< June 13	June 15 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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#G4 (recreation of deleted material) by Gwen Gale. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nnenna Agba[edit]

Nominating articles individually (sorry for the mix-up). Please see previous AfD, this is an article that received no, or very few, votes to keep. Subject fails BIO1E, BIO Additional criteria, and Entertainers. She is an also-ran on a television game show, notable only in that context. The fact that a print model gets work as a print model is not notable. We have articles for the winner, runner-up and 3rd place contestants from ANTM. The others are not noteworthy, apart from their appearance on ANTM, and have yet to establish themselves as leaders in their chosen profession. Consequently, I am nominating all but the top 3 finishers from the ANTM cycles for deletion. In time they may prove notable enough for an article in the encyclopedia but until then they are quite well represented at all the various ANTM articles and the ANTM dedicated wiki. L0b0t (talk) 14:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Shurara Corps. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shurara[edit]

This article can simply be merge with the List of minor characters in Keroro Gunsou, as well as the other Shurara Corps. Members Chaoshi (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - and note that merging does not require an AFD discussion and this should not have been nominated. -- Whpq (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amin ahmad[edit]

Appears to be a hoax,I can't find any sources confirming that anyone with that name or a name even vaguely like that name is in the movie. Guest9999 (talk) 23:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as lacks verifiability. Could well be a hoax. Nothing about this supposed actor at imdb entry for this in-production movie. No reliable third party sources as regards claims made in article. Nk.sheridan Talk 00:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX and zero WP:V Artene50 (talk) 02:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 02:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ukexpat (talk) 02:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --Jessika Folkerts (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Though I don't think it's a hoax per se, the subject doesn't seem to be notable and there's nothing currently verifiable. (My guess: This is someone's first credited role, verifiable when more info becomes available, but no current info indicates the role is anything but minor.) - Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Willing Hearts Productions[edit]

Nonnotable local film production company, has spawned 6 other articles on its nonnotable principals and films (listed below). No independent sources sufficiently demonstrating notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also including:
- Ric White
- Linda Thornton
- Nashville Travel Video
- The Bell Witch Haunting
- Nightmares from the Mind of Poe
- Cask of amontillado film
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-receives only about 5 accurate 5 Ghits, [1], fails WP:N, and WP:VERIFY.SRX^--^Latino Heat 00:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete SRX Summed it up. Any production company worth writing about should have at least one reliable secondary source to start an article off with. Halifax Nomad (talk) 08:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow keep signfificant sourcing has been found and there was no proposal for deletion. Merging discussions need to take place on the articles' talk page. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 16:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of Mice and Men in popular culture[edit]

This is just a cluttered trivial dumping ground. Relevant contents belong in the Of Mice and Men article only. RobJ1981 (talk) 23:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —Lenticel ^(talk) 23:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I discovered this AfD when I came to merge notable content back into Of Mice and Men. Now that I'm looking at the article tho, there won't be much content to merge, just that "tell me again about the rabbits" and the archetypes of the two characters are frequently referenced. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 00:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand, there will be more when people have a chance to work on it. I think that for notable works, the default should not be to merge the content. what the nom thinks to be trivia is actually cultural influences, and the use of the theme subsequently is perhaps as ultimately important as the work itself. DGG (talk) 02:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nomination proposes merger not deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's a perfectly good "pop culture" article. Bearian (talk) 15:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In less than 20 minutes, I've found 5 cites and added them. Bearian (talk) 15:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In less than 25 more minutes, I've found many more references, from blogs to the New York Times. Please, can another sysop lay this AfD to rest? Bearian (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Definitely notable per Bearian. Snowball is on it's way.... D.M.N. (talk) 16:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drink me magazine[edit]

No notability established. At this point, notability would be almost impossible to establish, as the magazine's first issue isn't due out until August. Since it's not yet released, this article is almost certainly created by someone closely connected to the magazine, which leads to concerns of conflict of interest and using Wikipedia for advertising. The article also violates Wikipedia's policy regarding crystal ball information. While it may warrant an article in the future, if it becomes a successful and notable magazine, it does not meet the criteria for inclusion at this time. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was about to nominate it myself (when I found a {prod} tag had already been removed), as it fails both WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL. Shawisland (talk) 22:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Likely WP:COI, it fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:ADVERT, possible use of Wikipedia as their free web host. It also fails WP:N as well. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 23:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-fails WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL, and if it gets more notability in the future, it can be recreated, but now it does not.--SRX^--^Latino Heat 00:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Artene50 (talk) 01:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not claim to be notable --T-rex 02:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ukexpat (talk) 02:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I prod-ed it, and I still think it should be deleted. My rationale on the PROD still holds true here. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 03:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Save Although it look slike this magazine doesnt exisit, i did a little research and found out that as an organization, it already exists. They seemed to through some launch party in California and it looks like the have a large following on facebook and within the San Francisco night life. Although perhaps a little premature, it seems to me to be a formidable and worthy entry.randorambo — randorambo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

That doesn't meet WP:N. A "following on facebook"? The launch party in California does nothing for its notability. Are there any reliable, independent sources? Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all; however, allow recreation. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of highest-paid directors[edit]

Completely unsourced list, rife with speculation, and likely so incomplete as to make any rankings demonstrably inaccurate. I'm not against the idea of such a page, but unfortunately this current version fails enough policies and guidelines as to make its existence in this form undesirable. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages on similar grounds:

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY wikipedia is not a place for loosely associated lists. The information is also impossible to verify and changes constantly. AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion there are definately significant problems with the articles as it is, most obviously the almost complete lack of sourcing (The fact that all the information pertains to living people making adequate sourcing all the more necessary). However the amount actors and directors are paid has probably been covered in reliable sources (like this one) and I think acceptable articles in the vein of List of highest-grossing films (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highest-grossing films) could probably be written. If no one can improve the articles so that they meet our standards of verifiability and no original research I think they should be deleted with no prejudice against recreating once all the information has been reliably sourced. Guest9999 (talk) 23:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - given the secrecy surrounding exact dollar amounts it is doubtful that proper sourcing is even possible. Also list serves very little purpose --T-rex 02:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Exact dollar amounts are not needed for this. It can be reliable enough. The limitations ofthe sourcing merely have to be given, since we are concerned with verifiability only, not truth. Collecting publicly available figures is not OR. DGG (talk) 03:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all 3 The problem is sources: there are none, and the information currently in these lists is not verifiable. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remote Administrator Control[edit]

Delete Yet another developer trying to use Wikipedia as a billboard for their non-notable remote admin software. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 22:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable software that's only reference is to the authors site. AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no claim of notability --T-rex 02:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was userfy and delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tulia (film)[edit]

Explicitly fails future films notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when the shooting can be reliably sourced to have already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination on notability and WP:NOTCRYSTAL as the film is not even in production. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NFF. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article creator comment while the shooting of the film has not yet been started, it is almost certain that this film will come out eventually and its content/plot is already known. Halle Berry's pregnancy and its relation to the making of this film is also a notable story. Because racism/politics are involved, it will incite some considerable reaction. There is nothing wrong to prepare an article for such a film. Chimeric Glider (talk) 01:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTCRYSTAL, at this point it doesn't look as if the creation of this film is a sure thing --T-rex 02:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NFF ukexpat (talk) 02:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy Chimeric Glider, you can request that the article be userfied to your user space where it can be edited and copied back to article space once filming is confirmed by reliable sources. I know it doesn't seem to make sense to delete it since it'll probably get made, but that's policy's current threshold. Berry's pregnancy makes an interesting side note to the article, but it doesn't confer exceptional publicity and thus notability to the film before filming even begins. Toliar (talk) 03:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I guess the rule must be upheld, so I am going to put this in a user subpage and put it up when it meets the rule's criteria of inclusion. Regards. Chimeric Glider (talk) 03:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userfied. Chimeric Glider (talk) 03:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CitiCat^♫ 14:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Herman[edit]

~~None of these people have pages; no need for a dab. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn There are now two Steve Hermans that have pages. Good enough for me. As others have !voted delete, I can't withdraw, though. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The links are a guy who played on gig with a band, a red link, and an outside like to a kid's personal website nothing notable about any of them. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 21:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC) KEEP now that its an appropriate dab LegoTech·(t)·(c) 18:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ All three NN (although the guy who played guitar for Crass for one solitary gig at least comes close) and none of them have pages (and the last one is a likely WP:COI and an WP:ADVERT) Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 22:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, OK, there's now two people with this name with articles, therefore the dab page is reasonable now. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Double edit conflict delete (seriously) per Legotech and Doc Strange. There are no pages to disambiguate, and the names listed are spam. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 22:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sorry about that edit conflict. I'm a perfectionist and constantly change my grammar if it doesn't make sense. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 01:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ukexpat (talk) 03:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Crass. The one-gig guitarist doesn't meet WP:BIO, but may merit a redirect, as it was before another editor made it a dab for the lawyer, whose page wasn't created. Toliar (talk) 03:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Keep per Geo Swan's addition of the EPA administrator and I added a Voice of America bureau chief, often credited as Steve Herman. Toliar (talk) 14:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I am concerned that this nomination is based on a misunderstanding of policy. Multiple Steve Hermans exist, and should be disambiguated, without regard to whether they have articles or not. Deleting this article will only create more work for the next person to work on an article on a Steve Herman. We don't excise an entry in a disambiguation page because it is a redlink, if one or more articles shares that redlink. Similarly, we shouldn't delete this disambiguation. Geo Swan (talk) 05:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, any future merge is an editorial matter. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 19:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alta Vista Public School[edit]

Fails WP:ORG. Fails to cite sources. It's just not notable. Delete GreenJoe 20:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another non-notable school. Axl (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see any good reason to delete this page. The school has been involved in a notable and newsworthy fundraising effort and it is fully sourced. TerriersFan (talk) 23:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable school 19:03, 17 June 2008 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.68.55 (talk) — 84.64.68.55 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Have a look at Wikipedia:Notability (schools). Of note, "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." While I commend the school for their effort, in the context of Wikipedia, this fund-raising is trivial. Axl (talk) 06:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to school district, sources don't establish notability. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 05:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Fee Fi Foe Fum and ample precedent. Also when the merge(s) are done, rewrite the the template to kill all of those links which lead to non notable articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to Ottawa-Carleton District School Board per above. --JForget 22:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it may be "just not notable" but it also isn't getting deleted. Merge per the above, schools really need to stop being brought to AfD _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 03:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clearly a merge and redirect are thought best, though where to merge and redirect to is less clear. Any such action is really an editorial decision. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 19:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greenbank Middle School[edit]

Fails WP:ORG. Fails to cite sources. It's just not notable. First nom. Delete GreenJoe 20:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and/or redirect to appropriate school district, as per the common outcome. Most Middle school- and Elementary-related articles go through this process shortly after an AfD. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 22:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above; no evidence of individual notability for this school. JJL (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of English public schools in Ottawa per normal practice. TerriersFan (talk) 23:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. Elementary and middle schools usually are not notable, and this school doesn't seem to assert any further notability. DigitalC (talk) 03:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge/redirect per above. --JForget 22:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable, no district found. Wizardman 12:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The template at the bottom of the article indicates that this school is part of the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board.--JForget 16:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I judged by the strength of the arguments, not the number tally - Colonel Warden gave evidence of multiple reliable secondary sources; while some seem to be expired, the Wired News, Los Angeles Times, and the Spanish Source (though I'm unsure about the latter, however it's not important since the first two are enough) are more than enough. This article does need a serious cleanup, however. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 23:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matoran[edit]

This articles asserts no notability through reliable sources, has every tag imaginable on it because of this, and has no capacity to improve since there are no reliable sources to add to it. Therefore, it should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The assertion that reliable sources do not exist for this topic seems to be false. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as someone not familiar with the topic, I can see zero claim of notability. In fact I can't even figure out what the article is attempting to talk about. Also zero independent sources --T-rex 02:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability, one non-reliable reference to a Bioncle wiki, and far, far too much in-universe detail. --Thetrick (talk) 13:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Entirely in-universe plot summary with no real-world context. Nothing to indicate notability. Doubtful that this topic specifically has ever received substantial coverage from independent sources. Sources provided in Warden's link do not appear to be about the people themselves, but more about merchandise and the franchise itself. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per CW. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world). Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a Google news search would indicate that sources do exist to improve the article -- Whpq (talk) 19:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of notability, no proper sources for out-of-universe context, no demonstration of encyclopedic value. Eusebeus (talk) 20:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks reliable sources to verify that the information isn't original research (which is predominantly seems to be) or that it adheres to WP:NPOV. There seems to be only one viable source applicable to the subject from those which were pointed out above, which is used already in the main article where coverage is slightly better. The subject fails WP:NOTE by not containing multiple secondary sources, and as such is eligible for deletion. Seraphim♥Whipp 11:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rapozof[edit]

Musical performer whose notability is not easily confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability guidelines for music WP:NM. Not easy to verify notability as music is in language other than English. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be good at self-promotion, thus lots of G-hits, but only 1 non-self-released record.
Delete. Lacks reliable sources to verify that the albums have even been released. The subject fails the relevant notability guideline (WP:MUSIC) and as such, is eligible for deletion. Seraphim♥ Whipp 11:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 20:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asudem[edit]

Not speedying or prodding due to that "the film won the best Horror picture genre feature film award at the international film and video festival in Los Angeles in 2007", but I'm not 100% convinced that this film even exists, let alone that it meets any notability requirement. I can't find any mentions of this award anywhere or a single mention of this film in anything approaching a reliable source (which IMDB is not, before anyone jumps in about that). – iridescent 19:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insufficient sources to show notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N ukexpat (talk) 03:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although I found this which suggests it did win a minor award, and this from a German newspaper, I do not think it shows notability per WP:MOVIE. ascidian | talk-to-me 14:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus, defaulting to keep. Tan | 39 00:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Cassandra Whitehead[edit]

Nominating articles individually (sorry for the mix-up). Please see previous AfD, this is an article that received no, or very few, votes to keep. Subject fails BIO1E, BIO Additional criteria, and Entertainers. She is an also-ran on a television game show, notable only in that context. The fact that a print model gets work as a print model is not notable. We have articles for the winner, runner-up and 3rd place contestants from ANTM. The others are not noteworthy, apart from their appearance on ANTM, and have yet to establish themselves as leaders in their chosen profession. Consequently, I am nominating all but the top 3 finishers from the ANTM cycles for deletion. In time they may prove notable enough for an article in the encyclopedia but until then they are quite well represented at all the various ANTM articles and the ANTM dedicated wiki. L0b0t (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per my nomination. L0b0t (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the other AFD and the fact that she was notable for her pageant participation prior to competing on ANTM. Although she never won a state title, she held numerous local titles and has competed in the Miss Texas USA, Miss Texas Teen USA & Miss California USA pageants, placing many times. As User:Blnguyen phrased it well previously, her notability is "due to a sum of multiple events which were partially notable". PageantUpdater talk • contribs 20:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Merely competing for a state title is not notable. No matter how many times she may have tied and failed, that's no more notable than failing once--notable quire something that is actually notable--being less than notable as any number of things makes one--less than notable. To take a more common sequence, a non-notable athlete who becomes an non-notable college teacher and then a losing political candidate remains non-notable, no matter how many professions he does not achieve success in. Otherwise anyone who kept shifting jobs would eventually become notable, even if we couldn't say at precisely what. DGG (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has not accomplished anything notable and has not received significant media coverage. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep numerous pageant wins and guest-stints. Got media coverage for being the first contestant to quit ANTM Siemgi 23:13 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Weak delete If she had won the Miss Texas 2005 crown, I would have voted to keep it. No notability beyond winning the Miss Corpus Christi crown. Artene50 (talk) 01:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there--had she won that title, I doubt it would even have been nominated for AfD. DGG (talk) 04:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - per Artene50 --T-rex 02:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete ukexpat (talk) 03:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nomination actually is about ANTM. To me the fact that she has done ANTM + several pageants + several guest appearances = notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.194.35.225 (talk) 12:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, she's just like Brittany, probably a little more notable due to her pageantry past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.231.0.64 (talk) 23:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— 87.231.0.64 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Weak Delete: Although both Top Model and pageants are notable...she hasn't won or placed high enough to warrant a Wikipedia page. SKS2K6 (talk) 02:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the last AfD had a keep result, I don't see how she could ahve lost notability since. User:Whadaheck (User talk:Whadaheck) 13:07 17 June 2008 (UTC)

— Whadaheck (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Housekeeping note: Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/81.194.35.225 regarding edits by anonymous users and Whadaheck to recent AFD votes. Yechiel (Shalom) 03:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- the multiple borderline events add up to notability. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Too long, not objectively written (too much space devoted to pageant minutiae and her hair), but meets notability requirements. - Richfife (talk) 00:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 near unanimity of responses, discounting nominator, IP addresses and possible socks. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 00:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Stolz[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kim Stolz (2nd nomination)

