has created it, and then carefully and slowly added references to it in other articles over a period of time, and persists in doing so. It should be deleted. 78.110.168.138 (talk) 11:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the above keep comment was from User_talk:66.131.80.237 please refer to WP:SOCK before making any further bogus edits on this page.—Ashleyvh (talk) 23:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful if you could address the issue of no independently sourced references. The ISBN and page references for the book you mention and a reference and date for the publication by April and Abran would seem appropriate.—Ashleyvh (talk) 23:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that due to the apparent involvement of April and Abran in the S3M website / company, associated publications would not be considered independent.—Ashleyvh (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the above keep comment was from User_talk:66.131.80.237 please refer to WP:SOCK before making any further bogus edits on this page.—Ashleyvh (talk) 23:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the model is at proposal stage and is unpublished then Wikipedia:No original research would make it a clear candidate for removal from Wikipedia.—Ashleyvh (talk) 23:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the likely sock-puppet is User_talk:Dr.Pigosky and the account has been reported for breaching the username policy for real names. I don't have much experience in following the sock puppet reporting process, so would appreciate help in identifying any further abuses by this user under bogus accounts.—Ashleyvh (talk) 15:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete by Craigy144 . Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer Farfel and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 02:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cody W Martin Radio Show[edit]

Cody W Martin Radio Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Gsearch reveals trivial or self-referential hits, limited notability, advertising, COI Madcoverboy (talk) 23:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Is the problem that i have created a page about myself/ Becaseu I will have someone else creat the page if necessary. I have a webpage and a radio show..What more is needed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Codywmartin (talk • contribs) 23:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile pedestal[edit]

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

per WP:NOTDICDEF Arx Fortis (talk) 04:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. BJTalk 02:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Global H2O Resources[edit]

Global H2O Resources (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article about a company that shows no evidence of meeting our criteria for notability of companies Gwernol 13:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  17:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Physical appearance, health and diet of Michael Jackson[edit]

Physical appearance, health and diet of Michael Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Controversial and POV Craigy (talk) 23:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: As of this version of the Michael Jackson WP:FA review. When all/the vast majority of this content was in the Jackson article, it had 5 supports and 0 opposes for passing FA. Reviewers concluded that the article (which included this info) was neutral, reliable, well written and two of the supporters belief it to be better than the "Britannica" version. This content has already gone through an extentive review by some of wikipedias best article builders and source checkers and it was endorsed. Some of the content was removed to trim the Jackson article not because it was of poor quality. Note, the deletion nomination was made just 8 minutes after I set up the article. That was insufficient time for the nominater to read the article, check the sources, do their own research or check my history. The deletion nomination was made on the grounds that it is "controversial and pov". FA reviewers has already determined it to be neutral and wikipedia is not censored to avoid controversy. There are books and pictures of Jackson's vitiligo, Jackson himself has admitted he has vitiligo. He has also spoken openly about his drug addiction. We are not exposing some forgotten, hidden secret that could result in us being sued. Jackson has been quite open about these controversies so there is no issue with "Human digity". Also as I don't have an anti Jackson agenda I don't intend on writing nasty untruths about him. The article has also been listed as "High" on the importance scale of the Michael Jackson Wikiproject (by another editor). I agree to move the article to Health of Michael Jackson or Michael Jackson's health and make any alterations needed to comply with that title. There has also been suggestion that the article isn't needed because there isn't that much new info here, comments to that direction fail to realize that I fully intend to expand the article with the number of books I own on the subject. The article could reach approximately double this size according to my written plan. There will be lots of new info arriving (after I get this darn FA review out the way) so it is worth a new article. — Realist2 (Speak) 00:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE TO EDITORS: There has now been a consensus that if the article does stay, it should be called Health of Michael Jackson or Michael Jackson's health. I am therefore writing and still adding to the article content according to these favored titles. — Realist2 (Speak) 07:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either that or Health concerns of Michael Jackson. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Futher Comment: I have no objections to renaming it, however I tryly believe this deletion preposal was either made in bad faith or without knowledge or understanding of the content or strengh of the sources. The fact that people were/are supporting the Michael Jackson article going to FA with this info included speaks volumes. The FA review has concluded that some of these sources are the best of the best. The Jackson article has been praised for it's neutrality, accuracy and sources. Please read the Michael Jackson review to see what others think of its neutality before deleting. This info wasn't removed because it was bad, it was removed because there was so much. I fully intend to extend it and nominate it for GA at some point. — Realist2 (Speak) 00:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carter 4[edit]

Carter 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball, been prod'd but person who's adding the un-sourced 'leaked' tracklist removed it. There is no reliable source anywhere that officially lists this album as existing it is all speculation. Q T C 22:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Previously existed and AFD'd as Tha_Carter_IV, so might qualify as ((csd-g4)). Q T C 22:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amway Children Charity Foundation[edit]

Amway Children Charity Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article is essentially a press release by Amway about spam emails about a bogus charity scheme circulating on the net which falsely involve the company's name. No other source to establish notability of the topic. Knverma (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Notability is not the issue here, verifiability is. But as long as this toponym is recorded in sources such as Google Maps, Encarta, the "Population Census of Pakistan, 1961" etc., I can't just hit the delete button and say that I know better than them. Computerised sources are not per se unreliable. As with print sources, it all depends on the publisher and editor, but the prima facie burden of verifiability has been met in this case. Remaining uncertainties, if any, may be noted in the article itself.  Sandstein  18:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahammadkati[edit]

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

Article makes no assertion of notability, indeed it provides no information other than the name of the village and it's location; Seems very unlikely to ever grow to more than a stub. There are no matches for the village in the Google News archive, and all the Google web matches seem to be auto-generated pages based on the village's atlas coordinates. Kaldari (talk) 22:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably a reference to the common deletion outcomes, per the Places heading at WP:GEOG - "cities and villages are acceptable regardless of size". That said, it isn't a policy or guideline, but it is documentation of common practice. Fritzpoll (talk) 23:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'd find that some of these nowehre places are actually very heavily populated. Many of the villages i started are in the Ganges Delta which is one of the most densely populated places on earth, many of the places are likely to be more populated than some of the smaller European towns. As it stands, no, the info on such place sis not on the web yet, but this isn't to say the place doesn't exist or is a nowehere, the country is very poor and like places in much of Africa haven't wide access to the web ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 10:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I bet you can find few "useless stubs" without any references or external links. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 10:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that's fine, provided there are no available sources for these places at all, since that is an obvious alternative to deletion Fritzpoll (talk) 01:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But wouldn't it be better if they were all deleted so that a bot at some point could recreate them all with proper info and sources (which is probably unlikely to happen if the articles already exist)? Kaldari (talk) 01:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed it would Kaldari. This is why the BOT was established to improve quality too. I;d rather not do it manually if a BOT can create something better. I find it quite offensive that I spent weeks with Fritz to set up the bot and project because I care about wikipedia and what is missing and I believe it or not am striving towards a major world improvement in coverage and qualirt of information which you have not given me an ounce of respect for Kaldari. It isn't my fault many of the thrid world countries haven't accessd to the web to release more info on these places ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 10:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure FritzpollBot can be adapted to retrofit these articles if necessary, or WP:GEOBOT can request them deleted as a non-controversial housekeeping speedy immediately before the new articles are created with sources. In the meantime, this small amount of coverage is not brilliant, not ideal, but at least it's there. Retrofitting the existing articles is one of the tasks WP:GEOBOT will have Fritzpoll (talk) 01:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Not brilliant"? That's an understatement. Regardless, isn't it many times easier and safer to bot-create articles from scratch than "retrofitting" them? If the retrofitting is automated, there's a good chance it will mangle or duplicate existing info in the article. If it isn't automated, it will take countless otherwise unnecessary man-hours to review all the edits. The solution of speedy deleting them all isn't good either because you either have to waste a lot of time manually reviewing them all or risk deleting any that have developed into good articles. Wouldn't it be better to just wait until decent articles can be created (by bots or otherwise). I don't think the world is going to suffer if there isn't a Wikipedia article about Ahammadkati for another year. Kaldari (talk) 02:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, notwithstanding the verification failure below, I'm not sure the argument "it's not a very good quality article" has enormous weight as a deletion argument. If you want to list all of Blofeld's articles in a mass AfD, then go ahead. It looks like some will have verification issues, but we'll need to allocate more than five days, because we're talking tens of thousands. I'm not averse to checking them, it's just a procedural point Fritzpoll (talk) 07:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remember I have actually written several thousand good quality articles too. There is just so much missing that stubbing is often the best place to start ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 10:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[2] ofers a few sources. I'll verify it from the Geonames database in the morning Fritzpoll (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through all 68 of those; all were computer generated. Not so much as blog mention. Worrisome. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only information that Geonames gives is that Ahammadkati is a "populated place" located at 23° 03' 00" N 090° 11' 00" E. On Google Maps there is nothing there but empty fields, nor does there seem to be any other way to verify this place's existence, or whether or not it is in fact a "village". Kaldari (talk) 02:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FallingRain lists it as a "city", but gives the exact same middle-of-a-field coordinates. It should also be noted that FallingRain is known to list places that no longer exist. Kaldari (talk) 07:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, all the sources listed in the Google result are computer generated from a single source (fallingrain is notoriously unreliable over some things). Single source is insufficient to verify, since that's probably where it comes from. Wasn't advocating keep by posting the google results, just wanted someone to look them over before I went to bed. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you are talking about. Doesn't exist????. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 11:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please, indulge me. Read the last half of the debate; the concern is that this location might be some sort of mistake, given that all the sources seem to stem from one database entry somewhere in the past, but the town does not appear on aerial photos at the coordinates given, and there is not a whisper of human corroboration, not even on WikiMapia, nothing. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 12:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The google map clearly shows that the area is inhabited. Although the map points directly to a rice paddy just look at all the buildings dotted around the place. It is likely to be a farming village and crops sold at Barisal which is about 16km away ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 14:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Farms and rice paddies do not necessarily make a village, half of the midwest is covered in farms and fields that do not belong to any town. What would be nice is if there were a single mention of this location in something other than a database. Even the coordinates for this location seem odd. The chances of a location falling right on the intersection of two arcminutes is 1 in 3600. And why does the article say 60" in the coordinates. That doesn't even make sense. 60" = 1'. Kaldari (talk) 15:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No its a different place. East Pakistan is over 2000km from the Ganges delta its the other side of India ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 16:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, modern "East Pakistan" is on the other side of India, but in 1961, Bangladesh was part of Pakistan and it was called East Pakistan. So it seems likely that the two spellings are the same location. Kaldari (talk) 16:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that per WP:Verifiability, a policy, "burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For one, Wikimapia isn't a source at all. I can label Ahammadkati for you there, if you prefer. I hope that's not what we are looking for. And, for all those sources flowing from the same source, I think that is a clear wrong statement. At least one of them is a reputed university, and even for the other two it is highly surprising to see the claim of the information coming from the same source. What is that source? Can someone explain. It looks very much like a case of I don't like it. Please, show that I am wrong here. Aditya(talk • contribs) 13:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anyways, here goes more - encarta map, reproduction of google map (google map proper), gospelgo.com, islamicfinder.com. Please, let me know how much more is needed? Nobody mentioning the village on Wikimapia can't be a measure for non-verification. Aditya(talk • contribs) 13:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And, here is the link to Population Census of Pakistan, 1961: District Census Report. If you're still bent of lawyering, like the "burden on proof is not on me", remember that the burden of upholding the spirit of Wikiepdia is still on you. As history goes, East Pakistan of 1961 is Bangladesh of 2008 (see J. G. Lammers, N. S. Saksena, Imtiaz Omar, B. G. Ramcharan, or Judith Kidd). Aditya(talk • contribs) 13:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for screaming above. But, when a real world place gets challenged first on the very premise of being inherently notable, and then on whether this place exists at all, with a bit of confusion of identity (East Pakistan/Bangladesh) and repeated quoting of a cherry picked piece of policy (the burden of proof), there is ample reason to see a lack of spirit. And, if anything, that hurts. Sorry that my hurt showed through. No harm meant. Aditya(talk • contribs) 13:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is needed is a non-computerized source. Where do these online sources get their data? Do you think that the "reputed university" sent a survey team to Bangladesh? No. All of the online sources are getting their data from ONE older source. And it is quite possible that that older source is wrong. It could be wrong it many ways. Perhaps the coordinates are way off. Perhaps the name of the town got confused with the name of the landowner. Perhaps the town depopulated. The only older source that mentions Ahammedkati's population is from 1961.
As for you not assuming good faith on my part, I am greatly insulted. I just created an article for a small village in Nepal, Ringmo. I am all for accurate articles on tiny villages on Wikipedia. My concern is that using a single database mistake as the basis for a Wikipedia article fails WP:V. There is no other evidence for the existence of this place. Remember that Wikipedia has a reputation of being unreliable, see Reliability of Wikipedia.
Finally, let's examine WikiMapia. To the north of the coordinates for "Ahammadkati" is a tag for Nabagram village [4]. Now if one does a Google News search for Nabagram, 18 recent news articles appear. As has been previously ascertained, no news articles for Ahammadkati under any of its spellings appear. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 14:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cherry picking one of the five pillars? Since arguing WP:N is not allowed, I have no choice but to use WP:V. WP:N is a guideline. WP:V is a policy. Go argue there that the burden of proof lies on me. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 14:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete per WP:WEB. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bensbargains.net[edit]

