< June 15	June 17 >

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

The result was delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Bruised Bluenana[edit]

Might fit better in a list of episodes. StaticGull Talk 17:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a plot summary which already has a suitably brief synopsis on the Chowder (TV series) article. Yngvarr (c) 18:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Yngvarr. « D. Trebbien (talk) 19:24 2008 June 16 (UTC)
Keep. That there is already a capsule synopsis at Chowder (TV series) isn't a rationale to delete, since most of our "X TV season" articles have both short in-article synopses as well as full length articles for the episodes. I don't see anything here that violates our guidelines on episode synopses. Ford MF (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does not meet WP:N, A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, because it does not provide verifable sources for adherence of that policy. This is why I state that a separate article is not suitable, but the synopses entry on the main series page is suitable. Further, it does not meet any of the guidelines at WP:EPISODE. I won't address the (seemingly endless) dispute at WP:EPISODE; until it is resolved, I'll adhere to the guideline as it is written. Finally, if one were to address the spelling, grammar, etc, and that the article is written purely as a plot summary, and then consider WP:PLOT, the article would end up trimmed down to a handful of sentences, for which the main series page would suffice. Yngvarr (c) 21:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Yngvarr (c) 21:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nope, can't see how in any way this one is worth it's own article. treelo _talk 01:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If a television episode does not establish notability, it should be merged into a list of episodes. The main article for the series will also suffice. –thedemonhog talk • edits 19:54, 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 keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kneippen[edit]

Doesn't seem notable enough. StaticGull Talk 17:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep verifiable inhabited places are notable. Here are sources to prove it:[1]. Stubs are articles that need expansion; not deletion. Cheers, EJF (talk) 22:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. —EJF (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per EJF and populations centers are inherently notable. --Oakshade (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: if "borough" means some sort of governmental entity, it's surely notable simply by being that; and if it's simply a neighborhood, it's notable by being a populated community. Nyttend (talk) 01:08, 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 Speedily gone, didn't realise it was here as well, it's been speedied x4 for copyvios. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 21:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Women's Global Leadership[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Center for Women's Global Leadership

At first sight it looks like an A7 (group of people or organisation), but it depends on if the given notability is genuine. StaticGull Talk 17:43, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sue Corbett[edit]