Nominating articles individually (sorry for the mix-up). Please see previous AfD, this is an article that received no, or very few, votes to keep. Subject fails BIO1E, BIO Additional criteria, and Entertainers. She is an also-ran on a television game show, notable only in that context. The fact that a print model gets work as a print model is not notable. We have articles for the winner, runner-up and 3rd place contestants from ANTM. The others are not noteworthy, apart from their appearance on ANTM, and have yet to establish themselves as leaders in their chosen profession. Consequently, I am nominating all but the top 3 finishers from the ANTM cycles for deletion. In time they may prove notable enough for an article in the encyclopedia but until then they are quite well represented at all the various ANTM articles and the ANTM dedicated wiki. L0b0t (talk) 19:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per my nomination. L0b0t (talk) 19:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I cannot support this nomination since you called her an 'also-ran', which is strongly unadvised in nominations since we try to keep a neutral view of things. But also, Kim has been one of the few Top Model contestants to go beyond her fame from that show, and get a good gig on MTV/MTVU as a correspondent and also a strong supporter and good spokesperson for gay rights in the media. Beyond the fansite mentions the article has plenty of sources and I'm sure more can be found. Nate • (chatter) 22:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has not accomplished anything notable and has not received significant media coverage. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I don't know if such a thing exists but I saw some people use weak keeps and stuff and that's how I feel. She has been on numerous civers as a gay right spokesperson, has had some significant work for MTV. Siemgi 23:18 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep her MTV stuff alone should be enough and she has done more than that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.194.35.225 (talk) 12:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, you lost me there. She's one of the, I don't know, about ten contestants who have successfully turned their ANTM stint into an opening to the TV world, she's really a keep to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.231.0.64 (talk) 23:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— 87.231.0.64 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. In the previous group AfD, I noted that she was one of the few that parlayed her experience into something bigger. She's an MTV personality now, and that's good enough for me. SKS2K6 (talk) 02:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per SKS2K6 User:Whadaheck (User talk:Whadaheck) 13:10 17 June 2008 (UTC)

— Whadaheck (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Housekeeping note: Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/81.194.35.225 regarding edits by anonymous users and Whadaheck to recent AFD votes. Yechiel (Shalom) 03:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As someone with such a large, widely-publicized presence on MTV (VJ, show host, news correspondent) and active presence in LGBT media, Kim clearly does not fail any of the notability guidelines the nominator specified. I feel the previously-edited article, however, did a somewhat poor job establishing notability criteria, so I tried to clean this article up (especially the intro). Hope this helps other voters. Dark clear obsession (talk) 06:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being an MTV personality looks sufficiently enough to be notable and also there is a few good sources as well. --JForget 23:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy Procious[edit]

Notability is not obvious with this biographical entry. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An interesting case with many hits usually from secondary sources. But she is apparently legitimate. I can't vouch for her notability, though. Artene50 (talk) 02:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She worked for a newspaper, so obviously her name will pop up all over Google. However, for notability purposes, we must see if she has received significant coverage in multiple secondary sources. A good place to turn for that would be GoogleNews where her lack of coverage is manifest. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable as artist, scraping the bottom of notablity as editorial cartoonist (finalist for an award).

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Even after discounting the suspected sock/meatpuppets, there seems to be a roughly 50/50 split over whether the existing secondary coverage is sufficient enough to establish notability, with policy-based arguments being made on both sides. --jonny-m t 04:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa D'Amato[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Nominating articles individually (sorry for the mix-up). Please see previous AfD, this is an article that received no, or very few, votes to keep. Subject fails BIO1E, BIO Additional criteria, and Entertainers. She is an also-ran on a television game show, notable only in that context. The fact that a print model gets work as a print model is not notable. We have articles for the winner, runner-up and 3rd place contestants from ANTM. The others are not noteworthy, apart from their appearance on ANTM, and have yet to establish themselves as leaders in their chosen profession. Consequently, I am nominating all but the top 3 finishers from the ANTM cycles for deletion. In time they may prove notable enough for an article in the encyclopedia but until then they are quite well represented at all the various ANTM articles and the ANTM dedicated wiki. L0b0t (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per my nomination. L0b0t (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Getting media coverage (AOL, Perz Hilton), a few guest-stints, starting a music career... Siemgi 23:15 14 June 2008 (UTC).
Delete. Has not accomplished anything notable and has not received significant media coverage.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Granted, she's had her 15 minutes of fame and is soon to be forgotten; but she's spawned enough interest to warrant secondary sources, and who knows what importance she might play as part of some sociology geek's pop culture thesis years from now. Halifax Nomad (talk) 08:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete starting a career is not notable--when she establishes one,then it will be time for an article. anything, whether notable or not, might eventually become notable when used for academic study--then it gets an article. Wikipedia filters the internet, not reproduces it. DGG (talk) 22:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perez Hilton is a site about celebrities, right? the fact that she was on it proves she's kinda notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.194.35.225 (talk) 12:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She's got some notability outside ANTM, that's pretty much confirmed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.231.0.64 (talk) 23:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— 87.231.0.64 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Weak delete: I know she's had coverage outside of the ANTM blogs/sites, but I don't think acting stupid in the public eye. It would be different if it was something so huge that it got significant mainstream coverage. At this point, she does have some pop culture visibility, but not enough to warrant her inclusion into Wikipedia. SKS2K6 (talk) 02:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, same as Whitehead, her last AfD was a keep. User:Whadaheck (User talk:Whadaheck) 13:09 17 June 2008 (UTC)

— Whadaheck (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Housekeeping note: Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/81.194.35.225 regarding edits by anonymous users and Whadaheck to recent AFD votes. Yechiel (Shalom) 03:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. This is very notable, verifiable, and its not blatant advertising. — _Maggot^Syn 15:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elliptic Curve DSA[edit]

Blatant advertising Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Wanna know my story?}/ _{Share yours with me!} 18:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep its a long way over my head - but it seems to be a theory rather than a product and notable [2] - external links might need checking but I can't see how the article itself is advertising. -Hunting dog (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep ECDSA is one of three algorithms included in NISTs digital signature standard. 85.1.107.231 (talk) 18:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep It cannot be advertising because the subject of the article is neither a company nor a product. The article is about a standard. If a particular item in the article is linkspam, it should just be removed and not brought to AfD. Jim Miller (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep How can theories be "blatant advertising"? As Jim Miller Jr. said, an innapropriate external link or two is not cause for an AfD. Just be bold and remove it. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 21:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong/speedy keep. I don't know if this is a bad faith nomination or just misunderstanding on the part of the nominator, but it's obviously notable, and it isn't spam because that just wouldn't make sense; how can you spam an encryption standard? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 05:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, the term should be familiar to anyone who has studied crypto recently. WillOakland (talk) 08:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gitanand[edit]

Non notable religious leader with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Please correct me if I'm wrong, but is a Swami with an Ashram who founded health camps for poor people notable? And I agree with ism Schism's claim on reliable sources. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 21:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eros-Film[edit]

Unremarkable Russian film studio. Declined prod(!). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It may be unremarkable for America with its monstrous porn industry, but searching google for russian terms for Эрос-Фильм and Армен Оганезов shows a reasonable number of hits besides film ads. Unfortunately the only things I can contribute from Russian sources is cut and paste cyrillic spellings of names. And by the way, I also noticed that the list of films produced is quite long. If you wish, I can cut and paste this list (untranslated) into the article as well, countering systemic bias in wikipedia :-) Mukadderat (talk) 15:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete film-house with some 40-odd film catalogue specialised in girls who lie back and think of Russia may sound notable, but isn't. Article is feeble on independent sources. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- <Shrug>. What can I say? Only that Russian wikipedians are not so obsessed with national sex industry, unlike, say, american porn proliferating in wikipedia. Just the same I doubt that girls that lie back and thing of America are of higher notability, but abound in wikipedia. Like I said, there are refs in Russian language, but I cannot add them because I cannot read. Mukadderat (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Wknight94 (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This film company fails WP:CORP. The author's point about systemic bias is well taken, but the author has not offered WP:RELIABLE 3rd-party sources in any language. Even with systemic bias, WP:PROVEIT applies. • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I checked, and it fails WP:CORP, as Gene93k said. It has not been covered by secondary sources, and the only external links are the company's website, their film catalogue, and a brief entry at iMDB. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 21:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP and WP:N at present. Artene50 (talk) 01:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep no longer speedy because it was nominated on the 8th and seems to have fallen through the cracks but keep nonetheless. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 17:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Dunford Wood[edit]

At the moment, this article is pure advertorial. Its subject appears to meet the notability criteria, and the article is not quite blatant enough for ((db-spam)) treatment, but it needs a substantial rewrite before it can meet the WP:NPOV and WP:V criteria. I'm listing it here in the hope that the original contributor, or someone else who cares deeply enough about the article's subject, will perform the necessary rewrite before this AfD expires. I've left them some hints on their talk page as to how they might improve the article. The Anome (talk) 12:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. --Blechnic (talk) 23:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. May also be an autobiography. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~, for the reasons the nom gave. If the subject is notable, it should stay. Cleanup and rewrite are editing issues, not a reason for AfD.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to Weak keep. I've added a couple of sources to the article, but this was all I could find in a gsearch. A gnews search turns up a few more that have some promise, but they are pay sites. UK newspapers might have more info, but I have no clue how to access them easily.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete unless sourced. 10 days totally should be long enough to find some references. The accomplishment claimed might possibly be notable, but we'd need to see what the sources said about them. DGG (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It is written in an advertorial style, as The Anome said, but it seems that after a lengthy rewrite, it could possibly be notable. I could go either way. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 21:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep AFD is not cleanup. If the nominator wants the article rewritten then they should do it themselves. Reducing an article to a stub is easier than AFD so there is no excuse for this disruption. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references now in the article are reviews of his work in major newspapers and confirmation that the restaurant where he is executive chef won a major award. That's plenty to show notability. There are still problems with the tone of the article but that is a reason for editing not deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO, not the primary subject of multiple independent reliable sources. --Ave Caesar (talk) 19:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Nominator admits this is a forced editing attempt, not a genuine AfD. He's a well known British television chef. This is another "you clean up this article at gunpoint" nomination, by an editor who's not capable of or willing to clean up the article themselves. Ask the folks at WP Food or something, but don't force clean ups of articles that you're not willing to clean up. If you're not, why should someone else want to? --Blechnic (talk) 22:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not only was this an admittedly bad faith nom, but the article has now been cleaned up and sourced sufficiently. Jim Miller (talk) 18:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --jonny-m t 04:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gone Like Solomon[edit]

Appears to fail notability guidelines at WP:MOVIE. Just under 600 total Google hits, no hits in the Google News archive, no evidence of coverage in reliable third-party sources. No evidence that film has been screened and it does not even have an IMDB entry. In sum, an independent film that is not notable enough to warrant an article. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No third-party sources, no notability. Nothing. Paragon12321 (talk) 04:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This film is not a box-office or straight to video film but it is an independent film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashleyjuddfan (talk • contribs) 11:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MOVIE. Doesn't even haave an iMDB page. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 21:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MOVIE: "The published works must be someone else writing about the film." The very few hits that exist are Myspace and its ilk (and the WP article). Frank | talk 21:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability guidelines. - Richfife (talk) 03:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. -- tariqabjotu 06:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Oklahoma State University buildings[edit]

there is already a listing of buildings in the article for Oklahoma State University. in addition, this page does not provide enough information; I have a feeling it might just be a list that was copied from somewhere. Scottmso (talk) 02:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As mentioned above, this list already exists on the main article. Furthermore, it is not sufficiently notable in itself to constitute an article (or list) of its own. Wilhelm meis (talk) 03:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ Keep and combine with Oklahoma State University–Stillwater#Campus buildings. We certainly don't need overlapping information in two places. This looks a more complete list than that in the main article including demolished buildings and buildings under construction, for example, and at least containing a small amount of sourcing. There are two ways forward. The first, is to merge this list into the main article. The second, and my preference, would be to move the list of buildings out of the main article and into here to make the main page less cluttered. Which solution is adopted is a matter for the talk page. TerriersFan (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 18:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Listcruft, possibly a copyvio. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 22:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

how can it be copyvio? Abstracting the material from their extensive web information isn't copyvio; if they do provide a simple list there, there's no copyright in this sort of a list--and if anyone thinks there is, all it takes is to reorganize it. DGG (talk) 14:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nom said that he/she had a 'feeling it was copied from somewhere". Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 14:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it was copied 'from somewhere' it is most probably not copyvio. This is a purely factual list of buildings categorised by type and factual material is not copyright. TerriersFan (talk) 01:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This list for most universities will be extensive enough that it requires a separate list--there will usually be two of three lines of information worth including for each. since we are usually deleting articles on most individual campus buildings, itr makes it reasonable to provide for them here. As O iderstand it, the proposed solution of Terriers Fan is a separate article (ie keep), not merge. DGG (talk) 13:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an orphaned article with no useful content. While it should be possible to verify the existence of these buildings that would not make them notable. --T-rex 01:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete context-free, source-free list. Pure directory. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable). WP:ITSCRUFT is not a valid reason for deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge Oklahoma State University–Stillwater#Campus buildings into it per TerriersFan. While it is a standalone list, I would like to see more here than simply a list of buildings' names (as opposed to, say, Buildings at Marshall University). B.Wind (talk) 00:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sure there's a link on the school's website that does a better job. We can point to it as needed. - Richfife (talk) 03:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge content from Oklahoma State University–Stillwater#Campus buildings per TerriersFan, that article is worsened by a third of it's length consisting of this bare list, what would be best of all would be a paragraph or two in there, with a "main article" link to List of Oklahoma State University buildings. --Stormie (talk) 04:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nom withdrawn see final comment below _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 01:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Between the Walls[edit]

There's no assertion of notability for this album. Only content of the article is a "Track listing" and a "Personnel" sections. There's also an infobox with very little information. The page's been prodded, but prod was removed, so I've gone to AfD. Victor Lopes (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC) I have changed the page , but if you consider it for deleting it is up to everyone to delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zagor4e (talk • contribs) 18:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep seems to be a notable album by a notable band. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chetblong (talk) 02:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem a notable album CRocka05 (talk) 03:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The artist is apparently notable, why isn't the album? Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 22:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've given the article a bit of a tidy up, added a ref for some of the info, and track listing. Over the next few days or so I'll give all the other albums of his that look this bad a bit of a kick in the pants too. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, now the article is way much better than before. I'm glad to say that I withdraw this nomination. Victor Lopes (talk) 15:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheat Code Central[edit]

This article has already been posted and deleted twice as spam. Bringing it here to get a decision as to whether it's cleanuppable and/or worthy of keeping. Procedural nom so I abstain. – iridescent 18:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hi. I was just wondering what changes need to be made to make it conform to the rules. I'm new to Wikipedia and I'm just trying my best. I tried to follow this example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamespot

Please, any help would be appreciated.

Regards,

MMCCC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmccc (talk • contribs) 18:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Gamespot article contains 78 references to reliable sources to establish its notability. While this article certainly doesn't need as many as 78, it needs at least some to explain why other media think it's a noteworthy organisation. – iridescent 18:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll try my best. However, I saw a great amount of those "references" are internal links. Should I do that as well and link to CheatCC reviews, previews, etc. or those links are not allowed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmccc (talk • contribs) 19:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dislike links to the subject's own website but this is totally out of my area. Post a request at WikiProject Video games and someone will help you. You should probably mention this deletion discussion as they're the best people to comment on whether this article is viable. – iridescent 19:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral The lack of external sources troubles me, but it is the 3rd-most visited video gaming sight. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 22:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Alexa test is not an indicator of notability. hbdragon88 (talk) 06:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment replication of cheats elsewhere does not indicate notability. The interviews could be cited for the aritcles where they originate, but that too does not indicate notability. Unless the GameFAQs-Dave Allison flap was covered in a reliable publication, it's just an Internet skirmish that shouldn't be added. hbdragon88 (talk) 06:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but heavily edit. It doesn't need to be more than a few paragraphs in length. All the references need to be corrected too. Fin©™ 10:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spammy. Far too detailed. Reads like advert. Might merit a one-line mention in cheat codes. --Thetrick (talk) 13:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not keep after editing? If the goal is to make an encyclopedia, Cheat Code Central should be there, just as Gamespot and IGN are. Shouldn't it? Granted CCC is only half the size of those two, but it's still the third most visited out there, and the #1 choice for codes. Any kid between 10-18 who goes online and plays video games will know CCC. Of course, I know I'm not a neutral source to tell you this, but you could easily investigate the issue and find out...I think we were extremely neutral in the way everything is explained on the doc. Feel free to edit anything you want, shorten the document, etc. I tried to get rid of part of the initial content, but I'm not sure what you guys think is useless and what isn't. I used the Gamespot Wikipedia post as a reference to build this one. Any input is appreciated. Thanks. Mmccc (talk)