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

Uninformative stub about a bargain hunting website. Claims an October 2006 Alexa rank of 3,240, but this is a questionable claim to notability. Most of this article is concerned with forum members and the site's founder, this information is backed up by minor primary sources and an interview posted on a popular blog. I don't believe there's any coherent explanation of why this website is notable, nor is there any salvageable content here that might be useful in any other article. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 good refutations of delete arguments were provided, and keep arguments do not back themselves up. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 16:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Withington[edit]

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

Non-notable TV producer - modest career culminating in work on a largely unknown lifestyle channel. No non-trivial ghits. Fails WP:BIO and in particular WP:CREATIVE - "known as an important figure or is widely cited", "known for originating a significant new concept", "has created... a significant or well-known work", "has won significant critical attention" etc etc. I.e. just a.n.other TV guy andy (talk) 21:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's not what notability means - read the policy. But if it matters, his "rather specialized" channel has viewing figures that are too small to be measured accurately according to official industry statistics. Being a big fish in a microscopic pond does not automatically confer notability! andy (talk) 22:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope - he didn't create the Denis Norden show, which has been running for many years, nor did he establish the TV channel nor is there any evidence that he is notable for making it a success. He's just a reasonably senior staff member with very few ghits. andy (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well he would be, wouldn't he? A WP editor put him there! andy (talk) 23:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.--Kubigula (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phenomena (band)[edit]

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

After a string of vandalism on this article, I decided to look into this further, and the band fails WP:MUSIC. Most tellingly, the article here on WP is hit #1. There is no discernible nontrivial coverage, as "phenomena" is too common a word for GNews. However, AMG lists no charted hits or gold certification (and no reviews, either). There is no indication of a tour of any size ever. The band only released one album on a major label (BMG/Arista) of the six or so they have (incl. comps). Most of the "famous musicians" involved with the project at various points were session musicians who did short stints in the secondary (or tertiary) lineups of famous bands like Whitesnake and Black Sabbath. Therefore I find this criterion of questionable validity here, because the other bands were famous before these musicians ever got there. This band is not representative of any style, as it is made up of session players. Lastly, no awards, no major competitions, no TV themes, no rotation, and no TV special. MSJapan (talk) 21:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G6 by Happyme22. –xeno (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of living philosophers and academics of philosophy/subpage[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of living philosophers and academics of philosophy/subpage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

"List of living philosophers and academics of philosophy" was deleted, so this associated "subpage" should also have been deleted. Leo Laursen – ☏ ⌘ 21:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Rockin' 80s[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The Rockin' 80s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

a non-notable syndicated radio show. PRODed for second time for failing to assert notability, so sending to AfD. Wolfer68 (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep.--Kubigula (talk) 19:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Cavett Meets ABBA[edit]

Dick Cavett Meets ABBA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. I would not have nominated this had it been featured on an ABBA or other video in its entirety. However, this is a one-off band appearance on a show. Notability is not reliably sourced. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying because the program is not on DVD, it is less notable. I'm not speculating why it wasn't released on DVD/VHS. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused about this discussion. 5 of the 9 songs from this show are on The Complete Studio Recordings (ABBA album)#DVD 2 released by Universal; all 9 are on a poor-quality DVD called In Performance by "Classic Rock Productions", according to [5]. Was this entire program released on VHS but not DVD at some point? --Closeapple (talk) 22:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep per WP:N. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Pringle[edit]

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

Declined speedy (though I still don't see any importance or significance asserted). Non-notable performance artist, fails WP:MUSIC. ukexpat (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 22:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Afro Ninja[edit]

Simply put, Afro Ninja fails notability as described in WP:BIO and lacks the requisite non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications to warrant an article. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 19:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy Deleted (non-admin closure), housekeeping close. Protonk (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Won't Hold Back (album)[edit]

Won't Hold Back (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC. Not notable without substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. None provided, none found. Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 1st of all, this page was not recreated, stupid. 2nd, This page only sites one source and that pertains to when Sheard starting recording the new album. Usercreate (talk) 01:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply, First of all, please don't call me stupid. Second, "recreate without prejudice" means, if the page is deleted I don't have an issue with it being recreated in the future once the wikipedia notability criteria are met since it is a crystal ball issue we're dealing with here. And thirdly, your reference passes verifiability, yes she's doing a new album. Artists are always looking to do their next album. What hasn't been proven is, nor can I find by searching online, is why this album is notable per the guideline set out in WP:CRYSTAL & WP:MUSIC#Albums.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 04:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact also that you've just been banned for being a sockpuppet yourself, and that you also accused me of being one on my talk page, means I'm now going to do this....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA....Ok, I've finished now. Thank you. p.s. if that gets me a 24hr ban for not being civil, it was worth it :-)  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 13:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BJTalk 02:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Anime Network[edit]

List of programs broadcast by Anime Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nothing but a list of anime titles, with one line of OR. Purely a copy of the original [6]. Wikipedia is not a mirror site for other websites, nor is it an electronic programming guide. This is not a "historically significant programme list." -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: that discussion - closed 16:12, 17 July 2006 — was a massive (and I do mean massive) bulk nomination. :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Devine[edit]

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

Non-notable comedian. Speedy-deleted and recreated today so bringing here. DCEdwards1966 18:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 22:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crowborough Caves[edit]

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

Hoax entry backed up by web-sites and Ghits that look plausible at first, but not at second, glance. I can find no independent confirmation: all the Ghits lead back to the two web-sites cited.

www.crowborough-caves.org.uk includes remarks from "Our resident geologist, Dr. SP Leo Logist", claims that the caves link to Holland and to Mars, an account of falling into a cave in Wales, after which "We walked and crawled for half an hour and to our surprise came out on Ashdown Forest." (about 160 miles away); and a claim that "Prof. Chapman has reported finding a pre-humanoid skull. He has named it Crowborough Man, it shows remarkable similarity to the controversial Piltdown man."

The second web-site listed, Campaign to reopen the Crowborough Caves, looks more sober, but there's a marked absence of hard information. The caves are "Unknown to even the most ardent of Sussex historians," and "it has been decided by the Friends of the Caves of Crowborough that the exact location of the Caves should not be published - for the time being." So they are certainly not a "well known local tourist attraction", as the article claims.