This unsourced and undetailed BLP of a writer of children's books whose notability seems to be her ownership of beagle was PROD-deleted, but then recreated with all its original problems carefully preserved. ➥the Epopt (talk) 23:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The subject does not seem to be notable, and a quick google search on her books does not return many results. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 00:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN author. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to its Amazon description page, her novel 12 Again was reviewed by Publishers Weekly, School Library Journal, Booklist and Kirkus Reviews. I think she therefore passes WP:BIO's additional criteria of "The person has created ... a significant or well-known work ... which has been the subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." (Her novel Free Baseball was also reviewed by School Library Journal. But note that the third book, Baseball Crazy, is actually a short story collection to which Corbett contributed only one story.[2]) This article definitely needs some cleanup, but I think that should be dealt with by fixing it, not by deleting it. -- KittyRainbow (talk) 06:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - As the article sits at the moment it contains no real assertion of notabilty (unless the possible regional awards count), no real attempt seems to have been made to include things in the article for verification purposes. If the article was to include at least the minimum amount of these two things I'd be willing to change my mind but, an attempt to meet the policies and guidelines should at least be made. P.S an anon editor removed the AfD tag so I've replaced that and added some tags to help improve the article if appropriate. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like the tags have been arbitrarily removed again, by the time I checked the article - they were gone. Anyay as far as the subject goes: 2 books, a short story and winning a regional award does not constitute a significant body of work or contribution to the world of literature. Definitely seems not notable to me. In addition it seems like no-one wants to actually tackle the clean-up, but merely persistently remove the tags.Austin46 (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
67.163.90.107 seems to be the one removing the AfD tag; they've done it twice now. I've restored it and cleaned up the article a bit, including finding sources for all of those regional awards. (current version) I've also added some sources to Free Baseball so that that (hopefully) shows notability. (current version) -- KittyRainbow (talk) 20:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a huge amount of work that you've put into finding links to the "awards" but only awards that have been actually won are notable. Mere nominations aren't usually listed in articles in Wikipedia unless the nomination is for a major national or international award - like an Oscar - where just being nominated is in itself notable. Listing every minor nomination is the sort of thing that authors pad out their websites with, but it's not really appropriate here. Also one of the things on that list - "selected by the Junior Library Guild" may sound like an award, but that's not the case at all - it seems simply to be a Book Club! For me, it comes back to notability - 2 books, a short story and winning a regional award, isn't yet notable. Maybe once the subject has written a significant body of work, or wins a significant national prize, someone will come back and create an article that is genuinely worthy of being in an encyclopedia.Austin46 (talk) 09:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually one of the additional criteria listed in WP:BIO is "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them." So nominations can count. The Junior Library Guild does indeed seem to be a book club, however it has at least had some coverage: School Library Journal, Publishers Weekly. And surely winning a regional award depends on whether that award itself is notable? The California Young Reader Medal is on ALA's list of regional awards: PDF (And bear in mind: this list contains only 27 awards from 23 states. It's not indiscriminate. You may also wish to note that it names two other relevant awards: the Young Hoosiers Indiana Book Award and the South Carolina Young Adult Book Award.) The CYRM also seems to have quite a few Google news hits. As to whether she has created a "significant body of work"... Well, I have always interpreted the part of WP:BIO that I quoted in my original "vote" (i.e. "The person has created ... a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.") to mean that a work is significant because it has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. If that is indeed the case, she is notable: 12 Again was reviewed by Publishers Weekly, School Library Journal, Booklist, Kirkus Reviews and Kliatt; Free Baseball was reviewed by Publishers Weekly, School Library Journal, Kirkus Reviews, Kids Reads and The Topeka Capital-Journal. Both are covered by multiple, independent, non-trivial sources and are thus notable. So, I would argue that she is notable. -- KittyRainbow (talk) 03:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Almost every book published gets reviewed in the journals mentioned. Amazon ranks for the subject's two books are #377,065 for 12 again and #73,303 for Free Baseball indicating very unexceptional sales figures ergo a pretty unexceptional author. If every author of this status had an article in Wikipedia, we'd be drowning in author bios. And we almost are. Wikipedia editors are the only ones who can keep its standards up by not falling prey to every internet-savvy, self-promoter out there. That's all I have to say on the issue. I'm retiring from this now and hoping good sense will prevail.Austin46 (talk) 12:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Almost every book still implies some kind of editorial judgement is required as to what they do cover. These journals are generally judged to be reliable sources that can be used to determine notability. Also, notability is not popularity. I would also like to point out that my defense of this article is not based upon what I've seen on the author's website; in fact the author's website has that particular tone of self-promotion that would usually make me assume they have very little worth promoting. I am defending this article purely because of the third-party sources I have found, which have convinced me that despite how the author presents herself she is notable. -- KittyRainbow (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Had there been sources (such as news/magazines articles) about the person instead of links to lists of books that have recieved awards then I would be in favor of keeping the article. The only source with information about the author is the author's own website....Statisticalregression (talk) 04:20, 21 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. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 16:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ulimit[edit]

WP:NOT a UNIX guide. No indication that there is anything special about this command deserving of an encyclopedia article. eaolson (talk) 23:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. « D. Trebbien (talk) 00:52 2008 June 17 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:N, no sources. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - at best a dict-def, but more likely NN. WegianWarrior (talk) 09:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - per WP:NOT, WP:N, and WP:V. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Process (computing) or Unix shell. Doesn't need its own article, but should be mentioned somewhere. Lack of sources is a red herring, as it's well known to people in the field, and easily verifiable. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:Hans Adler's merge idea. It's a bit short to be worth its own article, but we should be able to fit it in somewhere in our Unix coverage. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 12:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge The topic has great notability as a simple search demonstrates. It might be covered better in some more general article but this article would then be retained as a redirect as the current title is a plausible search term. Deletion would not help our readership. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A number of the results are simply mirrors of its man page. « D. Trebbien (talk) 19:37 2008 June 17 (UTC)
Merge per User:Hans Adler. This software command should be included in something relating to Unix. Truthanado (talk) 23:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. On its own this is not ever going to become an encylopedia article and Wikipedia is not a directory. I am not pursuaded by the merge suggestions; perhaps it could be addressed somewhere but exactly where to do this has not been made clear at all. The merge suggestions are vague except for the first one by Hans Adler: This seems way to granular to be merged into Process (computing), and unless I am missing something, Unix shell does not discuss built-in commands and I don't see a logical place in that article to put it. I considered List of Unix utilities as a merger destination, but that list is presently limited to utilities as specified by IEEE Std 1003.1-2004 and it's not clear that this is one. Even if it is, it can be added there if and when someone provides a reference for it. Accurizer (talk) 11:14, 21 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 Akash Bangla. Article already exists, and sources for the target appear to exist. Suggest that this is a cleanup operation for the target article. Fritzpoll (talk) 15:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aakaash Bangla[edit]