Rewrite article - Look, I'm not doubting that Cheat Code Central is notable per WP:N. If it gets the traffic the article says it does, then chances are there are sources that show notability out there. But the way the article is written now, it's written like an advertisement showing off the details of the site without really talking about why it is notable. This article needs to be completely rewritten, but should that happen, I think it could stay. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...}^{protector of all...} 19:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but cleanup, on the presumption that the references listed are good for showing the notability, but they need to be inline citations to match with the content (see WP:CITE and WP:CITET. --MASEM 21:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very well known website. DGG (talk) 22:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and could use a rewrite. When a video game cheat site is given a shout-out by the NYT, however brief, that's a pretty major deal. Ford MF (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is indeed a well known and well used website... needs work though. giggy _(:O) 11:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - SPAM article for a non-notable website written with COI. Please do not let this degrade into "I've heard of it, so it's notable". There is no establishment of notability. Notability is significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Notability is not another website quoting a review, or a newspaper's website mentioning noting more than the URL of the website in an essay (under "Some sites with cheat codes"). Reliable secondary sources are not the official website, the website of their hired PR firm, blogs, or even (sorry) MySpace pages. Please attempt to establish real WP:Notability (not popularity or familiarity or whatever). JohnnyMrNinja 22:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but edit — If it is heavily trafficked as with GameFAQs et al, then it should be kept. However, I do concur that this article was written rather poorly and is in need of some extensive editing. MuZemike (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy question - First: does anyone argue that articles on subjects that are not notable should be kept? Second: can anyone provide proof of actual notability per Wikipedia:Notability (web)? I think this is vital to the discussion. If it is notable, it should be kept. If it is not notable, it should not. As far as I can tell, the article contains no valid references, just links to top-level domains, blogs and a MySpace page. This discussion has nothing to do with how popular it is, or how well the article is written (as it can always be edited). Can anyone actually prove that that the topic is worthy of inclusion by Wikipedia policies? If not, either it must be deleted, or Wikipedia:Notability (web) rewritten. JohnnyMrNinja 09:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Soxred 93 13:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Kinahan[edit]

Non notable local councillor and unsuccessful election candidate who fails WP:BIO. Google shows up nothing of note and just being someones son is not enough for notability. Valenciano (talk) 18:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - slightly unfair to nominate for AfD so soon after creation. Hopefully article will be improved. Counter-revolutionary (talk) 18:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which doesn't answer the concerns about the article. What exactly has he done to merit inclusion? There are many antiques experts and many members of borough councils, none of them meet wp:bio based on those factors. Valenciano (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to reply to everything comment made. Let's see what others think. Counter-revolutionary (talk) 18:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think he is of borderline notability, but there certainly has been coverage independent sources, the fact that the Antrim Times and other local papers aren't online simply makes him a WP:BIO failure on a google test. There is coverage of his work as an antiques consultant and other public appointments[3].Traditional unionist (talk) 19:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Did not get elected for the Northern ireland Assembly. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 22:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The council of which he is a member represents a population of only 50,000. Local government bodies of this size do not make the members notable.He lost the last election for MP. There's no real likelihood of finding additional material that would show notability. Coverage has to be significant. DGG (talk) 14:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable failed candidiate who did not win election. Other positions as an antiques consultant, etc. are not sufficient to pass WP:BIO. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 01:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - insufficient evidence of notability. Warofdreams talk 00:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G6, uncontroversial housekeeping. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Franklin (disambiguation)[edit]

Paul Franklin and Joseph Paul Franklin each have hatnotes pointing to the other, so a dab is not needed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. But is both hatnotes point to each other, how did you ever find this page? --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By checking what linked to Paul Franklin. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One guy is Joseph Paul Franklin. There is only one Paul Franklin, making this disambiguation useless. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 22:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Shapiros10 and the nom on this one. Good find TPH. — _Maggot^Syn 15:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 10:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CAW Local 1973[edit]

Fails WP:ORG, non-notable. Delete GreenJoe 17:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a large union local. The article has over a dozen references. --Eastmain (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that may be technically true but most of those "references" are publications of CAW itself, so they aren't qualified as secondary sources as required by policy on reliable sources. I would add to the nominator that per the guide to deletion "To avoid confusing newcomers, the reasons given for deletion should avoid Wikipedia-specific acronyms." Beeblbrox (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Canadian Auto Workers Per notability guidelines for organizations "Local chapter articles should start as a section of the parent organization article. If the parent article grows to the point where it may be split to a new article, and notability can be demonstrated using the general notability guideline, then it can be split. " As mentioned above, there isn't really much in the way of reliable sources related to this chapter. Beeblbrox (talk) 18:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger is inappropriate in this case because both articles are quite long. Since notability for the local (and for other locals) can be demonstrated using the general notability guideline, it is best to maintain the separate articles. --Eastmain (talk) 19:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not need to be this long, as almost none of it based on reliable sources, and I don't believe it does meet the general notability guideline because of the lack of good sources. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger of all CAW Local articles to a CAW Locals article would be better. This would prevent the CAW article from increasing in length. DigitalC (talk) 04:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nominator should first have done a Google News search - see http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=%22CAW+Local+1973%22&btnG=Search+News and a Google News archive search - http://news.google.com/archivesearch?hl=en&ned=us&q=%22CAW+Local+1973%22&ie=UTF-8 Lots of references in both places. --Eastmain (talk) 21:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The onus on adding in references, is the person putting in the material, not me. You should know that by now. GreenJoe 21:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now that they are found, do you withdraw the nomination? DGG (talk) 22:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. It's still not notable. GreenJoe 23:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well guess what? this article is an important piece of history with the recent news of plant closures to both the Transmission plant and lear plant (both of which this local represents). CAW Local 1973 will no longer exist. To add: regarding the sources, CAW Local 1973 is not a large local and is in a small town, thus there are not an overwhelming amount of sources. as to the credibility or notability, the sources used were some quotes from the CAW President and founding members of the local (who would know better). There is only so much research one can find in books. The deletion of this article is a grave mistake as it is going down in CAW's history as a strong local that has done it's job in looking out for wroker's rights and employment. One day someone might say what was the local 1973? with its closure this local has become an integral part of the CAW's history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stamouva (talk • contribs) 19:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - there is no consensus to delete the article - interested editors can start discussion on whether to redirect the page (with or without a merge). (non-admin close) Guest9999 (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Munro Middle School[edit]

This article fails to cite sources, and it fails WP:ORG. It just isn't notable. Delete GreenJoe 17:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The school appears to have notable alumni, and to be named after a notable Canadian politician. --Eastmain (talk) 17:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Appears to. It cites NO sources to back it up. GreenJoe 17:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Amazing how tagging something AfD causes references to appear out of the woodwork. :-) Jclemens (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect into Ottawa-Carleton District School Board per the usual middle school procedure. We can't have an article on each middle school that was attended by someone with a Wikipedia bio. Notability is not inherited. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Although I disagree with it, there seems to be a consensus on Wiki to keep schools and since this has sources, I would say it's more notable than some at least. --Ave Caesar (talk) 19:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The wiki consensus (I disagree with it as well) is to keep high schools, not middle schools. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but Bryan Adams and Tom Cruise are very notable alumni, and the consensus as I've seen it is that Middle schools CAN be notable. If this isn't, what is? Personally, as a recent changes patroller, I'd just as soon we eliminate or semi-protect every single school article. :-) Jclemens (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no accepted policy or even guideline for school notability. If in your opinion this school isn't notable, don't be afraid to say so. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Changing to weak delete. Just because a school had notable alumni does not make the school notable as well. This goes back to the whole notability isn't inherited principle. --Ave Caesar (talk) 19:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a notable sporting success, an unusual number of notable alumni and a further sources available (I'm about to add another) adds up to an encyclopaedic article. TerriersFan (talk) 19:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updated comment - the article now has an unusual array, for a middle school, of sporting and academic success, backed up by ample independent sources to meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to parent district article, a passing mention in a biography of Tom Cruise and a couple of blurbs in a local paper is not substantive independent sourcing, it is trivial mentions. Willing to reconsider if genuinely substantial sourcing exists, but there's nothing I can find. "Famous people went here" has no bearing whatsoever, sources confer notability on a subject, not having famous people affiliated with it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"passing mention" is a bit harsh. pages 13-16 discuss his days at the school. DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a passing mention because the focus is on discussing the person, not the school. The school is mentioned in passing to provide context, the person is the focus. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The focus is on the person but it is not a passing reference; it discusses his time at the school, his challenges at the school, his successes at the school, his teachers and classmates. It is currently only used as a cite for alumni but, still, you cannot say it's a passing reference when it occupies several pages in the book. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

redirect per Seraphimblade & Brewcrewer. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing encyclopedic about winning school district level athletic prizes, and nothing notable about having a passing association with celebrity. It's a middle school, I really don't think it and Tom Cruise left any lasting impressions on each other that serves to provide deeper insight in to the nature of one or the other. Notability is not inherited, the guy who cuts Bryan Adams's hair doesn't become a notable hairdresser by that fact alone, the guy that changes the oil in Elizabeth Manley's car doesn't become a notable mechanic. Really, this is just a totally typical middle school in a totally typical suburb. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The impression this school has left on Tom Cruise is clearly stated in his biography. To compare the impact a middle school has on the development of an individual with that of a hairdresser.. well I shall leave it to others to surmise my reaction! "this is just a totally typical middle school" ... really, then I must be wrong in advocating most middle school articles are redirected; please point out how which other middle schools has this combined range of awards and I'll happily write an article on them too! TerriersFan (talk) 01:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That he came of age in a middle school, and had friends at school as a teenager I don't doubt. Is this material, which you think makes the school notable going to be included on the school article? If the reason, explaining *why* the school had such an impact on Cruise, that is so important to Tom Cruise's biography that it raises the school to historic notability, isn't going to be in the article, then I don't see how it can make the school notable... Pete.Hurd (talk) 02:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per references added since nomination. Clearly passes WP:N.--Sting Buzz Me... 11:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the references added to the article just about establish notability. Davewild (talk) 14:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that this article should be kept. It is certainly just a start but the school is noted and facts are verified by reliable sources. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the celebrities that attended this school increase its notability beyond a regular middle school (see the reference labelling it "School to the stars"). I feel it meets WP:N. DigitalC (talk) 03:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Seraphimblade and Brewcrewer. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the addition of references since the start of this discussion. --JForget 23:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 20:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heart Break Kid[edit]

Non-notable musician. Vague assertions are made to "production deals" and such, but absolutely no references are provided. Google turns up maybe one or two relevant hits; add "Ashcroft" to the search terms and you get exactly one hit, aside from this article. This information cannot be verified and is highly suspect. Possible hoax, but probably just a non-notable musician looking for publicity. (Contested speedy.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless notability reliably sourced. Jclemens (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC with flying colors, No reliable sources, possible self bio and possible Use of Wikipedia as a social network . If deleted, redirect this back to Shawn Michaels, the television wrestler who goes by the name Heart Break Kid. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I note from the talk page of the article that the creator possibly did not understand the difference between asserting notability and proving it with reliable sources. If they can come up with sources, i.e. all the claimed coverage in magazines, I would change to keep. Beeblbrox (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability has not been established, no references, possibly a hoax. Qaddosh|_contribs^talk 01:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 much improved during the discussion - Peripitus (Talk) 12:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lior navok[edit]

Contested prod. Apart for possible notability issues, the original author, User:Liornavok, which I presume is the Lior navok in question, has claimed ownership of copyright over the text (possible implicit ownership of the article itself?) -- and that is incompatible with Wikipedia's GFDL. ArglebargleIV (talk) 16:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lior navok has been moved to Lior Navok -- I presume this AfD discussion still applies? -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 12:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep if he can reliably source the awards and fix the copyright issues, it's reasonably notable and worthwhile despite the admitted COI. Jclemens (talk) 18:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good improvements. Jclemens (talk) 06:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno If the article's claims are true, we should certainly keep, but if the entire article is copyrighted, we have no choice but to delete. Beeblbrox (talk) 18:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The more I look into this, the more it seems that he wrote this article for Wikipedia, then tried to put his own copyright on the Wikipedia page, in order to claim ownership. I think this may just be a huge misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is, but probably isn't an actual copyright violation. I have warned the author about conflict of interest editing and I see the copyright issue is already under discussion on his and the article's talk pages. Beeblbrox (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Copyvio material has now been removed, and a new lead written. Voceditenore (talk) 10:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent cites. --Ave Caesar (talk) 19:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There are independent citations now, but in any case that's hardly a reason to delete an article unless none can be found. Voceditenore (talk) 10:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note:This discussion has been notified to Wikipedia:WikiProject Contemporary music and Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers. - Voceditenore (talk) 10:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite - even if someone writes just 1 line, it's better than a copyvio. The subject is notable however, lots of independent sites mentioning him, a sufficient amount of accomplishment, and there are enough Google hits to clearly display that he isn't an average NN Joe. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. (The article is now reduced to one descriptive line + the list of his compostions.) I have added some refs - he is notable. In addition to the refs I've added to the article, see Google News Archives. [4] I have a subscription to Highbeam Research and can supply the articles that confirm his various awards. Most of them are from The Jerusalem Post. The autobiography bit was ill-advised, but that's no reason to delete the article. I suspect the addition of the copyright info in the edit summary was the author trying to say it was OK to use the info from his web site because he owned the copyright, not an attempt to claim ownership of the article. (He's obviously new to Wikipedia) Voceditenore (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update. I've re-expanded the article slightly, this time with refs. Voceditenore (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 always, I'll be happy to provide the deleted content for anyone who wants to transwiki it to a more appropriate project. --jonny-m t 04:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

27 True Runes[edit]

Totally in-universe trivial details about a game's elements. Any sign of real world notability? Ultra! 16:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:GAMEGUIDE --T-rex 16:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — it's storyline material for a game, which has no reliable sources to establish it with any real notability. I'd say merging was probably an option, but I have no idea where or when and the sheer number of fair use images presents a serious obstacle. --Haemo (talk) 22:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Suikoden - The game information here can easily be reformatted and reinserted into the Suikoden series article. Since this article is basically a list of key in-universe story points and should be deleted, I'd need to say that other articles such as Characters of Final Fantasy V (and many other "Characters of Final Fantasy" articles or similar game universe lists) would fall under WP:GAMEGUIDE. As a side note, this page was created as per a cleanup suggestion. As for references, Suikosource may not be a major publication website, but it is in fact one of the few that cover and translate content from Konami's Japanese press releases and developer blogs. LanceHeart (talk) 23:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure plot summary. This article does not establish notability in secondary sources. --Phirazo 01:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Suikoden With a bit of work the information can be rewritten to fit into the Suikoden article, and what LanceHeart said. --Noctrine (talk) 12:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:VGSCOPE's presumption against lists of game items, and per WP:GNG since this article does not assert notability through multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Randomran (talk) 22:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NOT#GUIDE, WP:GAMECRUFT. Asserts no notability through non-trivial coverage by verifiable reliable sources independent of the topic. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world), What Wikipedia is, Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable), and per WP:ITSCRUFT not being a valid reason for deletion. Also, thousands of people come here for it and there is clear editorial effort to improve it. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --jonny-m t 05:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Murad Ali Shah Bukerai[edit]

Delete. Non-notable. Article is written by the subject. Very few reliable sources could be found. Obvious COI is present. It was prodded, and the subject removed it (in addition to removing the COI/Autobiography tags). CyberGhostface (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is indeed written by the subject or a relative of the subject here There are 32 hits on this topic but most sources don't seem to be independent reliable ones. Not enough WP:N. Artene50 (talk) 01:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability is not established. Frank | talk 21:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - originator and primary author User:Bukerai has been credited with edits only to this article. Serious WP:COI problem here; subject falls well short of WP:BIO as far as I can tell. B.Wind (talk) 00:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Harris (voice actress)[edit]

This voice actress has been the subject of a long-term hoax and I feel I need to clarify this somewhat. It has a link to her IMDB page which suggests itself to be impressive until you look at the articles with closer scrutiny. Many of the entries are improbable (credits are listed for Street Fighter II: Hyper Fighting, in which the voices were synthesized), some are negligible even if true (Amy Rose never spoke in Sonic CD outside of a 'squeak' made when captured by Metal Sonic that could have easily been digitally generated), and others are downright impossible (Karin Kanzuki in Street Fighter Alpha 3 never spoke Engish). This hoax filmography seems to have been perpetrated by a crazed fan of hers (check out the message boards if you're curious, but only at your own risk). The few credits that I can confirm (she actually did voice Sophitia in "Soul Edge") lower her down to merely not a notable person. JuJube (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is why IMDB isn't a reliable source. Can't find anything in Google. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I too, am tired of seeing IMDB used as a source. L0b0t (talk) 18:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly NN ukexpat (talk) 03:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Peripitus (Talk) 12:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashlyn Sanchez[edit]