Reports show that the website crowborough-caves.org.uk is hosted in Horb, Germany. Once again implying a hoax! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.121.119.201 (talk) 21:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has been in for more than a year; credit to an anonymous IP user for tagging it as a hoax, and adding "there are no Crowborough Caves - this is a well known 'fun' story / hoax" on the talk page. The joke seems to be maintained by the 1st Crowborough Scout Group whose web-site is very similar in appearance to www.crowborough-caves.org.uk. Good joke, boys (well, fairly good), but when misinformation leaks into Wikipedia we Delete it. JohnCD (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ¤ count/logs 03:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yogiraj Bharat Bhushan[edit]

Yogiraj Bharat Bhushan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Orphaned article on a religious leader that is not notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Does a Padma Shree recipient qualify as notable? If yes (and if this person is really a PS awardee) then I think we should keep it. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 07:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete under CSD G7 given Sniperz11's comment below. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 17:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frontier India Defence and Strategic News Service[edit]

Frontier India Defence and Strategic News Service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. The Reuters quote looks impressive, till you see the disclaimer on the top of the reuters article, where it say, it is a blog and is in no way connected to Reuters... Most of the quotes or to it's own websites. ChiragPatnaik (talk) 18:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete . lifebaka (talk - contribs) 17:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yoga Shri Pith[edit]

Yoga Shri Pith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable ashram. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 No Jacket Required.Tikiwont (talk) 09:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Jacket Required: The Tour[edit]

No Jacket Required: The Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable tour. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus to delete , default to keep all. Suggest nominating each individually after a few weeks. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 17:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Thaxton[edit]

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

Articles about band members that haven't done anything notable outside the band. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 14:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I am also nominating the following related pages because they are pages about band members who have done nothing notable outside of the band.:

Joshua Cain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Matthew Taylor (bassist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

-02:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


(This was meant to be posted on Joshua Cain's article for deletion page, my bad, so it's about Cain) Nothing notable? He was the co-producer of Metro Station's album which brought the top 10 single "Shake It". He's produced other music as well, Sing It Loud - an upcoming band that'll big big probably next year. I haven't really researched, but that can be done. Sure it's really badly written, but if you're going to go to the trouble of doing this you might as well of fixed the page up yourself, it's not like these pages have been stubs for a year like a hell of a lot of pages i've fixed in the past. And as he said we should just merge it, rather than deleting. But, stuff about his production would be totally out of place in MCS' article. kiac (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, according to the article he only produced two songs from the album. I don't think that increases his notability outside of MCS enough to warrant his own article. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 15:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, seresin ( ¡? ) 07:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a straw man argument. Just because there are less notable articles on Wikipedia doesn't make these articles any more notable. At the end of the day, they still fail WP:MUSIC. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 16:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that wasn't supposed to be part of the argument not to delete it, i was just syaing i don't get why you'd bother messing with an article like this. Go find something better to do? kiac (talk) 06:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jauerbackdude?/dude. 17:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harp/Lange Vacations[edit]

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

CSD A7: Unremarkable people (Twinkle CSD tab still not working for me) Tckma (talk) 18:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious CSD candidate. BALEET! Rob Banzai (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Susan bayh[edit]

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

I'm not convinced she is notable enough for her own article - some minor press mentions, but they are all regarding the effect of her job on her husband's position. IMO, merits at best a mention in her husband's article Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 17:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* comment - WP:WAX says that other articles can not be used for comparisons of the meritis of an AfD discussion. The discussion must be about this article only. --triwbe (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 evidence provided by she meets WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:N. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 17:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ariadne Diaz[edit]

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

Non-notable actress, completely unreferenced. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete as recreation of previously deleted article. -Djsasso (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KevJumba[edit]

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

Re-created page of NN person Kevin Wu. Imhyunho (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's eligible for CSD-G4, presumably. It's certainly been recreated enough times in enough places that consensus seems to be clear--I choose not to so tag it, but any other editor certainly may. Jclemens (talk) 19:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 22:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Pappas[edit]

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

Making a potato salad isn't something to make you notable, in my opinion. StaticGull  Talk  16:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He was credited with adding it to a greek salad, not with making the potato salad. Also the article is more a chef bio than an article about the salad anyway. Jwither1 (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, you allow bios of other chefs, Emeril, etc. They list family info and work history. The article is not finished and will include PUBLISHED articles that feature him and his company. If I need to take out the trademarked product, I can. This guy is well known in the tampa bay area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwither1 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just because other stuff exists, it doesn't automatically make the subject notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. StaticGull  Talk  17:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure), subject confirmed to have passed WP:ATHLETE. - Toon05 23:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Francois Lescinel[edit]

Jean-Francois Lescinel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:ATHLETE - has been signed by Aberdeen, but has not played in a first team match other than a trial. ukexpat (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedily deleted, A7, non-admin close. ukexpat (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Verbix[edit]

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

What makes Verbix, a piece of software/website, notable? Google News archives only returns 10 results containing 'Verbix' [8]. Some results are only trivial. Computerjoe's talk 16:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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), as per the consensus of this discussion. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frunzensky District[edit]

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

Disambiguation page for which all targets are nonexistent. Tlesher (talk) 16:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. No blue links and its been here for what, 2 years? Create the articles first, then the article index. Synergy 23:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 22:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bir Banga Hindu Prajatantra[edit]

Bir Banga Hindu Prajatantra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 22:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dani Planchería[edit]

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

Two sentence article on a young footballer who has never played in a fully professional league, therefore failing WP:ATHLETE. Was prodded, but as usual it was removed by an IP without explanation... пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Generally places are assumed as presumably notable even if no notability is actually established. Anyway, a closely related issue is currently on discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (Geographic locations)#Using an Atlas as a source for notability, so I'm closing keep based on the overwhelming number of keep votes, and encourage you to participate there - Nabla (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amity (hamlet), New York[edit]

Amity (hamlet), New York (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I am listing this here rather than continue to edit war with NE2, who seems to feel that any real place is notable and that it's OK if it remains a stub, rather at odds with my understanding of policy. This was created by a well-meaning new user a few days ago, yet completely fails the (admittedly under consideration) WP:NPT. There is absolutely nothing that would demonstrate this crossroads is notable: it does not have its own ZIP Code or fire district (two things most unincorporated communities in upstate New York that have articles tend to have; there are no schools or significant local roads named after it and it isn't a census-designated place so we can't possibly get a reliable figure on its population. There's nothing that can't be taken care of by a few lines in Warwick, New York and making this a redirect or getting rid of it entirely. Daniel Case (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a real person. Am I notable because of that? No. Daniel Case (talk) 19:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between unincorporated communities in Kansas, a state where the vast majority of land area is so sparsely populated that three houses is something to take note of, and New York, where even upstate a small group of houses in an area not otherwise distinguished by anything that automatically makes a place notable is not exceptional. The mostly rural Town of Warwick already boasts two incorporated villages (Warwick and Greenwood Lake), half of a third (Florida), and a significant unincorporated hamlet (Pine Island). Almost everybody there uses one of those ZIP Codes. I have yet to hear anyone say they lived in Amity or any of the other places not already rating articles. Daniel Case (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum to above: WP:OTHERCRAP. Daniel Case (talk) 06:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Insulting? First of all, I find it extremly offensive that you refer to unincorporated communities in Kansas as "crap" -- you could easily have used one of the recommended tags like WP:OTHERSTUFF or WP:WAX or even referenced the essay WP:OSE to make your point but chose instead to be insulting. Yes, Kansas is more rural. No, it is not crap.
I'm sorry, that was the only shortcut for that section I could remember on short notice. The fact that you chose to be insulted does not make it any less valid, as you seem to tacitly admit. And imprecating that I chose that to insult you because you're from Kansas, or that I chose that shortcut with the intent of insulting you, betrays a serious inability to assume good faith and an exaggerated estimate of your place in the universe.

In short, it's not all about you. Daniel Case (talk) 06:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. never heard of it? Have you ever heard of anyone from Sibley, Kansas? Probably not because the town doesn't exist anymore. How about Upland, Kansas?? It's a barn, a house, a field, and the former site of the Upland Mutual Insurance Company. There are lots of things that people haven't heard of that are notable. Remember, Notability is not fame nor importance.
Did I say I'd never heard of any of those places? Are you sure you're not refighting some other AfD? I have never said I never heard of it, just that it isn't notable enough for an article of its very own. Please don't put words in my mouth. Daniel Case (talk) 06:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Authority? The user above is not a reliable source to quote on the "absence of notability" on a location because "you've never heard of anyone saying that they are from there"
WADR, I live a lot closer to it than you do. Daniel Case (talk) 06:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Conclusion I don't really think it's fair to use WP:APATHY as a reason to void WP:OTHERSTUFF--especially when there is a clear precedent and consensus supporting the inclusion. --Paul McDonald (talk) 15:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My conclusion: Stick to what we're actually discussing here and assume good faith. Daniel Case (talk) 06:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's the sum of all human knowledge, not all human knowledge. Daniel Case (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I mean by redirectifying it, the usual result of a merge. I would, as I have indicated, be happy with making this a redirect. I just don't think it rates a separate article. Daniel Case (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There would be nothing to merge ... everything noteworthy is already there. And if I did, NE2 would restore the article immediately, per his documented history of edit warring. I had twice made the article a redirect, and he reverted it and wasn't interested in discussing it beyond overly generalized oneliners (as he hasn't been in this discussion, either). Daniel Case (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, we shouldn't be using the term "hamlet". In New York it is a term of convenience with almost no legal meaning. One day we will merge Category:Hamlets in New York into Category:Unincorporated communities in New York, as they're basically the same thing. Daniel Case (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point was the census tract that includes the area is much larger than the area associated with Amity. In this sense, it is a sub-neighborhood. I don't think anyone is advocating deletion of the article at this point but merging is more appropriate for this case until such a time that more information is found on this topic that would cause the town article to become too long. --Polaron | Talk 19:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Read between the lines. If you agree that the article isn't going to be deleted, and that it is a culturally recognised area in a state of ~twenty million, we can expect some history to develop... regardless of whether it is reproduced or incorporated in the Amity article. Ottre (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where is this "culturally recognized" coming from? I think the point of the nominator is that it is actually not "culturally recognized" and that this group of houses doesn't really have any significant history to speak of. --Polaron | Talk 20:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the article closely (like that's so hard with a sub-stub), you'll see that it doesn't. It's part of the Pine Island Fire District; Amity is just a station. Daniel Case (talk) 01:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, in the unlikely event this is kept, we would need to move it to the existing redirect Amity, Orange County, New York, the preferred way to dab communities in New York (not with this silly parenthetical). Generally, we don't use disambiguation pages when there are only two. Daniel Case (talk) 21:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing's wrong with it being a stub. Everything's wrong with carrying an article unlikely to be expanded beyond stub status. Daniel Case (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of articles about various state highways that are unlikely to be expanded beyond stubs as well. Does that mean we should delete those as well, even though there's precedent against it? - Algorerhythms (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the precedent for groups of unexpandable stub is to merge them into lists. Circeus (talk) 03:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which, again, is preferable to having individual articles like this. I have said several times I wouldn't mind a redirect or coverage within another article. But I had to do this because NE2 just edit-warred in response to my attempts to make it one. Daniel Case (talk) 06:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stubs are valid Please read Wikipedia:Stub. Stub articles are an important part of Wikipedia. Most articles get their start as stubs, and many stay as stubs for a very long time--maybe for all time. Once a stub article has been created, other editors will also be able to enhance it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stubs are valid as article starts. A stub is expected to have the potential to evolve into a full-fledged article. A stub that cannot do so is not legitimate and must be dealt with by the usual methods (a.k.a. deletion, redirect, merge, etc.) Circeus (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
as article starts? Where'd you find that? Please read Wikipedia:Stub. Yes, an ideal stub article will be expanded, but nowhere that I can find has consensus ever supported that a notable stub should be deleted just because the article is too short. You'll note the nutshell summary states "An article too short to provide more than rudimentary information about a subject should be marked as a stub by adding a stub template" -- nowhere does it say "stubs should be deleted"--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the original conceptual relations have been somehow erased with the streamlining of the page doesn't eman they don't exist anymore. Look at Wikipedia:Glossary: "An article considered too short to give an adequate introduction to a subject (often one paragraph or less)." By definition, if an article cannot be expanded to "give an adequate introduction to a subject", it is not a stub, and if the "adequate introduction" to the subject is two sentences, there is absolutely no point in keeping the article separate. Circeus (talk) 21:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please Play Fair Here is the entire definition from the page you reference:
An article considered too short to give an adequate introduction to a subject (often one paragraph or less). Stubs are marked with stub templates, a specific type of cleanup template, which add the articles to stub categories sorted by subject matter.
See also Wikipedia:Find or fix a stub and Wikiproject Stub Sorting.
Readers will note that nowhere in that definition (nor the referenced articles in context with the discussion here) do the words "delete" or "no point in keeping" occur. The editor has taken a definition in Wikipedia and then added on his/her own argument.
NOTE--not that there is anything wrong with the editor's stance, opinion, etc... heck, maybe it is a good rule and maybe consensus will change to support that idea--but that's not the argument presented. Please stick to the facts and separate out opinion from policy.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since when "that's not written in policy" has been an argument to negate an actual long-established practice? Circeus (talk) 22:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All I'm saying is that if you say something is policy when it is not, that negates the credibility of the argument. Remember, one person's "long-established practice" can be brand new to someone else. You quoted policy, it wasn't policy (or even in a printed guideline). Wanna make it a policy? Start working on WP:DeleteStubs and see what consensus comes up with.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this point has been raised twice now, the burden of proof lies with you to show that the hamlet will not develop into a "full-fledged" article. It didn't take me much browsing to find that the town historian's summary: "During the 1800’s, Amity, Edenville and Pine Island became centers of population in the midst of the surrounding dairy, fruit and vegetable farms. Iron mining, charcoal burning and lumbering were occupations of settlers in the mountains from Sterling to Cascade; quarrying provided work near Mount Adam and Mount Eve. Greenwood Lake became well-known to hunters and fishermen and evolved into a popular resort and recreation area."
Matches with the history of the Fourth Regiment of the New York Militia, as it is well-established fact that General Hawthorn drew "roughly one hundred men from round the Pine Island settlement."
Yet the official history states that "After the Revolutionary War, the hamlet of Warwick became one of many hamlets that comprised the new Town of Warwick. It was overshadowed by neighboring hamlets of Bellvale, Florida, New Milford, and Sugar Loaf. All this changed dramatically with the construction of the Warwick Valley Railroad in 1860."
And did you notice that Amity is specifically not mentioned here? Daniel Case (talk) 06:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously biased coverage is reason to believe the hamlet has some cultural recognition beyond the information available on-line. Ottre (talk) 22:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That appears to be mainly about Pine Island. Yes, it is possible there is more history available that does not primarily refer to the bigger Pine Island settlement (of which Amity is a neighborhood of sorts). However, until someone writes a more substantive article, what is wrong with putting what is currently known in the Warwick town article? This merging is in fact what is done for the vast majority of non-CDP, non-post office hamlets of New York. --Polaron | Talk 23:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Am going to map out a history (as a quasi-separate community) over the next hour day or so. Ottre (talk) 01:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, list articles. Daniel Case (talk) 06:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). I want to note that merging to ASAP (band) can still be appropriate. Please, discuss this separatelly. Ruslik (talk) 13:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Entire Population of Hackney[edit]

The Entire Population of Hackney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC, bootlegs are not notable without substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. None provided, none found. Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What doesn't make sense to me is why this is about the bootleg album, because the group is called The Entire Population of Hackney, and that is what is referenced in the official biography. There is zero mention of this bootleg - I just checked the biography, so my previous statement was misleading. I feel there should be an article about the group, but not about this bootleg. The article should be written to be about the group and not a bootleg. LuciferMorgan (talk) 23:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, the bootleg, the performances, and the group all kinda go hand-in-hand. When you have a group made up of notable members, but mostly all they did was produce one recording and a few concerts, I think discussing all three of those things together is the best way. I agree, though, that this article should be reworded somewhat to be "an article about the group that also discusses the bootleg" rather than "an article about the bootleg that also discusses the group". ~ mazca t | c 07:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --jonny-mt 05:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irritant (band)[edit]

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

This is an unsigned group who has since split up. Also, they only released two singles (both self-released), and no albums. The only alleged claim to notability is the fact that the group's second and final single charted at no. 70 on the UK singles charts, and the source given for this doesn't actually verify this. I really question whether this can be deemed a "charted hit" under WP:MUSIC's notability criteria - this is down to interpretation of the vague criteria (far as I am concerned, no. 70 is in no way or shape a hit), which needs to be more specific. If editors deem that this band is noteworthy due to having a track hitting no. 70, then I propose the WP:MUSIC guidelines be tightened up. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC) LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether they pass C2 is according to interpretation, such is the vagueness of the guidelines. Also, by proxy, should this article be kept, this AFD is saying that everyone who has ever had a UK top 100 single is worthy of a Wikipedia article (which is total rubbish). LuciferMorgan (talk) 02:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't. This discussion is purely about Irritant. Any other band would need to be considered on their own merits.--Michig (talk) 07:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this AFD would be saying just that, so don't say it would not be - you're talking total horseshit Michig. Don't tell me what a discussion is about - I don't know who the fuck you think you are to be frank. LuciferMorgan (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm ... having a bad day? What's with the uncivil tone? I expect better from an editor as experienced as yourself. Michig is quite right here. An unsigned and independent band might be notable for reaching #70 on a music chart. That might not be the case for a band or artist that is signed to a major label. It's all relative and editors are not bound by precedent by this or any other AFD. The world is not going to end if this article is kept on wikipedia so chill out and relax. --Bardin (talk) 14:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I sincerely hope this appalling behaviour is out of character, but putting that aside for a moment, you may want to take a look at Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#All_or_nothing, which is basically the crux of your argument. As I pointed out, a number 70 hit is quite significant for an unsigned band, and the significant coverage in reliable sources was also a factor in my view that the article should be kept. A similar article without such coverage may need to be treated differently. I am perfectly entitled to disagree with you (whilst remaining civil)- if you can't deal with that without this sort of behaviour perhaps you're working on the wrong project.--Michig (talk) 17:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Rationale for delete is inadequate, overwhelming support. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Violet Blue (author)[edit]

Violet Blue (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Lets face it, this chick is really not notable at all. Flash in the pan, little better than an a myspace band. Delete, unless this chick can improve her lot in life sufficiently to warrant an encyclopedia article about her. Does this chick have an entry in Britannica? Brohans Dude (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I've discussed why I think that the subject meets our notability policy in my 'keep' below, but I'm curious what part of WP:BLP do you think is a problem for this article? -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly did make it into the mainstream press. Nick mallory (talk) 01:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't think that Forbes or the Chicago Tribune are reliable sources? Whatever you may think of "blogosphere stuff," it doesn't change the fact that it was covered by reliable sources. We determine notability based on what reliable sources cover, not what we think they should cover. -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say that Forbes and the Chicago Tribune were not a reliable sources. I said that the "award" is trivial, not something that would qualify as notable. She gets a brief mention in a "top 25" list, that's it. The Chicago Tribune article is about the controversy more than blue; it would be more appropriate for a mention in BoingBoing. Really, her notability in this article hangs on a WP:BLP1E violation: the lawsuit is the only real claim to notability here. I do note that I completely misstated my intent by writing down that Wired was the only non-adult entertainment source about the lawsuit, and have refactored that. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're being overly dismissive of the Forbes cite. While brief, it's clearly non-trivial per WP:WEB. -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And you can't really call it a BLP1E article when it was created in 2005, long before the suit.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Forbes mention, awards for writing/editing.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While notability is certainly worth discussing, 'wikidrama' is not a good reason to delete any article. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 22:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeepers Creepers 3[edit]

Jeepers Creepers 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article doesn't have any sourced information about the movie it's about. Edgehead5150 (talk) 15:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  17:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arian Catholicism[edit]

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

Advertising for small "Internet church," no assertion of notability or third-party sources. None of the issues from the prior nomination were fixed. Anything useful should simply be merged into Arianism. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm just finding Wikipedia, the church's various websites, and blog postings under both "arian catholicism" and "arian catholic church"--I'm all for not excluding minority religious views, but I can't find a single reliable, independent source. Jclemens (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 per a lack of reliable sources and apparent failure to establish independent notability. --jonny-mt 06:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Futurestep[edit]

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

non-notable sub-genre. appears to be entirely original research. neon white talk 20:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trancestep (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete - Nabla (talk) 21:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kill All: The Rarities Collection[edit]

Kill All: The Rarities Collection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Bootlegs are not notable without substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. None provided, none found. Fails WP:MUSIC. Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Either a joke collection or a copyright infringement - either way, it's got a snowball's chance in Hell.-Wafulz (talk) 17:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peenman Enterprises[edit]

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

Appears to be the false advertisements quoted in their entirety. Tckma (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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


A new Peenman Enterprises page is being built at Hendriepedia.com.