Child actress that doesn't meet the WP:ENTERTAINER notability standard. Did not have multiple significant roles. brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has a large fan base, with multiple fan sites. She has appeared co-starring in The Happening, and having an important role in Crash. She will have a leading role in Universal Signs. I believe that meets the WP:ENTERTAINER standard. --staka (T ・C) 16:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A large fan base might satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER but that claim would require the verification from some sort of reliable source. But appearing in one film and having one semi-important role in another doesn't satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER. Future film roles are violative of WP:CRYSTAL. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not only one film, but many films, and in many television shows. Also, future film that has been completed and already has an official site doesn't violate WP:CRYSTAL (it can be verified). --staka (T ・C) 16:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did she have significant/important roles in multiple films or has she just appeared in multiple films? All I'm seeing is the latter. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stated earlier that she has co-starred in The Happening as a significant role, and having an important role in Crash. She will have a one of the leading, and important roles in Universal Signs. Isn't that three films that she has a significant or important role in? --staka (T ・C) 16:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive my slight incivility, but you're exaggerating her roles. She did not "co-star" in The Happening (2008 film), she had role. Neither did she have a significant role in Crash (film), she had a role. As for Universal Signs, there's no Wikipedia article on the film and her role in the film or the film's notability has yet to be established. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought she did co-star in The Happening but I guess not. She was one of the four main character in the film getting me to believe that she co-starred. As for the film Crash, critics say she was "the heart and soul" which seems she had a significant role, and she did conclude the racism in the film. Her biography on TV.com (reliable, I don't know) states that Universal Signs was a 2007 film, and has no Wikipedia article so I believe that isn't a notable film, sorry about that. So she sort of has one or two notable films (and one in unnotable film), so it does not meet the WP:ENTERTAINER.. --staka (T ・C) 17:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep ~~Assuming the IMDB entries aren't falsified,~~ She's got plenty of appearances for her age, indicating an ongoing career and large potential for expansion. I can't see WP:ENTERTAINER intending this to be deleted. Jclemens (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"indicating an ongoing career and large potential for expansion" not only fails to meet WP:ENTERTAINER it is also violative of WP:CRYSTAL. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made three assertions, only the last of which is remotely WP:CRYSTAL--either of the other two are sufficient on their own: 1) She doesn't fail WP:ENTERTAINER--As I read it, it doesn't require multiple, significant roles. If that's what it's supposed to mean, it should say it. It says "Has had significant roles or been featured multiple times in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions." From what IMDB says, she's certainly been featured multiple times in notable film and television shows. Full stop. Granted 'The IMDb should only be used as a tertiary source for "hard data" on released films. However, if the IMDb is found to contradict another source that meets WP:V (preferably a primary or secondary one), then that source should be considered to trump the IMDb.' So, if anything contradicts her IMDB credits, they should be considred unreliable. I'm not seeing any assertion so far that those credits are inflated or erroneous, however. 2) In the absence of an impeachment of the IMDB record, her career to date is larger than what's in the article, satisfying WP:POTENTIAL simply by documenting the IMDB-referenced appearances, see also WP:DEMOLISH, and 3) in a longer term, there is FURTHER potential for growth--WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply, since she already has plenty documented appearances; this just further reinforces my opinion that notability, while not temporary, can only increase with respect to this young actress. That is, I give her more benefit of the doubt as a living and working entertainer who has a demonstrated potential for future contributions, than I do for a dead entertainer whose contributions cannot possibly expand in the future. Jclemens (talk) 19:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to what I've added to the article, try these three reviews which specifically comment on Sanchez' acting ability. I'd encourage those advocating deletion to review the article and the additional sources, which I or anyone can add to the article as desired. Jclemens (talk) 23:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple appearances on notable television shows. --Ave Caesar (talk) 19:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A "featured" role is one that could conceivably be nominated for a Supporting Actor award. None of these roles satisfy. — MusicMaker 5376 21:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "featured role" does not appear in WP:ENTERTAINER. See my quotation above. Jclemens (talk) 22:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further, a "featured" performance must be different than a "significant role" else the two clauses in WP:ENTERTAINER are simply saying the same thing. Jclemens (talk) 22:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and Speedy Keep Any editor who has been to the movies lately and seen M. Night Shyamalan's The Happening must realize that this article should exist, for she plays a key role throughout the movie. WP:ENTERTAINER has serious flaws if it somehow excludes her from having an article on wikipedia. --Firefly322 (talk) 23:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What a really crappy movie that was, by the way...just a side note. --Ave Caesar (talk) 23:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Such a subjective statement is completely irrelevant to this Afd. --Firefly322 (talk) 00:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See where I wrote, "just a side note"? --Ave Caesar (talk) 02:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which one of the Wikipedia:Speedy keep criteria do you suggest applies to this afd?--brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's a very good criteria that can be specified. But specifying it could be construed as uncivil towards the nominator. --Firefly322 (talk) 00:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to know the nominator very well and I'm very sure he won't get insulted. In addition, if it truly fits under one of the criteria, incivility should not stand in the way of the correct application of Wikipedia's policies. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the fly is just avoiding the fact that there is no such criterion. In fact, number one explicitly states, "No-one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted." However, someone else already argued for deletion. --Ave Caesar (talk) 02:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It does not matter if she passes WP:BIO or WP:SOMEOTHERSUBNOTABILITYGUIDELINE. Without significant independent sourcing, we cannot have the article, and I cannot see that such exists. Perhaps it will someday, we could always write the article then. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a general reference for her biography. There are many news articles and biography pages that we may reference to expand the article. --staka (T ・C) 16:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added two official movie sites, one of which confirms IMDB on her other contributions, like Crash. Anyone desire more sourcing, or is this enough to meet WP:RS? Jclemens (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The movie sites are neither secondary (WP:BIO) nor reliable (WP:RS). --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please elaborate on why the official movie sites (references, not external links) are neither sufficiently secondary or reliable. I genuinely do not understand why you don't believe the criteria to have been met. If film credits, primary sources, can be cited, why can the official movie sites not be cited? There's nothing particularly negative or controversial about asserting that she appeared in such-and-such a movie. Jclemens (talk) 22:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, to meet notability, the notability needs to be through independent third-party reliable sources. And given that she is being mentioned in moview reviews and in fact is being singled out for bad acting in this review, there certainly appears to be abundant independent reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, but the assertion was that they weren't reliable, not that they didn't establish notability. I would expect a movie's official website to be a reliable source for the content of the movie (actors, etc.), but insufficient to estabish notability. The assertion that the official site wasn't reliable threw me a curve ball. Jclemens (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - her acting career has named roles of sufficient signifigance that they appear in moview reviews such as this one from CNN. -- Whpq (talk) 19:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Being part of the main cast of Happenings (which indeed sucks, but is one of the big movies this year) is enough to make her notable. -- lucasbfr ^talk 06:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Any article whose subject has had 482 Google News hits in the past month is not difficult to source. An actress who plays a major role in one of the biggest movies of the year is, in my opinion, inherently notable. faithless (^speak) 03:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per CSD G4 by Gwen Gale (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), citing the below passage of text also in the deletion log reason. Daniel (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Markley[edit]

Nominating articles individually (sorry for the mix-up). Please see previous AfD, this is an article that received no, or very few, votes to keep. Subject fails BIO1E, BIO Additional criteria, and Entertainers. She is an also-ran on a television game show, notable only in that context. The fact that a print model gets work as a print model is not notable. We have articles for the winner, runner-up and 3rd place contestants from ANTM. The others are not noteworthy, apart from their appearance on ANTM, and have yet to establish themselves as leaders in their chosen profession. Consequently, I am nominating all but the top 3 finishers from the ANTM cycles for deletion. In time they may prove notable enough for an article in the encyclopedia but until then they are quite well represented at all the various ANTM articles and the ANTM dedicated wiki. L0b0t (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The discussion below indicates that the claims to fame have not generated the secondary sources required to establish independent notability. --jonny-m t 05:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jael Strauss[edit]

Nominating articles individually (sorry for the mix-up). Please see previous AfD, this is an article that received no, or very few, votes to keep. Subject fails BIO1E, BIO Additional criteria, and Entertainers. She is an also-ran on a television game show, notable only in that context. The fact that a print model gets work as a print model is not notable. We have articles for the winner, runner-up and 3rd place contestants from ANTM. The others are not noteworthy, apart from their appearance on ANTM, and have yet to establish themselves as leaders in their chosen profession. Consequently, I am nominating all but the top 3 finishers from the ANTM cycles for deletion. In time they may prove notable enough for an article in the encyclopedia but until then they are quite well represented at all the various ANTM articles and the ANTM dedicated wiki. L0b0t (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SKS2K6 (talk) 18:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per my nomination. L0b0t (talk) 18:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has not accomplished anything notable and has not received significant media coverage. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has talked about drug issues, had a nudity suit, is the face of Hitch Couture Siemgi 23:21 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Weak Keep, the above cited things make her borderline notable I believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.194.35.225 (talk) 12:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How are drug issues in and of themselves notable? And Hitch Couture isn't a notable company (at least, in terms of being national or whatever; I had no idea what it was until I looked it up, and even then...). SKS2K6 (talk) 14:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, just like Brittany or Sarah, she's borderline notable, she dealt with the death of a friend by drug overdose in the public eye, she's talked about that a few times in the Tyra Show, I'd say she's a little under Brittany in notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.231.0.64 (talk) 23:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— 87.231.0.64 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Weak keep. What she's done (lawsuit, Tyra Show and stuff) make her borderline notable. User:Whadaheck (User talk:Whadaheck) 13:13 17 June 2008 (UTC)

— Whadaheck (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Housekeeping note: Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/81.194.35.225 regarding edits by anonymous users and Whadaheck to recent AFD votes. Yechiel (Shalom) 03:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --jonny-m t 05:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah VonderHaar[edit]

Nominating articles individually (sorry for the mix-up). Please see previous AfD, this is an article that received no, or very few, votes to keep. Subject fails BIO1E, BIO Additional criteria, and Entertainers. She is an also-ran on a television game show, notable only in that context. The fact that a print model gets work as a print model is not notable. We have articles for the winner, runner-up and 3rd place contestants from ANTM. The others are not noteworthy, apart from their appearance on ANTM, and have yet to establish themselves as leaders in their chosen profession. Consequently, I am nominating all but the top 3 finishers from the ANTM cycles for deletion. In time they may prove notable enough for an article in the encyclopedia but until then they are quite well represented at all the various ANTM articles and the ANTM dedicated wiki. L0b0t (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per my nomination. L0b0t (talk) 18:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has not accomplished anything notable and has not received significant media coverage. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Has had a little media coverage for her music career. Has appeared in a movie. Siemgi 23:20 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Weak Keep She belongs to numerous Wikiepdia listed people who have turned a reality stint into a semi-successful career, this time ine music. And I remember quite a few websites talking about her music career. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.194.35.225 (talk) 12:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, around the notability level of Brittany —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.231.0.64 (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— 87.231.0.64 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete: She's done stuff. I believe she has an album out now.... But has she done anything notable? Unless her music career becomes big, she does not really belong on Wikipedia, as simply being a contestant on a reality show is not noteworthy enough. SKS2K6 (talk) 02:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep. she's just borderline borderline notable, as her music career was takled abou a little. User:Whadaheck (User talk:Whadaheck) 13:11 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Edit. The more I think about it, the more I find this "very weak keep" ridiculous. I think a weak delete would be more accurate.--Whadaheck (talk) 22:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Whadaheck (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Housekeeping note: Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/81.194.35.225 regarding edits by anonymous users and Whadaheck to recent AFD votes. Yechiel (Shalom) 03:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable contestant, non-notable singer. Dark clear obsession (talk) 03:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wonder if for each cycle of America's Next Top Model there should be a section with some info on the contestants, like about a few lines for each. If so, it would be a perfect fit to Partially Merge. --JForget 23:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I totally agree. It's done on PCD Present so why not here?--Whadaheck (talk) 23:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Gnan garra 12:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany Brower[edit]

Nominating articles individually (sorry for the mix-up). Please see previous AfD, this is an article that received no, or very few, votes to keep. Subject fails BIO1E, BIO Additional criteria, and Entertainers. She is an also-ran on a television game show, notable only in that context. The fact that a print model gets work as a print model is not notable. We have articles for the winner, runner-up and 3rd place contestants from ANTM. The others are not noteworthy, apart from their appearance on ANTM, and have yet to establish themselves as leaders in their chosen profession. Consequently, I am nominating all but the top 3 finishers from the ANTM cycles for deletion. In time they may prove notable enough for an article in the encyclopedia but until then they are quite well represented at all the various ANTM articles and the ANTM dedicated wiki. L0b0t (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per my nomination. L0b0t (talk) 18:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has not accomplished anything notable and has not received significant media coverage. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has been on numerous shows (ANTM, Tyra Show, Love Inc...), walked many runways, noted as a memorable contestant on AOL, is on the Fashion Model Directory, on Famous Why... Siemgi 23:11 14 June 2008
Yes I agree. To me she's a keep but the way the article is referenced is kinda weird... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.194.35.225 (talk) 12:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. i'd say the shows she's been in and the work she's done make her borderline notable but we need more references to prove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.231.0.64 (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— 87.231.0.64 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete: I know she models. But she hasn't done anything major. Has she had a cover of a national magazine? Has she booked a major advertising campaign? Simply doing her job is not enough to be considered notable. SKS2K6 (talk) 02:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, she has been on a few TV shows, that makes her borderline notable. User:Whadaheck (User talk:Whadaheck) 13:05 17 June 2008 (UTC)

— Whadaheck (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Housekeeping note: Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/81.194.35.225 regarding edits by anonymous users and Whadaheck to recent AFD votes. Yechiel (Shalom) 03:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Jackson (Model)[edit]

Nominating articles individually (sorry for the mix-up). Please see previous AfD, this is an article that received no, or very few, votes to keep. Subject fails BIO1E, BIO Additional criteria, and Entertainers. She is an also-ran on a television game show, notable only in that context. The fact that a print model gets work as a print model is not notable. We have articles for the winner, runner-up and 3rd place contestants from ANTM. The others are not noteworthy, apart from their appearance on ANTM, and have yet to establish themselves as leaders in their chosen profession. Consequently, I am nominating all but the top 3 finishers from the ANTM cycles for deletion. In time they may prove notable enough for an article in the encyclopedia but until then they are quite well represented at all the various ANTM articles and the ANTM dedicated wiki. L0b0t (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SKS2K6 (talk) 18:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per my nomination. L0b0t (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has not accomplished anything notable and has not received significant media coverage. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete She has done one thing notable: she has become the face of a dress brand but aside from that, her career is to new for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.194.35.225 (talk) 12:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Career seems to finally get started, she has been in a music video as a featured girl, thsi has been talked about a little but to me out of the ones nominated here, she's probably the least notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.231.0.64 (talk) 23:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— 87.231.0.64 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Weak delete I guess, she's booked her first to campaigns, had a strong fan base while on the show and begins to get press but she's not notable enough as of yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whadaheck (talk • contribs) 13:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Whadaheck (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Housekeeping note: Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/81.194.35.225 regarding edits by anonymous users and Whadaheck to recent AFD votes. Yechiel (Shalom) 03:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dark clear obsession (talk) 03:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Gnan garra 12:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bianca Golden[edit]

Nominating articles individually (sorry for the mix-up). Please see previous AfD, this is an article that received no, or very few, votes to keep. Subject fails BIO1E, BIO Additional criteria, and Entertainers. She is an also-ran on a television game show, notable only in that context. The fact that a print model gets work as a print model is not notable. We have articles for the winner, runner-up and 3rd place contestants from ANTM. The others are not noteworthy, apart from their appearance on ANTM, and have yet to establish themselves as leaders in their chosen profession. Consequently, I am nominating all but the top 3 finishers from the ANTM cycles for deletion. In time they may prove notable enough for an article in the encyclopedia but until then they are quite well represented at all the various ANTM articles and the ANTM dedicated wiki. L0b0t (talk) 14:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SKS2K6 (talk) 18:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per my nomination. L0b0t (talk) 18:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it isn't needed to vote yourself - by putting an article up for deletion, you're already saying you feel it should be deleted. Tabercil (talk) 22:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Contestant has been on 4 shows (Tyra Show, ANTM, Rip the Runway and Project Runway), walked for Fashion Week, had a spread in Essence... Meets the criteria to me. Siemgi 23:08 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Has not accomplished anything notable and has not received significant media coverage.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep recently seen in In Touch, has had a little press coverage about her stints on BET and Project Runway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.194.35.225 (talk) 12:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Her runways stints and print work have been talked about a little, she's the second most successful out of her cycle after Chantal, she's about as notable as Bittany or Sarah, so weak keep.

— 87.231.0.64 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Weak keep, borderline notable as an entertainer. Whadaheck (talk • contribs) 13:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Whadaheck (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Housekeeping note: Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/81.194.35.225 regarding edits by anonymous users and Whadaheck to recent AFD votes. Yechiel (Shalom) 03:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International Conference on the Unity of the Sciences (2nd nomination)[edit]

These conferences did not seem to be all that notable. The article is only sourced by their own website and a passing remark in a college newspaper. Northwestgnome (talk) 14:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge: this seems to be another in a long line of 'vanity' conferences/summits/organisations/etc that Moon and the Unification Church has put together. They generally have little or no impact discernable through reliable third party sources. A 'List of Unification Church organizations' list-article would be an appropriate repository for them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this article has already been deleted once as non-notable, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Conference on the Unity of the Sciences, in December 2006 -- meaning that it really shouldn't have been recreated without solid sourcing to establish WP:NOTE/WP:ORG -- as happened within two months of its original deletion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These conferences took place in the 1970s and 80s and were widely reported by the news media at the time, which was before the Internet. Here is a Yahoo search for the exact words, "International Conference on for the Unity of the Sciences": [5] As I said on the article's talk page, I'm in the process of finding more sources now. (p.s. I didn't contribute to the original article.) Steve Dufour (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. It helps to get the name right. Here is the Yahoo search for "International Conference on the Unity of the Sciences" [6].