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 22:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pieces of a Dream: Live at Rock in Rio Lisboa 2006[edit]

Pieces of a Dream: Live at Rock in Rio Lisboa 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. A single concert. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. For the most part, the delete arguments do not discuss the subject of this article or do not back up assertions that the subject is not notable. The keep arguments are much, much stronger, but without some additions to the article about how Haywood is a leading expert on The Game (mind game), they don't hold much weight either (so improve the article, please). lifebaka (talk - contribs) 18:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jonty Haywood[edit]

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

borderline notable; WP:BLP1E Sceptre (talk) 13:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rabidfoxes (talk) 14:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Brief mention (i.e., trivial coverage) for the Porthemmet hoax doesn't cut it. Operating a non-notable website does not satisfy notability criteria either. (It's also worth mentioning that the website has been blacklisted here because of Jonty's repeat attempts to spam; Jonty himself has been blocked numerous times for spam and block evasion, and the website in question allows users to download a Firefox plugin for the purpose of vandalising Wikipedia). OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rabidfoxes (talk) 15:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User:Wiw8 is a recently-created account, whose 7th edit was a lengthy contribution to Talk:The Game (mind game)/Archive, and has shown a particular interest in The Game and this article's subject, with this edit [14] in particular being interesting. -- The Anome (talk) 15:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The user's history is quite interesting, with few non trivial edits bar this subject, but it has been registered for a few months. On balance, I personally decided to assume good faith and leave any judgement to the closer. Maybe in the interests of this not becoming personal, you might want to do the same. MickMacNee (talk) 15:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, if you looked properly you'd see that my account has actually been registered for over 2 years. In this time I'd say I've gained a firm enough grasp of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to comment constructively in deletion debates. I may not be a "power editor", not having a wealth of free time to spend editing Wikipedia, but I contribute in my own way however and whenever I can. The fact that I made a comment in an AFD on "the game" ages ago hardly makes it unusual that I should make the odd minor edit or comment on its talk page from time to time - it's on my watch list. I recognise several of the users taking part in this AFD as having been significantly involved in debates on the same issues in the past. In any case, making misleading comments about my editing history here doesn't contribute to this debate in any way, so perhaps we can end that here and go back to debating the notability of the subject. Cheers. Wiw8 (talk) 12:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWhat exactly are the other things he's notable for? The website isn't notable. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Half a million unique views, first page Google ranking of a search for "the game", national media coverage... what would it require for you to deem the site as notable? Rabidfoxes (talk) 21:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Google hits don't count toward WP:WEB notability. The CTV coverage is quite trivial, consisting of a few sentences mentioning Haywood. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agreed. I don't dispute the notability of the beach hoax, and it's a reasonable addition to the Emmet (Cornish) article. However, the notability of the hoax and the creator doesn't extend beyond that. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this debate should be about whether the "lose the game" website satisfies WP:N and WP:V, because this AFD is not for an article about the website. The aim of this AFD is to establish whether the subject itself satisfies the inclusion policies and guidelines. For the most part, the information in the article is well referenced and reliably sourced, so we are left with debating whether the subject satisfies WP:N / WP:BIO. The reason my opinion remains "keep" is that I don't read WP:BLP1E as saying that we should go through every event mentioned in the article and debate whether each one satisfies Wikipedia's inclusion criteria (if they did then we'd have separate articles on each event), but rather that we shouldn't have an article on an individual if their only mentions in reliable sources come from a single event. In my humble opinion, this doesn't appear to apply to this subject.
I certainly agree that the "lose the game" website is not sufficiently notable, nor is it well enough covered in reliable sources, to have its own Wikipedia article. However, I see the contribution to the notability of the subject in this context coming not from the hit statistics, google rankings or media mentions of the "lose the game" site he created, but from the fact that the reporters in question turned to the subject for primary information and advice regarding the "game" topic (a topic which itself has been deemed sufficiently notable for Wikipedia inclusion). Additionally we should consider whether the hoax beach website event is a separate event to the hoax road sign event, since the hoax road sign event is a separate news incident which was reported a year later. Again, reporters turned to the subject for their information on this topic. I'm not trying to suggest that the notability of the subject is a clear cut thing, or that it's not in need of some debate, but my point is that I think the debate goes beyond just outright saying the subject is/isn't notable.
Lastly; I know that Haywood's involvement with Wikipedia has annoyed a number of us in the past for various reasons (I personally find his vandalism plugin distasteful and pointless), but every Wikipedia guideline and policy I can find tells us that we should rise above personal disputes, as well as a human subject's Wikipedia editing history (see WP:BIO) when discussing articles about said subject. Wiw8 (talk) 13:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Google Watch[edit]

The result was keep. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as a non-notable person; no way to verify chief claims. Bearian (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Cleveland Duncan[edit]

George Cleveland Duncan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article constantly being edited to indicate person is a phony. The bio should pass WP:BIO if true, but there are no references. A search of the USMC database does not bring up a bio. Tassedethe (talk) 13:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep but IMHO this does not make the notability issues go away. Maybe the possibility of a listification or a merger should be explored ... just an editorial suggestion.  Sandstein  17:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Naming of Qantas aircraft[edit]

Naming of Qantas aircraft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article fails notability guidelines as it is not clearly asserted in the article exactly why the naming of Qantas aircraft is notable. Qantas aircraft names have not been (after my own searches) the subject of any sources that are non-trivial in nature, nor is the subject covered by reliable sources (aircraft enthusiast websites are definitely not reliable sources). It is also concensus on WP:AIRLINES that fleets are generally not notable (with a minute number of exceptions) and hence not encyclopaedic, and it is my own opinion that such information on WP is nothing more than fancruft. It appears that this information may have been moved here due to article length issues on the main article, however, as oft quoted, the solution to horrible cruft is to delete it, not create a separate article for it. Россавиа Диалог 13:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately, none of the articles referenced 1) give notability to the subject in question and 2) are anything but trivial mentions. The Courier Mail article is about the A380, not the naming of the aircraft. The Daily Telegraph article is on the commercial use of Aboriginal culture to sell products, not on Nalanji or Wunala. The Qantas article itself doesn't mention this naming in any form other than trivial mention. Many airlines give their aircraft names, and there is no demonstration in this article why the names of Qantas aircraft are notable over all other airlines (for which is removed from articles for being trivial and unencyclopaedic). WP:INTERESTING is not a reasoning to use in AfD discussions, it needs to be done on policy and concensus based on policy. And not to mention concensus on WP:AIRLINES that individual aircraft details such as this are unencyclopaedic. --Россавиа Диалог 01:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why do you think all those newspapers named the aircraft? Obviously the newspapers thought that the public wants to know. The newspapers could easily have omitted that information, if they thought nobody wants to know.--Lester 03:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:INTERESTING is not a good reasoning to use in AfD discussions, but it could be said that referring to an article as "horrible cruft" is an "I don't like it" argument, which likewise should have little place in an AfD discussion, let alone the nomination. Saying that other airlines don't have articles on their naming schemes is also a point of argument to be avoided (WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST). --Canley (talk) 03:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My fancruft comment is my opinion; it is my opinion it is fancruft; as much as most Pokemon articles are fancruft (with no apologies to Pokemon fans); there is probably good reason that WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST in this area of fandom. However, on this article there is no assertion of notability, which is not backed up by multiple, non-trivial, reliable sources is not opinion, but fact. Wunala and Nalanji are notable aircraft, and it is kind of odd that the main article mentions these aircraft only in passing (only once), and I wouldn't object to the main article going into detail on how the airline markets itself (without being advertorial in nature), and include details on Balarinji involvement with Qantas. This article offers absolutely no context at all, it is simply a list of names which offers no opportunity for further article development. --Россавиа Диалог 04:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment re Notability of aircraft - Россавиа states Wunala and Nalanji are notable aircraft - they are only notable because of their names and artwork - this article may be incorrectly titled but it seems the best article to deal with aircraft named after indigenous themes and the issues surrounding that naming. The sources in relation to these names and issues associated with them are reliable and the dealing with those issues is non-trivial --Matilda talk 02:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Perth Yellow Pages is verifiable, easily done by ringing each and every number contained therein, however, we have various things that we do and don't cover. We don't list the entire contents of the Perth Yellow Pages because Wikipedia is not a telephone directory, even though it is entirely verifiable. Whilst verifiability is a policy for inclusion on WP, not all verifiable information out there in the world is notable for inclusion in Wikipedia, and as yet, there is not a single indication, either in the article or in this AfD which gives the subject Naming of Qantas aircraft any degree of notability. How is the name of a Qantas aircraft any more notable than RA-96005 "Valery Chkalov", an Ilyushin Il-96 of Aeroflot; Aeroflot once being the world's largest airline with 10,000+ aircraft? And lastly, the solution to getting rid of cruft is to delete it, not to create a separate article for it. --Россавиа Диалог 12:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It isn't, and I would quite like to see an article on Aeroflot's fleet or naming scheme, and would support its creation and upkeep if you were to create such an article. --Canley (talk) 10:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable.
In regards to this article, we no doubt have independent, reliable sources for some of this information, however, there is not significant coverage, again from WP:N;
"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.
There are no sources which address Naming of Qantas aircraft directly in detail; there is no notability. Whilst there is apparently a book which gives the names of aircraft up until the 1970s, this should be used in the main article as an inline citation for prose, not split out into a separate list for reasons of space (as I said, the solution to cruft is to delete it, not create a separate article for it), particularly when the article subject is not notable. Refer to this Afd, which was a break off from the main article, which included as well as registrations (which WP:AIRLINES has concensus on in regards to notability), the names of each individual aircraft. There is also this Afd which had the same information. There is also the Thai Airways International fleet article which was merged back into the main article, minus the information which WP:AIRLINES does not regard as being notable or encyclopaedic (including getting rid of individual aircraft names). The only article which currently exists is Singapore Airlines fleet, however, this is currently the subject of a mediation due to multiple other issues regarding that subject's articles. --Россавиа Диалог 13:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I note that a Google Books Search for 'Qantas aircraft names' brings up several good resources regarding Qantas aircraft history, a few of which have tables of early aircraft names. I'm sure different searches might bring up different and more broad results. But it seems clear to me that Qantas's fleet has the history necessary to warrant this article. NcSchu(Talk) 14:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And how many of those sources discuss Naming of Qantas aircraft in great detail in anything than just in passing? Google hits and the like are great at times, however, in this case it simply picks up different sources which discuss in only a trivial manner. --Россавиа Диалог 12:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a few, surprisingly. NcSchu(Talk) 15:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How about because it lacks notability, which is not backed up by multiple, non-trivial, reliable sources? In addition to concensus on WP:AIRLINES that registrations and names are not notable, not encyclopaedic? --Россавиа Диалог 10:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is about a hole in the side of a Qantas aircraft, not about Naming of Qantas aircraft, and of course that article is indicative of why this is at AfD in the first place, because the mentions are trivial and not substantial.
Comment If you consider the information notable, is there anything to back the opinion up with multiple, non-trivial, reliable sources which discuss the naming of aircraft in substantial detail? --Россавиа Диалог 01:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't agree that article gives any degree of notability to the issue of the names of aircraft in Qantas fleet; it merely asserts verifiability that the A380 will be operated by Qantas, it can be used as an inline citation in the main article for the entry into service of the A380, but for naming of individual aircraft as a whole, it is trivial. As to a list of aircraft, if it includes details on every single aircraft (registrations, names, etc), then it is clearly going against concensus which WP:AIRLINES has reached on this issue in the past, and which can be evidenced by past AfD's above, much as the list as it stands right now goes against concensus on WP:AIRLINES. Whilst WP:LIST says lists can be used to organise information, WP:N says that material must be covered by multiple, non-trivial sources and that material needs to meet WP:CONCENSUS, which has already been reached at WP:AIRLINES. What it seems other Australians here seem to be trying to do is to change concensus reached at WP:AIRLINES based upon the subject being Qantas, whilst ignoring that the naming of Qantas aircraft is not notable at all, evidenced by past AfD discussions, and I believe that non-notability of this subject has been more than demonstrated in that no-one has supplied anything but trivial sources for the naming structure. I would not object to an article being re-created in the future which details the history of the Qantas fleet, so long as the notability of the fleet as a whole is established by the use of non-trivial reliable sources. Take for example, User:Russavia/SU fleet which I am working on as part of a complete overhaul in the future of Aeroflot, which will totally omit the registrations and names of aircraft....do we really need to have a list of all the tens of thousands of aircraft which Aeroflot has operated throughout its history. Would a complete breakdown of all 91 Antonov An-10 which Aeroflot has operated, includings names/registrations, give anything to the overall table? It is the concensus on WP:AIRLINES that it would not, and is not encyclopaedic and is somewhat fanboyish (that last part is my own opinion, and perhaps the opinion of other editors), and the notability of the Aeroflot fleet can be established by the multitude of books, journals, magazines, etc devoted entirely to the fleet itself; no doubt Qantas is the same, however, this article as it stands now should go. --Россавиа Диалог 11:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. A lot of work went into the article after it was nominated. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ThefucKINGFUCKS[edit]