Keep: These conferences attracted top scientists, including nobel laureates. I have just restored and added sourced material referencing this, which goes to notability. Steve Dufour promised on the article's talk page on 13 June 2008 to add other such material as soon as his Amazon order arrives. The nominator for AfD of this article either didn't read this on the article's talk page, or decided to nominate it anyway, for whatever reason. In any case the AfD is premature. I am a critic of the Unification Church, and Hrafn is right that there are a number of Unification articles on Wikipedia that should be deleted or merged, but this is not one of them. Just have some patience and wait until sources can be found. -Exucmember (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I said in declining an earlier prod on this article, "Moonie offshoot though it may be, it's notable" Obviously, there will be NPOV issues involved in an article on this, and possible blp issues involved in characterising the nature of any individual's participation. But we can deal with them through the ordinary editing processes. DGG (talk) 01:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: claims of notability to date appear to be either by bare assertion (DGG), name-dropping (Exucmember) -- but notability isn't transitive, or by search results (Steve Dufour) which yield (in their first page) 7 ICUS/UC-linked pages, the wikipedia article itself and 2 sites selling a book published by the ICUS -- hardly evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (per WP:NOTE). I would wish to see evidence of said significant coverage before I would agree that notability has been established. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC) Can anybody provide verifiable evidence that they "were widely reported by the news media at the time", or point to any of "the sources in the article" that come even close to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If the Harvard Crimson isn't reliable enough for some reason then here is some more evidence of significant coverage. Are the New York Times, the The Philadelphia Inquirer and Encyclopedia Britannica reliable enough sources for you? It only takes a few seconds to do a Google News search that would have avoided the need to argue this out at AfD. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given the sources in the article and promise of more work by Steve Dufour. Capitalistroadster (talk) 06:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Exucmember. --Ave Caesar (talk) 19:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - non-admin close. ukexpat (talk) 03:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nnenna Agba[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Fixing for User:L0b0t who didn't do it right (they relisted the AfD from 2006). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating articles individually (sorry for the mix-up). Please see previous AfD, this is an article that received no, or very few, votes to keep. Subject fails BIO1E, BIO Additional criteria, and Entertainers. She is an also-ran on a television game show, notable only in that context. The fact that a print model gets work as a print model is not notable. We have articles for the winner, runner-up and 3rd place contestants from ANTM. The others are not noteworthy, apart from their appearance on ANTM, and have yet to establish themselves as leaders in their chosen profession. Consequently, I am nominating all but the top 3 finishers from the ANTM cycles for deletion. In time they may prove notable enough for an article in the encyclopedia but until then they are quite well represented at all the various ANTM articles and the ANTM dedicated wiki. L0b0t (talk) 14:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per my nomination. L0b0t (talk) 18:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm voting for delete simply because she's just another working model who had some exposure on America's Next Top Model. Since then, she hasn't done anything of significance other than running down a few runways and getting a few photoshoots, which is what typical models do. SKS2K6 (talk) 18:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete surely this is a candidate for speedy deletion as the first afd closed as delete? A sysop will need to check, but I'll mark it for speedy- repost now. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 20:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nom withdrawn. PhilKnight (talk) 17:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HMAT Berrima[edit]

Tagged for speedy deletion due to no context, no sources listed, only "source" listed in the article is a "Recommened reading". Dusti^{complain/compliment} 14:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is this the same ship as HMAS Berrima? Redirect if so. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to HMAS Berrima. It's the same ship; it would've been renamed to HMAT Berrima when it became a troopship. --Sugarbutty 16:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. PhilKnight (talk) 16:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am in favor of redirecting Dusti^{complain/compliment} 16:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G11. Non-admin closure. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grihasree[edit]

Seems to have been an effort at advertising. Website is dead. No notability proven. --Thetrick (talk) 19:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:04, 12 June 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) 12:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a short lived free magazine that appears to have gone under. no notability here --T-rex 14:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Surprised this wasn't speedied as advert. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jclemens (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ADVERT. Nsk92 (talk) 18:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G11 - so nominated ukexpat (talk) 03:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep consensus is that he meets the notability with the new sources added to the article addressing the concern over sources expressed by the nominator. Davewild (talk) 17:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Holder[edit]

A less-than-marginal personality, reliable source information appears to be in short supply. Ecoleetage (talk) 11:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has released music on same compilations and labels like Ian Pooley, Jamie Anderson, Joey Negro, Miguel Migs, just to mention a few other producers that have an entry on Wikipedia. He has also entered on many musical charts with his songs. Take a look at one of the record labels - Nrk music. His works are listed on the Discogs website. Prunk (talk) 12:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC & WP:RS. Keep in light of all the work the article has had. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please, take a look at links. Five other articles have link to this article, including one TV series. --millosh (talk (meta:)) 13:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The TV page is irrelevant, since it refers to an actor with the same name [7]. The links to other articles are also not relevant, unfortunately. WP:RS needs to be confirmed. --Ecoleetage (talk) 13:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable, with a sizeable catalogue of releases on several labels in several countries. Could use more sources, but there's no reason to delete this.--Michig (talk) 19:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GreenJoe 00:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 'Merger of both articles into Coventry City F.C. season 2007-08 occurred during this afd, pages blanked and redirected to retain GFDL edit histories. Gnan garra 12:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coventry City 2007-2008 Championship Match Facts[edit]

Extremely too much detail considering this is an encyclopedia; also falls under WP:RECENTISM. D.M.N. (talk) 11:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Excessive recentist detail. Instead the games/results should be included at Coventry City F.C. season 2007-08 and sources added to link to team line ups. Peanut4 (talk) 11:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I feel this is warranting of a place in the wikipedia encyclopedia. To quote the entry on wikipedia as to what an encyclopedia is; 'An encyclopedia is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge'. Based upon this the information within this page is there to offer a deep informative base for about the season 07/08 for Coventry City. MrHorse1982 13:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Smerge appropriately to Coventry City F.C. season 2007-08 if someone wants to create such an article. Having an article on a football teams season (such as Blackpool F.C. season 2007-08 in the same league) is common practice. However these articles are just excessive detail on the individual matches. Davewild (talk) 12:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with nominator - Delete them both, on various grounds, mostly because they are excessive detail and smack of recentism. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Why is it ok for tournemants like the Euro Championships and World Cups to have this exact info and more detail? Surely this infomation is valid and making it avaliable for people is a positive thing. Please see link for Euro 2008 Group A, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_Euro_2008_Group_A. Cheers MrHorse1982 13:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't !vote twice. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Euro 2008 is much more notable than Coventry's 2007-08 match facts. D.M.N. (talk) 15:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Info can be covered in less detail (i.e. without lineups for every match) in Coventry City F.C. season 2007-08. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into Coventry City F.C. season 2007-08. I'm not overly keen on season articles, but at least it would have some prose in it. It is my belief that Wikipedia should be about producing articles (and occasionally lists) that are researched from various sources. Simply copying stats from elsewhere for every match doesn't really add any value in my opinion and is overly detailed. The article for the league season (46 games) would also be too long surely? --Jameboy (talk) 18:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's incongruous to have match facts for a club's season when there isn't even a season article for that club. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both articles to create a Coventry City F.C. season 2007-08 article. Obviously, the detail should be cut down on. – Pee Jay 21:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge - Over detailed, merge to above suggested. Sunderland06 (talk) 21:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Coventry City F.C. season 2007-08. Giant Snowman 22:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Acceptable alternative? If i was to reduce the info and just have all that bar the lineups. with scoreline, scorers, yellow and red cards attandance, would that satisfy all? If so i can sort that and be happy.

Have a look at the articles in Category:Football (soccer) clubs 2007-08 season which give some good examples to base an article upon. Suggest using these (a good example is Dunfermline Athletic F.C. season 2007-08 - really like the way the individual matches are covered there) as an idea for such an article where the individual matches are part of a good all round article. Davewild (talk) 17:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok excellent, thanks for your help i will make a start on that tomorrow when i get in from work. that looks great so will be going for that idea for Coventry. MrHorse1982 18:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not encyclopedic. Punkmorten (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both articles into Coventry City F.C. season 2007-08 which was produced during the AFD in response to comments made. Smile a While (talk) 02:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirect. The article had been redirected for eleven months until an anon resurrected it today. Non-admin closure. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grawp[edit]

Doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines with third-party non-trivial coverage as set out at WP:FICT and WP:FANCRUFT. Wiwayb (talk) 11:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to Rubeus Hagrid#Grawp as this is how this has been from 30 July 2007 to today until an ip address restored an article. The character is already covered significantly enough in the Hagrid article. A quick revert back to the redirect is appropriate. Davewild (talk) 12:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to HAGGER????????????????????????. No, seriously, Redirect to Rubeus Hagrid#Grawp, the character isn't notable enough for their own page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect per above. Not notable enough for own article. LaraLove|Talk 16:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SNOWBALL -- The Anome (talk) 12:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Rope[edit]

No evidence provided to demonstrate notability, or indeed any evidence of existence at all. Googling finds nothing. Note the names towards the end: "Bigu Papa-san", "Twinku-san" etc. Something made up in school one day? The Anome (talk) 11:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No secondary source evidence of notability, essentially unverifiable. Kevin (talk) 11:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:MADEUP, WP:BOLLOCKS & WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 individual. --jonny-m t 05:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Marshall Bond[edit]

Subject appears to be of less-than-marginal notability. Furthermore, it appears that the article's author is the son of the article's subject [8], which offers a bit of sticky WP:COI. Ecoleetage (talk) 10:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are Portuguese. To argue that a profile of the founder of the Caribbean Food Crop Society is marginal is the equivalent of an argument that a profile on the founder of the Portuguese Chamber of Commerce must be marginal because after all it is in Portugal. I think you have a stronger argument on the basis of COI but I think some third party who is both 1) impartial and 2)familiar with his contributions would be helpful. RichardBond (talk) 11:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My heritage is irrelevant to this discussion, though I will gladly take out my guitar and play April in Portugal if the discussion gets dull. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 11:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Caribbean Food Crops Society (which would make Richard Marshall Bond a redirect) and rearrange article's context. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eco, I had this sort of argument before when someone felt that Seattle was not a notable City while they were trying to add every village in England. Speaking of songs there were complaints about the first Conference as the United States paid for the Colonial Prime Ministers to stay in a five star hotel. It was part of the competition against Castro. Some St. Vincentians got upset that their island Government decided to close the sugar mill. An American heard about it and wrote "Joshua Gone Barbados" RichardBond (talk) 17:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No you didn't - you are referring to me, and I need to set straight that I never argued that Seattle was a non-notable city. You need to actually demostrate notability through publication in reliable, independent, third-party sources. Given that I have now been indirectly mentioned in this AfD, I will not be making a !vote Fritzpoll (talk) 18:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brewercrewer, My father is actually better known in the United States for his work with Falconry. Few people here in the US have jobs that depend on falcons. For the first three years at CFCS he was a big fish in a small pond. He also founded the school where Tim Duncan learned to play Basketball, I will put together a page on the CFCS though RichardBond (talk) 17:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless notability per WP:BIO is demonstrated. At the moment there is very little to go on in terms of substantive coverage by third-party reliable sources. GoogleBooks also produces very little[9], mostly references to catalogues/listst of Yale graduates. Might concievably be notable per WP:PROF but that case has not been made either. Nsk92 (talk) 18:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There were a fair number of Google hits under Richard M. Bond in relation mostly to his work with ornithology. He was considered to be one of the 250 top specialist in ornithology in the US by Cooper Ornithological Society. His specialty was falcons particularly the Peregrine. RichardBond (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then find a third-party source that tells us that he was some notable expert. It isn't enough to tell us what he wrote - look at WP:N Fritzpoll (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable and author has not only a COI but a confrontational approach to article creation.Rob Banzai (talk) 19:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I concur with the delete stance (see below), but please confine comments to the content. Notability is determined without regard to the motivations and approach of any individual author. Also, WP:COI does not automatically exist just because the author is related to the subject. It is the nature of the edits themselves, not the position of the author, that determines COI. Frank | talk 21:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability not established. Publishing a paper doesn't automatically confer notability. However, if it can be established by WP:RS, I would change my opinion. Frank | talk 21:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lete, de Lete (I apologize, couldn't resist) In addition to the likely WP:COI problems and lack of evidence of meeting WP:BIO by using independent reliable assertions to enable verifiability of notability, the article itself would need a complete organization to make it encyclopedic. Sometimes it is better to scrape clean and start anew, but there is not much in the article to indicate that it would be worth the effort. B.Wind (talk) 00:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Insufficient evidence of notability at this time.--Kubigula (talk) 15:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sonny Gray[edit]

Fails both listed criteria of WP:ATHLETE - baseball player who has not competed above high school level. Majorclanger (talk) 10:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

neutral Whilst he doesn't quite meet the requirements of WP:athlete, he is getting some secondary coverage. According to Tennessean.com, he has been named the The Tennessean 2007 All-Midstate Baseball Player of the Year. There is a link on this page that implies that he is the 2006/7 Male Athelete of the Year for On The Ball Magazine. However, I cannot get that link to open. If sufficient secondary sources can list him, then he is notable and I would vote keep. If this is the sum total of significant coverage, then I would say delete. PS: the AFD note hadn't been put on the author's talk page, so I've done that now. StephenBuxton (talk) 10:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This highschool kid was drafted 802 overall. The 801 players drafted before him are guarenteed to have won some sort of regional award as well, but they don't have Wikipedia articles because - like this dude - they haven't met the WP:ATHLETE notability standard. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has too many WP:CRYSTAL issues at present. Aticle seems to have been written by a relative or a fan of the subject. Artene50 (talk) 01:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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), because notability is confirmed (quality, however, is another matter). Ecoleetage (talk) 00:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Sez[edit]

An unremarkable film which made only $292,000 at the US box office. IMDB listing gives it a mediocre 2/10 rating and the privilege of being granted the No.61 spot among its Bottom 100 shows of all time. The only thing notable are its actors but the film is not in the same category Artene50 (talk) 09:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has received significant reviews in major newspapers including New York Times, Los Angeles Times and Dallas morning news thus meeting the relevant notability guideline - Wikipedia:Notability (films). Davewild (talk) 12:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:Notability (films). --Cameron (T|C) 17:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Might be lousy but it came out in American theaters, on VHS/DVD, makes regular appearances on ActionMAX at 4:30am in the morning, and made some money. Definitely meets WP:N/FILMS. Nate • (chatter) 22:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not a "positive" notability only requirement. If it's notoriously bad, the nominator him/herself established it's notability, so no reason to delete. --Blechnic (talk) 22:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The creation of the "Murder of" article during this discussion causes some unwarranted complication of how to resolve this issue, but the consensus on this article is clear. If that article survives AfD, this should be recreated as a redirect to it. Shereth 22:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Didier[edit]

A very sad story, but this murder victim doesn't appear to be very notable. Ani Mate 09:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. But since the event is notable, not the person, Move to Murder of Joseph Didier per WP:ONEEVENT. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While indeed sad and tragic, the victim nor his murder are not notable by Wikipedia standards. The assertion that the murder "changed the local community" is a personal observation that cannot be proved. Murders of single victims are generally not considered to be notable by Wikipedia standards because, unfortunately, they are so numerous. Exceptions are made when such crimes are highly publicized and attract coverage in national media. I'm afraid this young man's killing doesn't quite clear the bar. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion that the murder "changed the local community" is not a personal observation. It states so explicitly in the reliable sources provided by the article. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, Merge/Redirect to Rockford, Illinois#History. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither the victim nor the crime appear to pass the relevant notability guidelines (for the victim this would be a WP:BLP1E case anyway even if the crime turned out to be notable). There are 16 hits in googlenews[10], mostly in local press, and 1 hit in google books[11]. Any relevant factual info may be added to to Rockford, Illinois#History, as Brewcrewer suggests. Nsk92 (talk) 20:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as per nom. This article can't be kept as is. Artene50 (talk) 01:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to "Murder of Joseph Didier. The murder is much more signficant and has stood the test of time than Zoey Zane, which passed her AFD. People still talk about Didier today. The murder is possibly the most significant murder in northern Illinois (outside of Chicago) history. Presumptive (talk) 17:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The murder of Zoey Zane has been extensively covered in international, national and local news. (The article about her lists 27 references). The same does not appear to be the case for Didier. If the case is as notable as you say, there would be no trouble with providing sufficient references. "People still talk about it" is not a convincing argument. Nsk92 (talk) 17:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Visit the Rockford Public Library and see the many, many articles in the newspaper. Just because the murder took place 20 years before the internet does not mean it didn't take place. Presumptive (talk) 05:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is arguing here that "it didn't take place". If there are "many, many articles" in the newspapers, as you say, then you can add references to them to the WP article. Then there may be something to talk about. However, in any event, I would want to see some significant coverage of the case outside of the local press. Nsk92 (talk) 06:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the 2000 census, the Rockford, Illinois metropolitan area had 339,178 inhabitants. Assuming arguendo there was no coverage outside Rockford, a story that made a significant impact on 340k people (as the reliable sources attest) isn't notable?--brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nsk92. --Jessika Folkerts (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are, unfortunately, thousands of murders each year of which this is another sad example. There is nothing I can find, and indeed nothing asserted in the article, that might suggest that this incident is particularly notable. I also note that someone has today created the article Murder of Joseph Didier with identical content to this one. Both that and this article should both be deleted at the conclusion of this AFD. Debate 木 07:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Again, it's sad, but it is not a crime which is set apart from many many others like it. I have also nominated the "Murder of" article for deletion here. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Oopos! I voted twice, sorry. I thought this AfD looked familiar. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The victim here is not notable, however the murder is, as it received national news coverage, as I have noted here. Kevin (talk) 08:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per one event. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but I disagree with merging with "Murder of ...". Someone looking for information on this 3-decade-old murder will not type that in but will type in the subject's name. Therefore this should remain the article of record and incorporate any different material from the Murder of ... article. Keep pending the addition of promised sources with no prejudice against renomination in 6-12 months if improvements aren't made. 23skidoo (talk) 14:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that why we have redirects? Guest9999 (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThis is not a true crime archive, There are hundreds of thousands of murders a year of otherwise non-notable individuals, and an encyclopedia is not the place to preserve the information about each one. The murder did no apparently result in any new "Megan's Law" or "Amber Alert" and the article should be deleted for reasons better stated at the essay WP:NOTNEWS and the policy WP:NOT#NEWS. Edison (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Murder of Joseph Didier in accordance with WP:ONEEVENT and let that AfD settle the issue on notability. The redirect is the preferred outcome anyway. Jim Miller (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable murder victim. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 18:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 an apparently non-notable company. --jonny-m t 10:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Epygi[edit]

Article fails to show "Significant coverage" required by WP:N and has no reliable secondary sources required by WP:V. BJ^Talk 08:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention, this is a contested prod. BJ^Talk 14:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N and WP:SPAM According to history of this article, it was copied from a previously deleted article on July 8, 2007. Its most certainly advertising. A company officer placed this ad on this article's talk page here titled 'Dear Wiki Users.' How sneaky and brazen is that? Artene50 (talk) 10:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - So what if the article was re-created from a deleted article? I was the one who wrote the original article, and halfway through drafting it, someone speedily deleted it because it wasn't notable. Gee, I hadn't even finished writing it. Just because it was deleted does not mean it is spam.

- I would suggest the company and some mention of it's products is notable, despite a lack of secondary sources at this time. The company provides employment to more than 125 people, and it's products are installed on all inhabited continents. As a company it is not significantly more or less notable than Aastra_Technologies. - Regarding the alleged 'sneaky and brazen' spam by company employees, rather than deleting the article, why not contact the offenders and educate them? I have recently done so, and suggested that instead of placing marketing material on the wiki, they place simple factual information about the company, and a light overview of it's products, and if people are interested commercially, to then allow them to view the company's website and see the marketing speak for themselves. They have followed my advice on this. If I am wrong, why not email them yourself and provide more correct advice? Karl2620 (talk) 11:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Aastra is 14 times the size by employees of this company and even their article has no sources. BJ^Talk 16:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Bjweeks. This company fails WP:N. Karl, I would suggest that you should have left the company's obvious spamming on the article's talkpage instead of removing it here. It is indeed sneaky and brazen to post advertising on any article's talkpage on Wikipedia...and contacting an employee of this company only alerts them that their spamming is effective. WP:SPAM is not acceptable under any guise. Artene50 (talk) 07:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why is the debate for deletion of the page focusing on the behaviour of the company being described? I would suggest the company's behaviour, whilst certainly is in part spam, is mostly complete stupidity through ignorance. But that's not what is being discussed here.

Contacting a contributor with a genuine attempt at education is somehow a bad thing?? A careful examination of the history brings one to the conclusion that the nomination is a result of the frustration of one editor who kept having content reverted, and without contacting or otherwise attempting to educate the offending contributors, has instead nominated the page for deletion. Why not instead let's look at the content? Maybe this revision here which was just prior to the unwashed at Epygi contributing to the article fits in with content guidelines a bit better? Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.... Karl2620 (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. That edit may have been more acceptable. Just no spam, please. Artene50 (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Discussions of editor education and specific edits aside, it looks like other stuff exists is the primary (or maybe only) reason being advanced to keep this article. That seems to be trying to gloss over the appearance that the company is really not so notable: "[t]rivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." I'm always willing to support an article if it can be shown there's a reason to keep it, but...I don't see it here. More independent sources (Infoworld reviews of one product aren't enough) would help. Frank | talk 22:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 02:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign 101[edit]

Non-notable program; it appears to be limited in geography and scope. Ecoleetage (talk) 08:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this may get big in the future, but it also may not. For now it should go --T-rex 15:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a 3 year old article with zero verifiable sources. How is it notable? Artene50 (talk) 02:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Non-notable, no sources, barely a stub. WegianWarrior (talk) 09:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

California Nursery Company[edit]

The article reads like an advertisement for a local business; notability is not obvious. Ecoleetage (talk) 08:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The claim "The California Nursery Co. ultimately became the largest firm of its kind west of the Rockies." seems to establish notability. Note that the older version of the company may be more notable than its present-day mail-order-only version. --Eastmain (talk) 17:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See abundant coverage at Google News archive. --Eastmain (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 17:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 17:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very few California companies have been in continuous operation since 1865. This (see page 8), this, and this came up in just the first page of google hits. I'm sure many more, and many print sources, will be easily found. The article needs expansion, not deletion.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well known company, if not much in the news today as it has been in the past.[12] --Blechnic (talk) 23:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Not much participation at this AfD, but the proper course seems clear.--Kubigula (talk) 15:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Penguin client library[edit]

It fails WP:N badly; a small PHP library created for a kids game is not worthy for a page on Wikipedia. Also, there is not much info on this PHP library, and development on it seems to have stalled, preventing more info being released. Vinni3 (talk) 08:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete A Google check turned up 9 hits with 2 being from Wiki sites and 2 from a forum search. There is no notability on this article right now. Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTAL. Artene50 (talk) 01:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shereth 22:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Tuozzo[edit]

Non-notable actor, article appears to be a vanity piece Ecoleetage (talk) 08:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No secondary sources that would indicate notability. Kevin (talk) 10:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably WP:COI given Special:Contributions/Bestshot00.
Delete sounds like an ad and not notable. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete due to the lack of coverage in reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 17:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patriotic Union of Mesopotamia[edit]

Political party with no verifiable existence outside of the internet. google searches in english, arabic and kurdish give no relevant results. Soman (talk) 08:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a web site mirror. WillOakland (talk) 08:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=da&q=patriotic+union+of+mesopotamia&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Hmm yes there is and how can u expect for a new party to have so many entries on the internet already? Their work is not done through the internet, but through community work out in the real life. Mufarij ibn Homam (talk) 12:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: [13] gives a quite different result, only the website of the party and other forums of self-promotion. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability. In order to have an article at wikipedia there needs to be independent, third party sources backing up the arguments in the article. If there are no independent and reliable sources, then there cannot be an article. Wikipedia is not the place to launch new political parties, it is a place for documentation. --Soman (talk) 13:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect to Elo rating system. The consensus was that this article should be merged with the target where this subject is covered in more detail and in a broader fashion. (Non-admin close.) Smile a While (talk) 20:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

K Factor (chess)[edit]

The topic is not encyclopedic, you can hardly go further than just a definition. The information could/should be merged in the broader article Elo rating system SyG (talk) 07:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect into Elo rating system or into K-value. The content is valid and verifiable. The only alternative would be to merge the page histories. dorftrottel (talk) 09:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the outcome of this AfD is to keep this as an article of its own, the page should be moved to K-factor (chess). dorftrottel (talk) 09:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there is a similar article at K-value, which has been PROD'ed because the information is apparently already at Elo rating system. Suggest both articles are redirected and merged into Elo rating system, and suggest that the nominator consider be bold and carrying out such merging in the future instead of using PROD and coming to AfD. Merging is obvious in cases like this, and takes up much less time than PROD and AfD. Links and related information should also be added to the disambiguation page, K-factor, per Dorfrottel. I also added K-factor to K (disambiguation). Carcharoth (talk) 10:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Elo rating system as that article covers it already. SunCreator (talk) 11:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. If there is any information in here that is not in Elo rating system, it is very little. It can be put in that article and this one can be made a redirect. Bubba73 (talk), 15:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Ditto what Bubba73 said. Krakatoa (talk) 03:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Out Here Grindin'[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Out Here Grindin'

Non-notable single by barely-notable DJ. Damiens.rf 07:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Single/song has charted. Meets WP:MUSIC. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 07:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 07:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 07:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Single has proof of a high-cost video being made via worldstarhiphop.com video.Y5nthon5a (talk) 15:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, may I ask why you consider DJ Khaled a non-notable DJ? He's had many hit singles, such as I'm So Hood, We Takin Over, Grammy Family, and more.Y5nthon5a (talk) 21:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Spending a lot on a video does not make the song notable. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because song has charted. It's only charted in the top 75 so far,but that could change when it's officially released. ILikeMusicaLot (talk) 18:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The song has been charted and there are a few behind the scenes for the music video. SE KinG (talk) 05:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The song isn't "non-notable" it's the first offical single off DJ Khaled's new album "We Global Now". SE KinG (talk) 05:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Arguably the most notable DJ in hip hop, and this song has charted on billboard hot 100. LightSpeed (talk) 07:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Charted, so it passes WP:MUSIC#SONGS. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:CSD#G7 - author requested deletion AngelOfSadness talk 18:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Techno the Hedgehog[edit]

Contested prod. Unremarkable fan-made game. tgies (talk) 05:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability. Not verifiable. Written like an ad. I could go on and on. This is almost speediable under A7, if it applied to video games. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 06:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nn video game --T-rex 15:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn fan project. JuJube (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, delete it. The quicker the better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiMidget (talk • contribs) 17:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per partial WP:SK, and WP:SNOW. This is unlikely to end in anything other than keep and currently there is consensus to do so. — _Maggot^Syn 12:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UEFA Euro 2008 Final[edit]

No sources, event is in the future, not clear as of yet whether or not an article will ever be needed for this. No prejudice against properly recreating whenever significant coverage specifically for the final can be found, and the parent article UEFA Euro 2008 would then become overlong, so that splitting would be justified. dorftrottel (talk) 05:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it will be expanded in the coming month, would be very unnecessary to delete and re-create, UEFA Euro 2004 Final exists, and I'm sure all other Euro finals are planned to be made... World Cup, UEFA Cup, Champions League Final articles exist as well and all the tournaments are in the same category of importance, i would asume. ← chan dler 05:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the nom: No prejudice against recreating when verifiable content is available. dorftrottel (talk) 06:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's already verifiable content in the page - date, time, location. Grutness...wha? 09:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That information is already in the parent article. dorftrottel (talk) 10:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I would be shocked if this article wasn't recreated and of significant length and detail by the end of the month (two weeks away) if deleted. So what is the point of this AfD? - Shudde ^talk 06:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To drive home the message that articles should only be created on the basis of reliable sources, and need to have at least some content. dorftrottel (talk) 06:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's already some content in the page - date, time, location. Grutness...wha? 09:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That information is already in the parent article. dorftrottel (talk) 10:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is notable. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't everything. So far there is no reason to have an article, as evidenced by the fact that the page is virtually empty and has no encyclopedic content whatsoever. dorftrottel (talk) 06:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's already encyclopedic content in the page - date, time, location. Grutness...wha? 09:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That information is already in the parent article. dorftrottel (talk) 10:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Absolutely keep. This is a notable event, and easily falls into the exceptions lined out in WP:CRYSTAL. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 06:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a relevant criterion only if there were any encyclopedic content. dorftrottel (talk) 06:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) Wikipedia has no deadline. 2) Don't demolish a house while it's still being built. The event is in two weeks. What's the hurry here? -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 06:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree. What's the hurry in creating an article ahead of time, ahead of any content? dorftrottel (talk) 08:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's already content in the page - date, time, location. Grutness...wha? 09:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That information is already in the parent article. dorftrottel (talk) 10:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Even if the match is never played, it would be useful to keep the article if only to explain why the match was never played. As it stands, the article is about the biggest match of the 2008 football calendar and I see no reason to delete it. I could even find you a few references if you want. – PeeJay 08:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Even? References are not some fancy luxury. They need to be included on article creation. Yes, please go ahead an add those references, and ideally some content based on them. dorftrottel (talk) 08:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll do it when I get home, as I'm going on a day out just now. – Pee Jay 08:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Surely you jest. Well beyond the requirements of WP:CRYSTAL. We know when it will be played - down to the minute of kick-off. We know where it will be played. We know it is the culmination of a competition currently in progress. We know for certain that this article will be needed within a couple of weels, and we already have enough information for the article to have been started. It already has viable encyclopedic content, and it will soon get more. To delete it now would simply be a waste of everyone's time - a bit like this afd. Grutness...wha? 09:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, it took me about ten seconds to find verification of the information on this page and add it. I wonder how long it took to create this AFD? Longer than ten seconds, I bet... Grutness...wha? 10:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't 'jest'. There is no information that merits an article split. It's idiotic to preemptively create article pages for upcoming events when there is no content that justifies a separate article. dorftrottel (talk) 10:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as its pointless to delete the article for two weeks and recreate it then (as the final very definitely will deserve it's own article). It probably was unnecessary to create this article yet but deleting the article for such a short period is needless. Anyway strictly speaking it does meet WP:CRYSTAL - (almost) certain to take place and with verifiable information on the location and time of the final. Davewild (talk) 11:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deletion (G7). -- Ed (Edgar181) 10:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Damstra[edit]

Non-notable person, autobiography. Fails WP:BIO and WP:PERSON. Evidence is article's creator is " User:sdamstra. Narutolovehinata5 (talk) 03:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, G7. Author has requested deletion by adding ((delete my page))[14], then blanking it.[15] -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 06:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The calls for deleting this article, while well intentioned, seemed to rely upon the fact that this article is problematic rather than failing any specific policies, and the consensus is that this material should be kept, albeit likely revamped. Shereth 22:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of types of spiders[edit]

The article is misnamed as listing "types" - as Biological type is a different idea. If the list intends to be of species, then this may be a little too large. If it is a family level introduction - then there is already a suitable article at Spider taxonomy. Shyamal (talk) 03:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note. The possible interpretations of this article lead to a duplication of content that belongs either in Spider or Spider taxonomy, both of which are fairly well defined. Also see the role of Category:Lists_of_spider_species for structured lists or indexes to species articles. Please also see Wikipedia:Content forking. Shyamal (talk) 16:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article is hopelessly incomplete and is not a logical place to sort out spider hunting strategies.--Wloveral (talk) 04:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please indicate the more logical place for this. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The information is better given in other articles.Redddogg (talk) 05:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which other articles? Colonel Warden (talk) 07:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination and comments above indicate that this discussion belongs on the article's talk page, not here. If there's a problem with the title, then this is changed by a move, not by deletion. If the article is incomplete then we work on completing it. If the material is better elsewhere then we merge it. Not a single valid reason has been provided for deletion. And a look at the horrid alternative of Spider taxonomy indicates that allowing specialists to own this topic would be a mistake. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia and we all have some interest in spiders. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the first four point. The problem is just that the title is unclear as to the subject covered, so no one can really fill the contents or retitle it when the aim is unclear. As for merge, there is little substance here that is salvageable for use for instance in "spider" and this was discussed on the talk page and this has under a proposed deletion tag for almost a week. As for the last bit - I agree with your view that the article on Spider taxonomy is not very well written and accessible as it stands. but that can definitely be improved. Shyamal (talk) 08:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The idea is not bad, but yes it should be renamed and reworked extensively. Spiders are notoriously hard to identify for laypeople (with many not even realizing they're not insects...), so grouping them into phenotypes or such could be helpful for some. I don't like the first part of Spider taxonomy either (but i do like the table at the end, which i created ;); it looks like somebody started it half-heartedly and then abandoned it. suggestions: not a list, some 'splaining text is needed (for example to point out that orb web spiders are not a monophyletic group; Nephila is not Araneidae, and the totally unrelated hackled orb weavers (Uloboridae also construct orb webs). hmm, the very interesting Deinopidae do not occur anywhere. ah, look what i've found: Identifying spiders, another one of p0m's abandoned pages. if somebody wants to merge the two pages, and really work on it, be my guest :) --Sarefo (talk) 11:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renamed to what ? I suggest that it is going to be Spider taxonomy again or it is a section within spider - and there is nothing much to take from this article into the new location, nor much reason to add a redirect. Hence this AfD, which really is a last resort, one that should not hurt anyone. Shyamal (talk) 15:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - well "type" may be misused in the biological sense it is used properly in the more common sense of the word. Rename if that is really a problem --T-rex 15:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the notion that laypeople need a "how to" guide to ID spiders by type, which this article seems to be inventing, is flawed. An encyclopedia should not "dumb down" content, for that is how we all stay dumb. Fails WP:No original research. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep good idea to have a non-technical page. This will when done right resemble a taxonomic key, a perfectly acceptable nontechnical type of publication which divides things up in any convenient way, and helps people name the species they have in mind. Scientists use them too for practical work. DGG (talk) 01:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is something like that out here [16]. The other Identifying spiders article also points now to spider taxonomy- . If taxonomy is sounding too complex, that article could well be renamed as "spider classification". Shyamal (talk) 02:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Concur with DGG above. The list meets WP:LISTS criteria and will be a useful, non-technical approach to understanding spider types.--Mike Cline (talk) 16:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shereth 22:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thakurdas[edit]

Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 02:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability? Asserted as follows "Thakurdas is the name of a family who has a historical significant background." But that's it for explaining what's significant. Just glance at the article for 4 seconds. References? A single self-published website. --Faradayplank (talk) 09:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only web source given doesn't establish notability of this name. Artene50 (talk) 01:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --jonny-m t 10:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prabhu Jagatbandhu Sundar[edit]

Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 03:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources or notability. Bhaktivinode (talk) 04:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the week since nominating this article, I have looked for sources, and have found none. If anybody knows of any sources, especially reliable sources, please feel free to add them to the article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while I am disturbed by the onslaught of articles about religious people of several religions appearing at AfD, we must follow Wikipedia policies when it comes to deletion decisions. It seems that the common theme - lack of reliable sources to demonstrate ccmpliance with WP:BIO - is also true here. In the case of this article, it also appears that it was written by someone with a conflict of interest as some of the prose seems less-than-NPOV and in the viewpoint of one of his devotees. B.Wind (talk) 01:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was technical keep. It seems to be the consensus of those involved that it is too early to consider this topic again since the closure of the last AfD. I am noting that this is a technical keep rather than an outright keep closure so as not to create the impression that the content itself is being endorsed by this discussion. I would suggest the nominator refrain from bringing this up for a little while - even no consensus closures require more than a few days to cool off before dragging the article through AfD again. Shereth 22:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bhaktivedanta Narayana[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non notable. The main reference for this article is provided from a chapter in a book on ISKCON called The Hare Krishna Movement. This chapter, "Routinization of Charisma," is just one chapter in this book - and it is about ISKCON and Bhaktivedanta Narayana is mentioned concerning his relationship with ISKCON (for a specific period of time). References on this gentleman's relationship to ISKCON are not enough to establish notablity as long as the subject himself remains non notable. Assocication with a notable subject does not confer notablity. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 03:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject is not notable. Previous discussion resulted in no consensus on whether to merge relevant info. Relevant information should be merged to appropriate articles. By himself, the subject is non notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a spiritual leader this guy is not notable. What has he done? Bhaktivinode (talk) 04:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is rather abusive to open a new nomination four days after the last one closed as no consensus without making new arguments. The nomination argument here was made in the last discussion. Nothing has changed to merit a new nomination. GRBerry 04:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith as my intention is not to be abusive. Also, I disagree with you as the reasoning for deletion has changed. The previous reasoning was, "Non notable religous leader. Part of non notable religious institute. Sources quetionable at best. Sources to establish notability are lacking entirely." The reasoning given above for the nomination has been specified to address the particular issues not addressed in the last discussion. This new discussion is a new chance to reach concensus. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 05:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You also argued "The references in which the subject is mentioned, aside from the self published ones, are concerned with the subject of ISKCON. These texts are about ISKCON. In passing, there is mention of Bhaktivedanta Narayana and his relationship with ISKCON. If these references are accepted as reliable sources, then I can see how a Redirect or a Merge to the ISKCON page might be more appropriate. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)", which is your argument now. Closing admins evaluate all the arguments; you are not making a new one here. GRBerry 13:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per Bhaktvinode. Non notable spiritual leader. Culturalrevival (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per GRBerry. The previous AfD, by the same nominator, was closed only 4 days ago after more than 12 days of discussion. Give it a break for a few weeks at least. Nsk92 (talk) 20:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per GRBerry and Nsk92. The arguments and reasoning have not changed, nothing new which was not said at the last, very recent AfD.John Z (talk) 22:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note Per yesterday’s discussion… Three votes above are concerned with the process of deletion and are not immediately concerned with the subject’s notability. My intention in re-nominating this article is to attract more editors to this discussion – after a no consensus discussion. I apologize if I have offended any editor or caused any unnesessary harm, as this is not my intent. I will list this discussion in more deletion sorting pages that are relevant to hopefully include other editors. Also, I believe that future discussions should focus on the notability of the subject instead of voting on the process. This will assist editors in reaching a clear consensus on the notability of this subject. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you offended anyone (certainly not me), but renominating an article for an AfD only four days (!) after a 12-day long AfD discussion was closed is, in my opinion, abusing the process, regardless of your motives. You are not helping your case by doing this. If you think the previous AfD was closed incorrectly, you can file a WP:DRV case. Otherwise, give it a break for a while. Nsk92 (talk) 06:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commment The result of the last debate was no consensus. I was unaware that a debate that resulted in no consensus could be put forward for deletion review. I thought that process was only for deleted pages. In the future, I will post no consensus debates through the deletion review process. Thank you for pointing this out. Ism schism (talk) 10:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect and merge to ISKCON per 2nd nomination discussion. Culturalrevival (talk) 15:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New information The main reference for this article, "The Routinization of Charisma and the Charismatic: The confrontation between ISKCON and Nayayana Maharaja," is a chapter in a book on ISKCON. This chapter is written by a person, who according to the contributors notes on page X is, "associated with the organization of Narayana Maharaja." This person Irvin H. Collins, authors the only reference in the article that is concerned with the subject. Per Basic criteria - "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Irvin H. Collins is, "associated with the organization of Narayana Maharaja." As this is the only source that is concerned with Bhaktivedanta Narayana, he is not the subject of secondary sources "independent of the subject." Presently there are no reliable sources for this article, and the information about him does not even state how he is notable. The article is about a non notable and has no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A fine example of POV pushing if I ever saw one. "the only reference in the article that is concerned with the subject"? Really?! "the only reference in the article"? What about the other reference listed in the article, the book "The Hare Krishna Movement: Forty Years of Chant and Change" by Graham Dwyer (Editor), Richard J. Cole (Editor), available at Barnes&Noble? The book is also cited in the article and it has a chapter about Bhaktivedanta Narayana written by Richard Cole. This chapter is partially available for preview at googlebooks:[17]. A cursory look at this preview shows that it provides in-depth coverage of the subject. Nsk92 (talk) 05:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more comment on your "has no reliable sources" claim. Apart from the book by Dwyer and Cole, even if what you say about the chapter in the other book cited in the article The Hare Krishna Movement: The Postcharismatic Fate of a Religious by Edwin Bryant, Maria Ekstrand is correct, the Bryant-Ekstrand book is still a reliable source that is fine as a primary source. The book is published by Columbia University Press and is edited by two independent academics, see the publication notes atBarnes&Nobles:[18]. Even if Collins' chapter in that book does not go towards establishing notability of the subject (if your claims about Collins are correct, and I'd like for someone else with access to the book to verify that), the book and the chapter still qualify as a reliable source, per WP:RS. Nsk92 (talk) 05:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nsk92, I disagree with your position here, if I understand it correctly. Ism schism's statements about Collins are correct, see [19]. But as I wrote below, do we demand that biographers of rabbis be catholics? Bryant, Ekstrand Columbia University Press and E. B. Rochford below consider Collins to be reliable and independent enough scholarship. That's more than enough to satisfy the guideline, and there are the other sources I gave below, one of which, www.vnn.org, was recently removed from the article by IS.John Z (talk) 06:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The author of the first reference is a former ISKCON devotee who is now a member of Bhaktivedanta Narayana's organization. This is not an independent sources. Aside from this, the second reference concerns a chapter in a book on ISKCON, of which two pages mention Bhaktivedanta Narayana. There are no other independent sources to confirm notability or independent perpective. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 05:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning references cited In the above texts you cited, Bhaktivedanta is not the subject of discussion. ISKCON is the subject of discussion. Aside from the article I discussed above, of which the primary one is written by an associate of Bhaktivedanta Narayana, there is the book by Dwyer and Cole. In this text - Bhaktivedanta Narayana is only discussed in pages 37 through 39. Two pages are not enough to establish notablity. I do not understand how questioning two pages is as you say, "POV pushing." Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 05:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict, so I repeat some of Nsk92's points) Some of your above statements are not correct. The Collins article is not the only clearly high-quality RS source being used in our article, as you seemed to realize during the last AfD, when you said "These are two sources," - the other one having been The Hare Krishna Movement: Forty Years of Chant And Change. That the book with Collins' article was published by a major university press is sufficient guarantee of independence. The guideline does not demand that biographies of rabbis be written by christians. The introduction to this CU Press volume, not written by Collins, notes that the schism with Bhaktivedanta Narayana was the "most recent and divisive." - more argument for his notability, as are passing mentions in the book by other authors. There seems nothing wrong with using the bio at www.vnn.org to show notability and as a source, or even purebhakti.com as additional source to help write the article. The proper course is to make sure the article is not a puff piece mindlessly praising him, not to eliminate a clearly quite notable subject and sourced and uncontentious material about him. If there are genuine concerns about the reliability of a source, I suggest taking the matter up at WP:RS/N. Yet other unimpeachable sources are Hare Krishna Transformed By E. Burke Rochford, from NYU Press, with a couple of relevant pages, or The Hindu World By Sushil Mittal, G. R. Thursby, from Routledge, a single volume reference on all of Hinduism, relevant page not viewable online. Again, this article should be speedily kept, per the many arguments of the many different experienced editors in the three AfDs. This is not a close call.John Z (talk) 05:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The above sources only discuss Bhaktivedanta Narayana's relationship with ISKCON. Also, the first source is written by a non notable author/devotee of Bhaktivedanta Narayana Irvin H. Collins. The second source only mentions him in a few pages out of many hundreds of pages devoted to its subject, ISKCON pages 37 through 39. Other self published materials can be useful but are not reliable sources for establishing notabilty. In all, Bhaktivedanta Narayana is not the subject of secondary sources independent of the subject. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 06:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See, that is what I meant by POV pushing. First you claiming that "the only reference in the article that is concerned with the subject"? when in fact there are two and then you claim that the article has "has no reliable sources" when again in fact there are two. The book of Dwyer and Cole has a section (pages 37-39, as you say) that is entitled "Narayana Maharaja". This section, yes, only two pages long, provides in-depth and specific coverage of Bhaktivedanta Narayana. Whether or not this is enough to establish notability is a separate question, but there is no doubt that the Dwyer and Cole book is a secondary reliable source which contains in-depth coverage of the subject. Nsk92 (talk) 06:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your enthusiasm for the subject, but being mentioned in a book for two pages does not amount to a reference that establishes notability. Also, a chapter in a book, written about ISKCON's relationship with Bhaktivedant Narayana, by a devotee of Bhaktivedanta Narayana, is a very weak arguement for notability. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 06:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no enthusiasm or interest in the subject. Like JohnZ, I picked this AfD at random, during an hour when I had time to look at the AfD listings. And I agree with JohnZ that this one is not even a close call. Nsk92 (talk) 06:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NSK, I replied to some of your comments above; I disagree on one point. Ism Schism, as I said at the last AfD, your interpretation of the guidelines are nonstandard, and illogically restrictive. If one eliminates everything notable about a person, like their relationships with other notable subjects, then of course one is left with nothing. But that is not an argument, but a useless observation. The scholarly world considers Bhaktivedanta Narayana notable, and thus so do we. The demand that the authors of articles on him be notable is new and has nothing to do with Wikipedia policies. What you are calling self-published does not appear to be that; finally I gave several more unimpeachable scholarly sources above. I and I daresay most of the other experienced "keep" editors have no enthusiasm for Bhaktivedanta Narayana, but much for WIkipedia policy and rational argument. Personally I just picked this AfD at random. The arguments for keeping and notability are very strong; tens of thousands of articles would be deleted if rules were interpreted the way you seem to understand them.John Z (talk) 06:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to John Z/Nsk92 - Stated above... "The scholarly world considers Bhaktivedanta Narayana notable," - please offer some references for this. Aside from a two page mention, and an article written by one of his devotees concerning his relationship with ISKCON, there is very little evidence to suggest that this subject is notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 06:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability for the subject has not been established. An occassional mention as Ism schism says is not enough. Gizza^Discuss ^© 07:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read all the above? What Ism says is hard to reconcile with policy and usual practice. Ism, have you looked at all the refs? There is far, far more than occasional mentions - a chapter in a book, a subtitled subchapter in another book, a bio at a news site, mentions on a couple of pages in a couple of other scholarly books. And these are only the quite high quality sources. A general one volume, very scholarly treatise on all of Hinduism, an enormous subject, sees fit to mention him. This is a great deal of evidence for notability by usual standards.John Z (talk) 08:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes John Z, I have read all of the above. I read everything again and looked through the article and its reference a second time and my opinion hasn't changed. You may be correct that my and Ism's general standards about notability are much stricter than yours in which case we are relatively more deletionist than you are. Gizza^Discuss ^© 09:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I apologize for assuming differently. (This is Ism's 3rd AfD nom for this, BTW, there's more in the others and that he excised from the article, IMHO incorrectly.) But this standard seems far more deletionist than usual at AfD. How many peer reviewed, academic press, scholarly references, which IMHO cannot reasonably be called passing mentions, on a subject are necessary?! I have no idea how one can reasonably dispute the statement that academia considers him notable.John Z (talk) 10:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I dispute the statement that academia considers him notable is that Bhaktivedanta Narayana is not "the subject of secondary sources independent of the subject." If there were academic articles written about him by scholars, and/or academic writtings in which Bhaktivedanta Narayana is the subject of secondary sources independent of the subject, then there would be reason believe that academia considers him notable. What is offered as the first source is a lone chapter in a book. This chapter is written by a non notable author/devotee (and I say this because the author is not a religious studies scholar but an elementary school teacher that is a devotee of Bhaktivedanta Narayana) Irvin H. Collins. The second source only mentions Bhaktivedanta Narayana in a few pages out of many hundreds of pages devoted to its subject, ISKCON, please see pages 37 through 39. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, by usual standards, "just pp 37-39" (which are subtitled Narayana Maharaja) is more than enough for one RS. A "lone chapter in a book" is much, much more than enough. Look at other AfDs. Collins counts and is independent because it is in an academic book, because of the editors and the press. There are the two other academic works I cited above, one a general work on all of Hinduism!, and www.vnn.org with a short biography, which satisfy the conditions. There's also this article, The Perils of Succession: Heresies of Authority and Continuity In the Hare Krishna Movement in the ISKCON Communications Journal, which had been presented to the annual meeting of the American Academy of Religion, and which covers him in several paragraphs under the heading The Rasika-bhakti Heresy. That's 5 scholarly sources and one news source. Finally, it should be speedily kept because this 3rd AfD was started only 4 days after the 2nd, with very little new argument; this is not the normal or proper procedure.John Z (talk) 16:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Rasika-bhakti Heresy is discussed in The Perils of Succession: Heresies of Authority and Continuity In the Hare Krishna Movement. Bhaktivedant Narayana's relationship with ISKCON is noted as being part of the "Rasika-Bhakti Heresy." Once again the subject of the article is ISKCON. A part of this paper notes Bhaktivedanta Narayana's relationship with ISKCON - and he is not the subject of this work. He is mentioned in the article as part of one of many "heresies" in ISKCON. None of the above sources are concerned with Bhaktivedanta Narayana as a subject of himself. No scholarly studies of books or academic essays consider Bhativedanta Narayana notable outside of his relationship with ISKCON. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - this article does have sufficient references to stay, however it should be renamed to reflect the concerns with the notability being a 'reflected notability'. I suggest that the name of the article should reflect an obvious conclusion of the previous AfD(2). It should not be a biography, but really an article on Bhaktivedanta Narayana Movement or History of Bhaktivedanta Narayana Schism - which will reflect the subject's notability in as per good RS quoted. After all its not that you can write just about anything in Wiki and especially considering this is WP:BLP - one must be very careful and at the same time one should not use notability of one subject to automatically support a notability of another subject. As the last comment on the articles talk page by ISKCON article editor - It hardly can be placed as a part of the ISKCON article or merged into it - and I agree - it will be UNDUE, but maybe after its renamed it can have a WP:SS section in it, if editors of the ISKCON article agree. If not renamed I would support merge into Gaudiya Matha article. Wikidās ॐ 17:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since it was me who introduced reliable references into this article, if article is renamed I would suggest adding Hare Krishna Transformed (The New and Alternative Religions Series) by E. Rochford ISBN 0814775799, pp. 170-171 - again in the context of it being a schismatic movement not being about B Narayana, maybe article can be deleted as our admin DaGizza suggests and a new article created instead on the topic? Wikidās ॐ 19:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On merging and/or renaminging. Concerning a merge to Gaudiya Matha, was Bhaktivedanta Narayana a member of the Gaudiya Matha? I am open to this idea but he seems to have come after the Gaudiya Matha fell apart. Also, concerning renaming... As the references presently listed above are concerned with the subject of ISKCON (and its heresies and schisms) maybe a rename to History of Schisms in ISKCON. Bhaktivedanta Narayana is just not notable enough for a stand alone article, maybe this would be a way to salvage the information in the article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have to be very honest. At first AfD I have suggested WP:RS and inserted them in the article, but I could not find any reliable sources as to the biography of the WP:BLP. I made a mistake, as I was reminded on the number of occasions by other editors in different context. I have since improved somewhat. But this article does NOT reflect any reliable sources that are quoted in the article. Thus the sources can be used for other article, and this one to be deleted as all material for WP:BLP has to be carefully sourced. Because the material above is non-biographical I would suggest deleting at this stage, and only then creating of other article that reflects reliable sources. You are right, and Gaudiya Math did fell apart ~~and this is not a material for that article.~~ Wikidās ॐ 23:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per GRBerry, Nsk92, John Z. Even if people think things have changed or more information has come to light or whatever, it's would still be good form to wait a reasonable amount of time between AfDs. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the speedy keep suggestion: There was an error in timing of closing AfD2. Last comment in AfD2 was by Culturalrevival - Redirect and merge on 17:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Shereth closed it on 18:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC) just one hour and twenty minutes after - clearly in error as discussion was still going strong. That is a procedural error and one of the reasons for this nomination as is obvious. Wikidās ॐ 13:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understood that from the above but I still don't think an immediate CfD is appropriate. We should give it a rest, already. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on merge to Gaudiya Matha From what I have read, Bhaktivedanta Narayana leads a sub-group of the Gaudiya Matha called the "Sri Kesavaji Gaudiya Matha." Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An example of how this could be done is the page on the Swaminarayan Faith. In this article the original group is mentioned, Swaminarayan Sampraday. This is followed by its major divisions since, with the analogous Swaminarayan Gadi. In a merge the original Gaudiya Matha could be discussed as it is in the article with a new section on present day communities that identify as being part of the Gaudiya Matha added for each one that has reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge to Gaudiya Matha, not notable alone. Culturalrevival (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - previous Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhaktivedanta Narayana (2nd nomination) was closed and then user modified the record. This needs to be investigated. Merge proposal is acceptable. MBest-son (talk) 22:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Re: the previous AfD being closed then modified, it appears it was only modified to remove an extraneous accidental double signature in the middle of the user's own quote. Balsa10 (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:SK 2(iii). This is too soon after the last AfD. Jim Miller (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As mentioned above, it's been to short a period since the last AfD, and there seem to be a couple decent sources. --Explodicle (talk) 17:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. TigerShark (talk) 13:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