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

Was proposed for speedy. I felt that was overreaching but it does belong here and probably should be deleted. None of the sources work, and the bank seems to be arbitrary. No releases of its own, a supposed fleeting connection to some actual band, and a "future" album with no info and no notability. Article tries to excuse this with some nonsens about "oaths of silence." Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 13:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change of position to Keep - I feel the article has been altered and fixed to the point that it now satisfies WP:MUSIC's notability requirements, and while the article itself still has issues of quality that need to be worked out, I feel notability has been established and it is comprised of (mostly) encyclopedic content. I urge the closing admin to consider the changes that have been made since editors stated their original positions on this, and I also ask that editors who spoke out in favor of a delete before now to revisit the article and see if they still feel the same way about it.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 13:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Fails WP:MUSIC, but the "oaths of silence" mumbo-jumbo was pretty funny. Shapiros10 contact meMy work 13:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • as stated the group is based on the Acéphale collective of georges bataille. it is not strictly a band, nor a dance group nor a performance art group but they are presenting work in each media. the oath of silence is only in terms of the research and not the performance work. very respected group with a serious cv. Insidoubt (talk) 13:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)insidoubtInsidoubt (talk) 13:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • the group has performed at the centre pompidou in paris, the very important electronic music festival 10DAYSOFF in gent, the audiovisual CIMATICS festival in brussels, depuryluxemburg gallery in zurich to mention only a few. all mentioned in the footnotes Insidoubt (talk) 13:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)insidoubt[reply]
Switched to Keep after improved sourcing and referencing. Due to this group's varied activities and insistence on using huge numbers of different names, it was very hard to evaluate their notability. At this point it seems to have enough sources to warrant a keep, but it really still needs more coherence about the group's actual activities - the current state of the article is still pretty vague about what they actually do. ~ mazca t | c 12:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has come a bit from its original quality. Notability seems somewhat established and I would consider withdrawing my nomination (do note that alone will not close the discussion, as other delete views have been registered), but I feel the article still needs more work. Much of the article's notability is seated in section 2, which needs sourcing still, and section 3 while not core to its notability really should be sourced or removed. If section 2 (members) is thoroughly sourced, I will change my position to that of keep but not before then, as without reliable sources for it I am not fully convinced of notability yet.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 14:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Area-7. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 18:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mad Not Madness[edit]

Mad Not Madness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable tribute band. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 12:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). Ruslik (talk) 13:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Machine (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable. Only inline cite is a self-published source. Minimal media coverage. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 12:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 03:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanh Thuy Vietnamese Actress[edit]

Thanh Thuy Vietnamese Actress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Trying to look beyond the awful formatting of this article: there's claimed notability but I have been completely unable to prove it. I'd welcome anyone else to try, otherwise this can probably go. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS has wasted eight of nine lives 12:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A7. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Tripathy[edit]

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

Appears to fail both WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. There may be a WP:COI issue, too. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure), per emerging consensus and nominator consent below. WP:BOLD. Protonk (talk) 06:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discrimination in Japan[edit]

Discrimination in Japan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Reflecting personal view. Attacking a group or society. Exceptional claims should have exceptional sources. Hitrohit2001 (talk) 12:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: much of this article appares to be an indirect recreation of material in a previously deleted article: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VAIBS for discussion -- The Anome (talk) 23:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no 'exceptional sources' in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaibsvaibs (talk • contribs) 12:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - only a very borderline case of WP:SOAP, and reliable, secondary sources are out there. Needs a good NPOV and grammar edit, but not a delete. "Lack of exceptional sources" is not a reason for deletion. -Samuel Tan 13:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be policy but that does not make it non-discriminatory. I agree that the article is not written well and parts of it may even be "unencyclopedic" but the topic is worthy of getting an article. In the future, this article may even go in depth as to why such practices are in place and are widely accepted by Japanese society as "normal" and "fair", and the socio-economic implications of having an anti-immigration policy. --Polaron | Talk 15:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be an anti-immigration policy, if that American would have been officially migrated to Japan and was being barred of the Home Loan. Most of the Local bank grants loan to those who holds permanent citizenship of that country where loan is being originated. However, apart from Suruga bank issues, this article does not place any other substantial evidence of discrimination. NPOV on such article is must as it may harm the image of a particular group or society. =>Hitrohit2001 (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Hitrohit2001[reply]
  • I agree with the Xenophobic nature of Japanese people, however, this article does not deal with Xenophobia in Japan directly. It, more or less, looks like act of imputing blame of racism on Japanese people.
    I would like to know, which of those sources are exceptionally substantial.
    Hitrohit2001 (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Hitrohit2001[reply]
  • Well, xenophobia is largely indistinct from racism. But let's do some sources:
  1. Books by Jown Dower
  2. [18]
  3. good book
  4. different homelessness rates
  5. Nationalism
  • Xenophobia and Racism are two different thing. However, I don't think these sources verifies the claims made within the article under consideration, if it does then it should be included in article.
    We are not discussing the natural tendency of japanese. This article attacks on a particular community with no solid verification of the event, which is being used as an example of discrimination.
    There should be atleast one strong point within the article which makes Discrimination in Japan an encyclopedic subject. I find none.--Hitrohit2001 (talk) 18:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Hitrohit2001[reply]
  • I disagree on the xenophobia bit, but that is too nuanced an issue for here. Basically my point is this. The article appears to not be about discrimination in Japan, but discrimination is a well covered subject in the sourcing there. I can find more articles (especially ethnographies of non-japanese workers) about discrimination but there is enough in the sources I cited above to fill out a reasonably large article. So remove the COATRACK content and keep the article. Protonk (talk) 02:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The content of the article is largely identical to the recently deleted "VAIBS" article, namely regarding one bank's discriminatory practice of demanding alien cards of foreigners before doing business with them. The only thing added is a more general overview with citations, and the complaint of a certain non-citizen regarding a home-loan from a different bank (i.e., not Suruga) - an action perfectly understandable, if perhaps indeed discriminatory(I doubt any bank in the world would give a home-loan to a non-resident without a permanent adress, but I grant that OTHERSTUFFEXISTS shouldn't apply here). This seems like nothing more than a VAIBS-led attempt to recreate content that was already deleted, using the vehicle of a broad sociological phaenomenon, and indeed, the article was largely created by an editor with the name "vaibsvaibs". If the article is to stay, it should be completely rewritten, and the VAIBS content should be inspected under the light of the recent deletion. I'm leaning towards outright deletion, however, since I believe we have plenty of "discriminatory Japan" articles as it is, and I see no reason to create new ones, rather than improve the existing ones. TomorrowTime (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BJTalk 20:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ICab[edit]

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

A not notable web browser that fails having reliable sources.--Pmedema (talk) 11:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Apparent WP:POINT nomination, will look into it.  Sandstein  17:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tierkreis (Stockhausen)[edit]

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

Seems not to be notable. Could always be merged if there is support for this article not to be deleted. Rob Riv (talk) 11:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any specific guidelines regarding composition notability, and obviously there is a great distinction from song notability that needs to be made, this I accept. However the sources all seem to be about the artist himself, and not at a greater picture of the composition's impact etc. It doesn't seem to be linked to by many articles, most seem to be user pages from this AfD. Applying the guidelines as well as possible, I see no reason why cannot be merged into the main article or his [List of compisitionsh|List_of_compositions_by_Karlheinz_Stockhausen] at best. I just don't see how this can warrant its own page, how is it distinct specifically from other compositions that are without pages? Rob Riv (talk) 16:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about this, we could apply the Pokémon Test here, as there shouldn't be a page for every single composition unless they are as distinctive as Pikachu. Please, set me right if I'm in the wrong here though. Rob Riv (talk) 16:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict): In regard to some of the references, Kompositorische Tendenzen bei Karlheinz Stockhausen seit 1965 translates as Compositional Tendencies of Karlheinz Stockhausen since 1965, and Tierkreis: Einführung und Hinweise zur praktischen Aufführung translates as "Tierkreis: Introduction and details for practical performance." Neither Pokémon or compositions are inherently notable, but this certainly has coverage, and a Google Scholar search is quite fruitful. WilliamH (talk) 17:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair enough. To what extent can we give any composition its own article though? Perhaps I'm using this article to demonstrate a bigger point. Rob Riv (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, it isn't a good idea to nominate articles for deletion to make a point. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you can cite in the arcticle that it is "Stockhausen's most popular, most-often performed and recorded piece" that's fine, but as it stand the article doesn't even claim to be as notable as you've said. It needs to assert notability to warrant its own article, it currently does not. I'm aware you've only got two hands, but if this information is actually of notable interest, one would assume there exists more than one person to help work on the article. Rob Riv (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We're not working to a deadline here. This is a work in progress. I did find this. I'm sure there are more out there. If sources are out there but just not added, deletion won't add them. WilliamH (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're making the assumption they do exist however. The basic point I'm making is the article itself doesn't assert notability as a composition, at least no more than any other composition by Stockhausen. I know there's no deadline - by that logic, all articles could improve eventually, that doesn't meant we wait for them to improve. Rob Riv (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well we don't have a choice since they aren't going to improve themselves. There is a reasonably clear emerging view that this should be kept and there are sources - the ones that need to be added need to be added, and that deletion will not address that. WilliamH (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so I have added a statement about notability with three citations in support, and a discography which also ought to lend some evidence on this point. Does that help?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy close - some kid advertising his future record. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accomplishments[edit]

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

The article was created by a Wikipedia user trying to self-promote an album that they say is being released by "Hollywood Records" while the Hollywood records website mentions nothing of the "artist" or "album". Edgehead5150 (talk) 11:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 21:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Dirt and the Dirty Boys[edit]

Joe Dirt and the Dirty Boys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable tribute band. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 11:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus - default keep. Okiefromokla questions? 02:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about or referencing Elvis Presley[edit]

List of songs about or referencing Elvis Presley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable fancruft. Any notable song referencing can be discussed in the Cultural impact of Elvis Presley. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 11:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin) - view that subject is notable; no !delete comments. WilliamH (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Publius Enigma[edit]

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

Promotion for The Division Bell. Not notable as a free standing article. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 11:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. There are absolutely no signs of reliable secondary coverage, so the article fails basic criteria of notability and is unlikely to meet verifiability standards. Despite limited participation, relisting is unnecessary. Okiefromokla questions? 03:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The All Saints Church Hall Concert[edit]

The All Saints Church Hall Concert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable concert. Fails WP:N, WP:RS and WP:V. Fancruft. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 11:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anderson Council[edit]

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

Non-notable tribute bands. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 11:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 22:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

El Monstero Y Los Masked Avengers[edit]

El Monstero Y Los Masked Avengers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable tribute band. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 11:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 21:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Pink Floyd Experience[edit]

The Pink Floyd Experience (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable tribute band. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 11:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Struck. WilliamH (talk) 23:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's the wrong Pink Floyd cover band. The Australian Pink Floyd Show is a completely different (and legitimately notable) cover band. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 01:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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


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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Wilshere[edit]

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

Young footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never actually played in a fully professional league. Article has already been deleted once via prod for the same reasno. Was prodded again, but removed by an IP making their first edit with the rationale "This player is a hot prospect and one of the most well known Arsenal reserve players, this article should remain on Wikipedia as the player is predicted to become a leading star in England", which of course is a WP:CRYSTAL violation). пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Lack of significant secondary coverage, and it's a demo, which is generally not notable anyway. Limited participation is not sufficient reason to relist in this case. Okiefromokla questions? 02:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Early Avenged Sevenfold releases[edit]

Early Avenged Sevenfold releases (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Self-released bootlegs. Non-notable fancruft. The article name is arbitrary. No reliable sources (fails WP:RS), no inline cites, no verifiable tracklisting, and bootlegs are rarely notable anyway. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC) Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fanny pak[edit]

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

There is no evidence that this dance group is notable. A news search shows a couple of passing mentions only. Kevin (talk) 10:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus to delete , default to keep. Consensus appears to be that an improved version of the article would be kept. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 04:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zodiac Records[edit]

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

Although this is a disambiguation page, none of the listed record labels seem notable in the slightest. There aren't even external links for all of the labels listed.

As unregistered users don't get to complete the nomination process, I didn't think the nomination would count as my vote, would it? 92.4.63.157 (talk) 16:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As WP:NOTDEMOCRACY raw votes don't really count, my comment was just to make it clear - sometimes AfD will only attract a few comments. I think nomination for AfD is clear vote for deletion :) Tassedethe (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, I just thought the merit of my comment was really important. Shoulda put it as a comment really, sorry. 92.4.63.157 (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete by Zedla. Non-admin closure. Jезка (talk) 12:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A good ass job[edit]

A good ass job (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:BAND#Albums this should not have an article until there is confirmation from a reliable source. PROD removed without comment by an IP. JohnCD (talk) 10:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 00:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deadheads for Obama[edit]

Deadheads for Obama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not-notable. One concert. One band. Fancruft. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 09:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How big & notable was this concert, do we know? That should be the deletion critera not it's length, as concerts like Self Aid and Rock for a Cause were only one day for example. Rob Riv (talk) 10:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it went anywhere, it would be to The Dead (band), where it is linked from. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A merge into Grateful Dead was already discussed at Talk:Grateful Dead#Deadheads for Obama and it was decided that both articles would be better if left separate. See that discussion section for why. Also, Deadheads for Obama should not be merged into The Dead (band) because they are two different things, i.e. it was not The Dead who performed the Deadheads for Obama concert, although there's a lot of overlap between the band members. — Mudwater (Talk) 11:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it was already discussed for a merge, then I'm unsure that this should have been nominated for deletion at all as they seemed to decide that it warrants its own article. I'm quite happy to keep this then. Rob Riv (talk) 11:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was by one band only, unlike some of the concert/festivals you mentioned. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 11:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, how does that relate to whether we should keep it or not though? Rob Riv (talk) 11:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have articles about the one concert by (primarily) one artist case too, such as Ahmet Ertegün Tribute Concert and The Supremes' farewell concert. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. BJTalk 20:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Llama (computer culture)[edit]

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

Now, before anyone actually claims there are a ton of reliable sources please read the text of the article and what these sources are actually sourcing. I'm nominating this on the grounds that this is a non-notable topic. 7 months have been given since the previous nomination and nothing has changed. Very clearly read WP:NOTE. This article is nothing more than a giant trivia list of every time a llama appears in relation to something software related. Which even from the list really isn't that much. There are no articles written on the history of llamas in computing, or anything like that on which to base an article. No reliable source has found this topic notable enough to devote coverage to it and doing so on wikipedia violates numerous policies and guidelines including Notability, and WP:NPOV. There isn't a single source out there that would indicate that this topic would meet WP:NOTE and having an article on it places undue weight on the subject. Too much focus is given to the subject. If reliable sources don't give the topic this much focus, it is certainly not wikipedia's place to do so. Editors drawing that conclusion and putting forth that theory are committing original research. Third parties have to draw the conclusions for us. During the previous Afd there were numerous opinions on WP:ILIKEIT extolling what a fantastic article it was. Unfortunately it being a super keen article doesn't give it a pass on WP:NOTE and WP:NPOV or any other policy and guideline on wikipedia. This also violates WP:NEO. There is no coherency to this article. Crossmr (talk) 09:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • But are there verifiable, third-party sources to establish said notability? MuZemike (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know this is up for deletion. We did this last time and, as is often the case on some AfDs, people make all kinds of spurious claims about notability, verifiability, etc yet don't provide any sources. This was muddled in to a no-consensus last time around. If you have reliable sources which refute the above problems provide them because they do not exist in the article as it is and more than enough time has been provided to allow them to be found.--Crossmr (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 22:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Fowler[edit]

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

Although he started his career at Crystal Palace, he does not appear to have actually played a competitive match at a fully pro level (only a friendly)[22], therefore he would fail WP:ATHLETE Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 09:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Synergy 07:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sales and charts achievements for Mariah Carey[edit]

Sales and charts achievements for Mariah Carey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Highly POV. Any notable chart or sales achievements should be in the Mariah Carey main page, or respective album, but not in this non-neutral article. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 09:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INTERESTING is an argument to avoid. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 : Speedily deleted as patent vandalism

Pokénon[edit]

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

Hoax. Search for pokenon/pickanose brings up nothing relevant. No references. TrulyBlue (talk) 09:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete as original research.

The Stairway to Heaven Project[edit]

The Stairway to Heaven Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced original research; anything useful should be merged into Stairway to Heaven. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 22:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Blank[edit]

Contested prod. This artist fails WP:MUSIC, has yet to release an album, and lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 07:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 22:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never ending guitar solo[edit]

Never ending guitar solo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Spurious original research —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 22:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tams ONE[edit]

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

Non-notable music entity per [23] ,[24], and [25]. Fails WP:MUSIC and basic WP:NOTE guidelines as nearly all references to the group are unreliable or short mentions. Wisdom89 (T / C) 06:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. BJTalk 02:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taverncast[edit]