R Duck[edit]

non-notable programme on pirate station Rapido (talk) 13:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete A non-notable show on a radio station. No independent citations or references -> fails WP:RS. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 02:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete - no claim to be notable --T-rex 15:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is almost 3 years old but no notability has been established in that time. Artene50 (talk) 01:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cleanup/splits/moves/redirect/merges/etc. can be handled through the normal editing process. --jonny-m t 10:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sindhi Festivals[edit]

Non notable. No reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 02:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, no sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sindhis are an ethnic group originally from Sindh, Pakistan and now settled in mostly in India. Their festivals are different from Hindu festivals in general.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously needs sources, but the topic is equally obviously notable, in my opinion. Should be moved to Sindhi festivals. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The move is done.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of my concerns is that, to my knowledge, the Sindhi people do not follow any one religion but are a community that includeds Muslems and Hindus. Whose festivals are these, specifically? There should be some sourcing for a particular group of Sindhi festivals, but as to which ones should be included, I am not sure. But as there are Muslem Sindhis, the subject of this article remains unclear and because of this so does its notability. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yipe! If it's kept, it's in very dire need of an extreme rewrite (I added an ((Articleissues)) and stopped at just a handful of problems (if this is indeed a list of Sindhi festivals, it should be renamed to List of Shindhi Festivals per Wikipedia naming guidelines). If it can be verified using reliable sources (and one would think they would be rather easily found in a few Asian sites), then radically rewritten (in addition to what's on the tag, it's also written in the mode of a magazine or a personal essay), and then renamed, it would be worth keeping. So... conditional keep. B.Wind (talk) 01:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - not a widely trafficked AfD discussion but it is quite clear, from the article, that Canisquare do not meet the notability criteria of WP:MUSIC --Stormie (talk) 07:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canisquare[edit]

Nonnotable band, doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, 174 unique Ghits. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt; article has already been speedied twice. I've added their EP; both the band and their album fail WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shereth 22:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anderson Biro[edit]

Delete as WP:SPAM and WP:N This 'leading' edge recruitment firm only has 52 hits on Google here Many of them are Spanish sites and have nothing to do with this firm and 4 are mirror wiki hits. User Ebiro who created this article had another similar sounding subject, Anderson Biro, LLC, deleted on his talkpage a few days ago. User appears to be spamming this company on Wikipedia. Artene50 (talk) 01:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable company. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam, came up with nothing useful on google. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 14:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --T-rex 15:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Gone clear copyvio, also quite close to G11 and had been speedied 2x. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 03:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Kam[edit]

Declined speedy. Copyvio of http://www.theisraelproject.org/site/c.hsJPK0PIJpH/b.689731/. Probable conflict of interest (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Issacharoff). Otherwise, questionable notability. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meets G11, and tagged as such. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the complete rationale given by nom. JJL (talk) 01:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, only delete !vote changed to Keep Non-Admin Closure Dusti^SPEAK!! 03:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CAW Local 200[edit]

Fails to cite sources. Fails WP:ORG. Delete GreenJoe 01:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unlike the other article (below in the list), this lists achievements. Reads like a resume. Still not notable, though - like the other one here in AfD, it's an individual local of a union. The union is notable, the local is not. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Another one switched to keep. What a strange week. =^_^= Good job fixing it up. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a big local and represents multiple bargaining units, not just one. Individual locals of (say) an airline mechanics union may not be notable if they all represent workers doing the same work, but individual locals of a diversified union such as the Canadian Auto Workers can be notable, especially if they are quite large, represent multiple bargaining units or a bargaining unit outside the traditional auto plant sector, or have a distinctive individual history. --Eastmain (talk) 17:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- PROVE IT!!!. GreenJoe 17:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 17:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A number of references have been added. This local is notable for its role in the Ford Strike of 1945‎. --Eastmain (talk) 19:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep major union locals are notable. what distinguishes "major" may not be clear, but this one is major enough, especially a shown by Eastmain's references. DGG (talk) 22:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - current references meet notability requirements. DigitalC (talk) 03:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CAW Local 111[edit]

To be blunt, this article fails everything. It doesn't cite sources, it's not notable, it's just plain spam. Delete GreenJoe 01:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, almost a speedy A7 (club). Individual locals of any union tend to not be notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Never though I'd see the day when a union local would get a keep. Changed my mind. Good find on that, Eastmain. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a big local, and has more history than most, given the way that transit drivers in the greater Vancouver area voted to switch from the (U.S.-based) Amalgamated Transit Union to an independent Canadian union, and later to the Canadian Auto Workers union, and in light of the sometimes bitter history of negotiations and strikes (which the article doesn't discuss enough, and which ended the careers of some municipal politicians who took a hard line against the union). Individual locals of (say) an airline mechanics union may not be notable if they all represent workers doing the same work, but individual locals of a diversified union such as the Canadian Auto Workers can be notable, especially if they are quite large, represent a bargaining unit outside the traditional auto plant sector, or have a distinctive individual history. --Eastmain (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then add that in, and cite sources. Right now it fails to establish notability. GreenJoe 17:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - An article that fails to establish notability is an article that needs improving. An article on a non-notable subject is an article that needs deleting. DigitalC (talk) 03:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Great, then improve it. Otherwise we should delete it. We shouldn't be keeping around inferior written articles that don't establish notability. And even then, I'm still not convinced that notability is established. GreenJoe 13:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22CAW+Local+111%22 for several newspaper articles about the local. --Eastmain (talk) 21:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its verifiable and there are reliable independent sources Artene50 (talk) 01:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Commissioned warships are automatically notable and the material has been rearranged so it's in accordance with the normal disambiguation of ship names. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Ontario (1780)[edit]

HMS Ontario already exists, I don't think we need two pages on the subject, or a disambiguation that the ship was made in 1780 in the article subject. I would propose a merge and delete Alternatively, we could move whatever we can from HMS Ontario here. I just don't think we need two pages on the exact same subject! Fraud ^{talk to me} 01:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We do not need two pages on the same subject, I agree! The two articles should be merged in one, and the other stub converted to a redirect. I would make HMS Ontario (1780) the main article, and HMS Ontario - a redirect, in case some other HMS Ontario from a different era pops up. Cheers! Xenonice (talk) 01:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, merger complete! I removed the AfD tag. Xenonice (talk) 02:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for merge, not delete. Shipwrecks are interesting. This is also historically interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.71.180.96 (talk) 02:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move HMS Ontario (1780) to HMS Ontario then Delete the former. No reason to have a date in the article title if there's no ambiguity. No reason to have HMS Ontario (1780) as a redirect because it's not an expected search term. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the current status per User:70.51.8.9. There are others with the same name.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xenonice implemented a redirect from HMS Ontario to HMS Ontario (1780) and merged the material. Obviously the merger was needed, but not obvious is that it should be located at 1780, in fact to me it seems obvious the HMS Ontario name with no 1780 should be used. See Talk:HMS Ontario (1780).

Someone else posted a stated conclusion to the AFD, to the Talk:HMS Ontario (1780) article, that the result was to "speedy redirect". I think this is not correct. It seems obvious to me that the correct name of the article is HMS Ontario, not HMS Ontario (1780), because there are no other HMS Ontario's known. And the discussion above was leaning toward doing the move in that direction. The consensus, if any, is to redirect from the 1780 article to the other one, which is how i "vote" anyhow. So, i support deletion of this HMS Ontario (1780) article, with merger/move of its material to HMS Ontario. doncram (talk) 07:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose there appear to be multiple HMS Ontario. The 1780 ship, the 1813 ship [20][21], the 1943 ship [22][23]. This should be rebuilt as a shipname article, like other Royal Navy shipnames, or as a dab page. 70.51.8.9 (talk) 07:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to boldly build a dab page now. 70.51.8.9 (talk) 07:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, nothing like some real information to make the decision clear. IP-man is pretty convincing, i concede. doncram (talk) 07:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Cenarium ^Talk 02:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MarcoTayloe[edit]

Contested prod. Non notable show on YouTube. Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 01:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not be deleted because: MarcoTayloe is a noted webshow by many websites, and Veronica Webb. The company who runs MarcoTayloe, Kumquat7 and Dwight Morrow Law and Business Firm are not looking for attention. It is a respected webshow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.220.254 (talk) 01:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are no reliable sources to establish notability. A google search turns up youtube and other video streaming sites, some blog entries, but no substantial coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 02:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. As stated above, only Google results are to the vids themselves. Pinkadelica 03:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)][reply]

I am a representative from the Dwight Morrow International Law and Business Firm. We are a private swiss company with no website or web coverage. This is a webshow that should be recognized because it is a popular, and worthy webshow. Can you please back off? I am sorry if I sound rude, but, I cannot explain why this should be here, but I know it needs to. Can you please understand this? Thank you

- George Penny

Managing Director of Web History — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.220.254 (talk • contribs)

Delete -- Wikipedia is here to document the notable, not promote or recognize the unknown. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn with consensus to keep. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollin' with the Flow (album)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Rollin' with the Flow (album)

No reliable sources for this album. Album won't be released for a while yet, and given that the second single hasn't charted, I have a feeling it will most likely be delayed further. All I'm finding is trivial mentions. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC) Keep per Eric444's sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Charlie Rich also had an album with this name. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Userfy back to the creator's page until such time as more WP:RS come about and the release date is upon us. I'm finding lots on the fact the album exists and none what so ever on the "charting" single. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I've added in to the article the chart ref that TPH dug out, and one on the album. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Chesnutt's website provides a Cut by Cut that verifies the track listing, and the full album has been posted as a listening party at That's Country. Eric444 (talk) 12:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. TigerShark (talk) 13:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asheville Graduate Center[edit]

According to the main university article, UNC Asheville has only 35 graduate students, and therefore I don't think this graduate center can ever be notable enough to support its own article, other than this page being a directory of courses which would not be acceptable per WP:NOT. Hippo (talk) 00:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see a claim of notability for the Center in the article; those editors who might come here to argue for keeping this article need to provide one. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you did not do ANY research other than just read the one article you linked above on the graduate school at the University of North Carolina Asheville (UNCA). I have no doubt that the UNCA “grad school” has ONLY 35 students - UNCA is a public "liberal arts" university - its lone master's degree is a liberal arts degree (nothing wrong with that, just not a lot of demand for it). This is the reason that the UNC board of trustees established the Asheville Graduate Center, to offer the residents of Asheville a greater variety of grad courses that UNCA is designed to offer.

If in fact you read the article on the Asheville Graduate Center, you would know it is not a part of the UNCA grad school; it is NOT a part of UNCA; it IS administrated by UNCA, and it utilizes faculties of the university. The other 5 UNC system participants, schedule, conduct, provide their own professors/instructors for the graduate degree programs offered at the AGC and confer degrees from their university for graduates (not degrees from UNCA). Currently, over 600 students are in degree programs at AGC in the 6 universities that participate in the AGC. http://www.unca.edu/agc/ Glovejr (talk) 01:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's reasonable to look at the main university page since the article did not assert anything beyond that. From the article it looks like a distance learning opportunity for UNCA students. Either way, while WP:WAX is not a good basis for an argument, I doubt it's notable enough as very few graduate schools in the world have their own pages on Wikipedia. Also please note WP:NPA. Hippo (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is unfortunate that the TarHippo may have gotten some facts wrong, as it distracts us from the real problem; this Center doesn't seem to be notable. It is an adminstrative division of a larger entity, the University of North Carolina, current enrollment 183,000. Would an article on the University's Human Resources Division be appropriate for Wikipedia? No; the standard we use can be read at WP:ORG. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You guys can do what you will about the article, delete it, or leave it. But, in my personal opinion, what good is a "pageless" encyclopdeia (one where page space is not at a premium and everything can be included) that deletes factual, current, accurate data about institutions? Rather than expanding knowledge, some seem intent on deleting infomation (i.e. deciding what is relevant) by utilizing Wikipedia guidance (in my again "opinion" mis-utilizing wikipedia guidance and rules). But, whatever the decision on the article..... have a nice day. Glovejr (talk) 02:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a building where classes run by other units of the university are held. not notable. DGG (talk) 22:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability. SuMadre (talk) 20:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Girls Bravo (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 20:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Koyomi Hare Nanaka[edit]

She is a fictional character from Girls Bravo, and the only one with an individual article. This article is filled with in-universe information, has almost no sources, and is not even needed; since there is already a description of her here. Artichoker^[talk] 00:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Girls Bravo. Non-notable by itself. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Juliancolton --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 13:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Juliancolton. Yay me. JuJube (talk) 15:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Soxred 93 00:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Ammendolea[edit]

Best claim of notability in article is being elected to a library board. Gsearch for both Francis and Frank don't turn up any notability. Probable autobiography; contested prod. Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:N and doesn't look like it ever could.Oroso (talk) 02:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree with Oroso - the subject is simply not notable - Dumelow (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't pass WP:BIO; agree with above comments.--Fletcher (talk) 19:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vista Transformation Pack[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Previous nomination was closed as No consensus after one Keep and two Delete, and should have been relisted. The article has zero sources that assert any sort of notability. The only assertion of notability at all is the line "[...] is a popular choice for Windows XP users that prefer the Windows Vista appearance". The rest is in-universe information. This is Stardocks unimportant little brother. — Jan Hofmann (talk) 00:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Weak Keep because of the RS coverage that includes the New York Times and Jerusalem Post, among others. I believe that could be used to expand the article. That said, I don't know that it will ever be able to sustain an article and it may be more appliacable within an article on Vista so to that end I say merge to Microsoft Vista and redirect, it may be a viable search term. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 03:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Kubek15^{(Sign!) (Contribs) (UBX)} 08:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got an argument for your vote? — Jan Hofmann (talk) 13:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it only needs to be improved. Probably WP:WINDOWS or WP:SOFTWARE would be able to help out. I remember reading about this software in several publications. Saggod (talk) 02:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. TigerShark (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orchestral Colour Records[edit]

Nonnotable new "independent record label" Mukadderat (talk)00:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New is relative; they're nearly a year old. Why did you put "independent record label" in quotation marks, as if OCR was secretly something else? Two secondary sources are cited; are you questioning their reliability? Brendan Vox (talk) 00:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because the label hasn't been covered in any reliable sources, nor are any notable acts signed to it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable company. Fails WP:CORP & WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable company. No news coverage or significance found in the article. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 03:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone explain what distinguishes reliable sources? What specifically is wrong with those cited? 75.49.251.170 (talk) 06:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're trivial in nature and don't give a whole lot of information on the label. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I feel like these terms are highly subjective and ambiguous. What distinguishes a trivial source from a non-trivial source? What sort of information should they include? Brendan Vox (talk) 10:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laguna Bel-Air, Santa Rosa City[edit]

Based on this link the article appears to be about a new housing estate, and therefore isn't sufficiently notable. PhilKnight (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability for this article. Artene50 (talk) 01:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, unsourced, bordering on advertising. Starczamora (talk) 16:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to notability concerns. Google search only gave passing mentions here and here. The rest of the hits are mostly ads.--Lenticel ^(talk) 22:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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