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

Article makes claims that evidence does not support. A google search only turns up a little less than 5,000 hits, many of which are entries in podcast directories. So far, I have yet to find any coverage of the podcast in any reliable, third-party sources to back up the articles claims of notability. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 01:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of the links on the article's talk page meet the standards. In fact, most of them are blogs. Kafziel Complaint Department 18:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The links are simply in blog format - for example, wowinsider.com, virginworlds.com, lubbockonline.com and zoom-in.com are all using the format to update pages, a la WordPress or other CM interfaces. This should not negate the worthiness of the link.Albertlentz (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it does. Self-published sources are not reliable. Kafziel Complaint Department 19:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I don't understand the meaning of "self published", but zoom-in.com, wowinsider.com and lubbockonline.com are not self-published blogs as if they are one person running an op ed. Zoom-In is a content and news site, Wow Insider is part of Joystiq and the Lubbock Online is a newspaper, of which the blog listed is one of their columnists, both online and off. Virginworlds.com is another gaming show, and definitely is self published.Albertlentz (talk) 19:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Blog post about how much the blogger likes this podcast.
  2. Post on WoW Insider about an experiment by one of the podcasters to play WoW like an addict.
  3. Blog post on Lubbock Online about the addiction experiment.
  4. Post on WoW Insider about the podcast no longer being about WoW.
  5. Page on Edge-Online about a thing called the Xfire Debate Club, in which someone from the podcast will apparently be part of the first debate. This isn't about the podcast at all.
  6. Another thing about the Xfire Debate.
  7. A transcript of an Xfire debate. I'm sensing a theme here.
  8. One of the Taverncast people blending something, on YouTube.
  9. A blog by an "MMORPG player, armchair designer, and former programmer" in which he spends a paragraph saying he likes Taverncast in and among a dozen other paragraphs about podcasts he likes.
  10. Zoom-In Online (who?) says that this is one of the top 10 Warcraft podcasts on the planet.
The article is written in an entirely unencyclopedic tone and it's full of trivia. If it's going to be kept at all, it needs to be stripped down to a very small stub. As it looks now, I recommend deletion. Our criteria for keeping are:
  1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. The references here are either trivial (someone from the podcast was part of a debate that was unrelated to the podcast, that sort of thing), or not independent of the site (a podcaster blending things on YouTube), or small references (the Lubbock Online blog post).
  2. The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization. The award it has won doesn't look well-known at all.
  3. The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators. The article says that the podcast is distributed by two of the people in the podcast. So it fails this criterion. Brilliant Pebble (talk) 04:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the distribution issue goes, my earlier edit may have made this unclear, as the show is actually hosted by Future pnl's PC Gamer - Snapdragon is referenced as the source of production funding. It probably doesn't matter at this point, but I can clean this up. As far as the article being non-encyclopedic, can you point me to a style guide of some sort on Wikipedia to walk me through how to write it more to the site standard? As to whether to delete or not delete, obviously I felt the article was notable in the first place, and have stated my case for it as clearly as possible on the discussion page, so I don't want to beat that horse to death. Appreciate you comments and will work to alter the article accordingly if there's any chance of it being maintained. Albertlentz (talk) 05:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have serious problems with the reliability of some of the statements made about the podcast. The statement that it gets a million downloads strikes me several orders of magnitude out of agreement with reality, when the Guinness world record for downloads in 2007 is 261,000[27]. However, if you believe that the article can be saved, I recommend you should pare it down severely, removing the references to injokes and other things that are unencyclopedic, and stating what the podcast is and why it's notable in simple, logical strokes. If I were rewriting it, I would strip the article back to a few good, clear sentences. Good places to learn about making an article are Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Your first article. I hope this helps! Brilliant Pebble (talk) 06:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The number of downloads was misunderstood - at one point the show listed that it had near 1 million downloads over the entire course of the show...not PER episode, that's crazy. I apologize for the miscommunication, but didn't add download numbers to the actual article anyway. I'll work to re-write the article per Wiki specs within the next 24 hours.Albertlentz (talk) 20:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After a week on AfD, the article is still a mishmash of inside jokes and lots of unsubstantiated statements without good reliable sources. References in what are said to be reliable sources are either trivial or not about the podcast itself. Changing my recommendation to Delete. Brilliant Pebble (talk) 09:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kafziel Complaint Department 06:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. the wub "?!" 20:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hornby Virtual Railway[edit]

Hornby Virtual Railway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No evidence of notability, contested prod, so here we are. Crossmr (talk) 05:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC) 'WITHDRAW I'll withdraw this. If the person removing the prod felt it was notable they probably should have tossed up some sources instead of saying "Try AfD". I interpreted that as it probably isn't notable but I'd like to have it sit here for 5 more days.--Crossmr (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedily deleted, G11, non-admin close. ukexpat (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Select Staffing[edit]

Select Staffing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (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. BJTalk 02:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeds of Time Online[edit]

Seeds of Time Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No evidence of notability per WP:WEB from reliable sources. Only claim is number of subscribers, which is not an indicator of notability. Oh, and the link provided (complete with "referrer" information) indicates that this might be WP:SPAM. --Kinu t/c 05:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Delete — Meets criterion G11 (blatant advertising). MuZemike (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • A7 does not apply and is quite frankly dramatically abused these days. To quote: "A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on." Worse, the article even makes some suggestion of notability by saying "Seeds of Time Online has recently passed ten thousand members." And for G11, there is no reason to believe that it is advertisement aside from the player-referral reference (which can easily be fixed -- in fact, I just did so now) -- the article addresses gameplay, the game system, and player interaction, all of which can be seen in other MMORPG entries, such as World of Warcraft and Ragnarok Online and Lineage 2. The problem of the article is notability, and that can only be addressed in AfD discussions. Please keep this in mind in the future when suggesting Speedy Delete. 81.51.89.187 (talk) 09:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, good point, and I will change my decision. However, keep in mind that users and admin can still speedily delete an article if the criteria seem fit, just as with the one of the recent Pokemon articles. MuZemike (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


1) Yes, ten thousand plus people is a lot. Quite frankly, I believe it is enough.

2) In response to the statement regarding the amount of players online. . . The nature of the energy system of the video game does not allow anyone to play it for large amounts of successive time.

3) Also, one of the key factors in the decisions of several people here seem to be the small amount of information it gives. As far as I recall, this is not a reason for deletion. I admit the article is. . . incomplete. It should therfore be expanded, not deleted. Goingkeeps (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Withdrawn. triwbe (talk) 05:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Shopping Cart Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails under WP:NOTGUIDE triwbe (talk) 04:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 22:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andezoo[edit]

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

The article is just advertising without relevant content. There is no reference as to the product's notability. Most of the article (the Toy Biographies section) has been taken straight from the manufacturing company's website (see "andezoo's llama pets" at http://www.andezoo.com/. The article was created by a single-purpose account (User:Patucani) and has already been deleted before for these same reasons, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andezoo and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AndeZoo (2nd nomination). See also its deletion log Victor12 (talk) 04:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedily deleted A7, salted, non-admin close. ukexpat (talk) 22:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Maine[edit]

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

Doesn't appear notable to me. Trivial coverage in local paper. Speedy deleted before but recreated. Leivick (talk) 04:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep and redirect (non-admin closure). Redirecting to Beliy Plaschik seems the best solution. Ruslik (talk) 12:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperion-Plate[edit]

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

Contested prod. No independent notability for this project under this name. At best, should be a redirect. Delete --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 01:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,Synergy 04:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Jacopo Zamporri[edit]

The result was delete. Okiefromokla questions? 21:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Appears to fail WP:ATHLETE. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary's Pizza[edit]

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

This article is basically about a local pizza parlor, and its claim to fame appears to come from being included among lists of pizza parlors that very occasionally turns up in food and travel media. I am not convinced of its notability (though maybe I could change my mind if Zachary sends over a pepperoni and mushroom pie). Ecoleetage (talk) 02:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

Zhongshan Memorial Middle School[edit]

The result was merge/redirect. Because there are some signs that this school could be the subject of non-trivial coverage in Chinese secondary sources, and per precedence for middle schools, I am merging and redirecting to Zhongshan#Education. Okiefromokla questions? 19:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Chinese school whose notability is not confirmed. If notability can be determined, please let me know. Otherwise, it would appear to fail WP:N. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete nancy talk 16:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zuam da Leze[edit]

Zuam da Leze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A sad tale, to be certain, but notability appears to be lacking. I was unable to locate anything online about this doomed player. If anyone can find material, please share it. Otherwise, I would say that poor Zuam fails WP:BIO. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure) Protonk (talk) 03:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fast Web Media[edit]

Fast Web Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This page needs to be deleted: The subject is not notable, the page was created by an employee of the company it is about, and the links are just the same kind of chaff that every web company's marketing department makes sure are around in case they get googled. You can see the wikipedia page is 3rd on a google search of the company's name and their site brags just about marketing, visibility and search engine optimization. Jack Fool (talk) 01:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Synergy 07:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dogs in religion[edit]

Dogs in religion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Violates Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of informatio. The opening sentence of the article is: "Dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) , humankind's first and most common domestic animal, have featured prominently in many religious traditions." However the article itself does not back this up. It is a collection of trivia from various religious traditions which ends up showing how minor the role of dogs is in religion. Northwestgnome (talk) 01:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That one sentence is the entire introduction. If you take it out the article is just a collection of subsections. Northwestgnome (talk) 05:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you write a better introduction, then? SYSS Mouse (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because there is no central point to the article about which to write an introduction. Northwestgnome (talk) 00:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it the 12 animals in Chinese astrology were supposed to be the ones who greated Buddha at his birth, so that is related to religion. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted, A7, non-admin close. ukexpat (talk) 22:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell Winery[edit]

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

This winery doesn't seem that notable. When visiting the site listed for Mitchell Winery the site only lists two products which are both ciders and not wines. Since the company doesn't even make wine I don't see how this is a notable enough to be listed on its own separate page. The rate beer source page does list the two products made by this winery/brewery, but neither product have been rated.


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

The result was delete nancy talk 16:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ringfield (Mathematics)[edit]

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

There is only source given and a bit of digging shows that the creator of this theory has a similar name to the username of the article's author (Simon Jackson and Jacko561 respectively). This indicates that it's nothing but original research. I'd prod it, but typing ringfield mathematics into Google gives so many hits for rings and fields that I can't be certain this new concept hasn't been mentioned anywhere else. Reyk YO! 01:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete as vandalism. ... discospinster talk 01:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Harris Coalition[edit]

Anti-Harris Coalition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable organization, possibly a hoax. Fails WP:V, as well. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete nancy talk 16:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mikey Chan[edit]

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

Article's alleged claim to notability is the fact Mikey Chan has collaborated with several musicians, yet none of these musicians actually have their own Wikipedia page. Currently, the article's text asserts no actual signs of notability in any shape or form. Delete. LuciferMorgan (talk) 00:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete nancy talk 16:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MindSHIFT Technologies[edit]

When will this page be taken down?

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

Non-notable corporation per WP:CORP, no assertion of importance, obvious advertising Madcoverboy (talk) 00:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is where I'm supposed to respond... I was originally tring to create this page to link off the MindAlign entry, but wasn't sure how to do that. mindSHIFT Technologies is a notable company and will be supporting Apple's product line in the future (please see article below).

http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/mindshift-technologies-announces-support-apple-product-line/

Additional links: - Financing Announcement(PR Newswire) http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-28615689_ITM - New Office Opening(Washington Post) http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-558322.html - Merge w/Invision(PR Newswire) http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-32918980_ITM

Please let me know if there is anything else I can provide.

Thanks, Kim —Preceding unsigned comment added by MindSHIFT Technologies (talk • contribs) 13:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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