Non-notable television network, advertising, no claims of notability, no references. My speedy delete tag was removed. Corvus cornix_talk 23:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete Per nom. (As usual, I hate to say that, but there is really nothing else to add.) J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 23:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I was not aware that there was another article with such a similar name in existance. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 14:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable and unreferenced, but it's hardly advertising. The only claims that could've been made for that were some badly chosen words, but that can be fix't easily. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 02:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nice example of why NOTE is broken. An article on an entire network can be put up for AfD in good faith because the network broadcasts in some language we don't speak (Bangla). More of a reason to delete parts of NOTE than this article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I resent your attacks, and request that you retract them. Corvus cornix_talk 15:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not trying to attack you, and I'm sorry. I know you are acting in good faith. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete As the article stands it has no assertion of notability, no verifiable third party sourcing. If policies or guidelines somewhere state that all stations are automatically notable (and I've missed it) than change the "D" to a "K". And for the record I'd "vote" the same way on an article with similar content even if they broadcast in English.Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is the title spelled differently from the usual? There seems to be plenty of references for a TV channel called Akash Bangla. -- Whpq (talk) 12:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Akash Bangla, which has a very good article. Kudos to Whpq for thinking "outside the box" on this one. Mandsford (talk) 16:13, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Babette Bombshell[edit]

Subject is a bit actor with three credited parts. He does not appear to meet the requirements of WP:NOTE. There are also no reliable sources - IMDB will give anyone a page, and the interview is with a blogger. NellieBly (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: portions of the article contain copyright material from imdb. Mind matrix 23:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Few credited roles, fails to satisfy WP:N, and contains copyright-infringing material. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 00:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fails to establish her notability. IMDB's reference for her is sparse as you can see here Artene50 (talk) 10:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He/She (the article uses both) doesn't appear to meet notability criteria under WP:BIO or WP:Entertainer. No reliable 3rd party sourcing doesn't hep the verifiability either. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:49, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Journal of Medical Update[edit]

I can't believe that any notable academic journal would be hosted at geocities.com or have such an ungrammatical name. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nominator. Looks dubious, and doesn't appear to pass the WP:N test. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 00:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete the best that can be said for it tis that its a major journal for the country, and that, in view of systematic bias, it should remain included. (And one might make a grammatical allowance for awkward titles of non-English origin, that's not a safe way to judge. But they have published very little, and it's not of much international significance. DGG (talk) 03:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability and verifiability guidelines. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no showing that this meets the website notability guidelines. But comment: prejudice against the Geocities host shouldn't really play a part in this: nothing about being hosted on Geocities precludes a site from meeting those guidelines. For a likely low-traffic site like this, it may be a highly cost effective choice. The goal seems praiseworthy; the individual articles plausible insofar as I can understand them. Nor should the fact that it's unlikely that the host is a native English speaker be held against it. But the real problem is that as far as I can tell this is inded a low-traffic site, without independent commentary specifically about the site itself. Note also that citations to articles hosted here would not make a case under the guideline as written. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:22, 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 Redirect to Ottawa-Carleton District School Board--JForget 23:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert hopkins public school[edit]

Delete two-line unsourced article about a school without indication that it is a secondary school or is otherwise notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete.~~ Redirect. The school's website says it's K-6, so I~~'d normally~~ recommend a redirect to the school district~~; however, we don't seem to have that article~~. I don't see any indication that it's notable beyond being a school. AnturiaethwrTalk 23:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC) Changed to redirect because the school district article apparently does exist; I must have been having search problems or something, because I searched for it under several titles that are long-standing redirects. Weird. AnturiaethwrTalk 03:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GreenJoe 23:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Anturiaethwr. The usual practice is to redirect to the appropirate school district, but since there isn't such an article, there's nothing left to do but delete. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 00:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is a NN secondary school. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, The school district article does exist: Ottawa-Carleton District School Board and other options are always the locality like Beacon Hill, Ottawa or Education in XXX or creating the district article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weird, I couldn't find it before. I'll change my !vote. AnturiaethwrTalk 03:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Beacon Hill, Ottawa where it can be discussed in context until sufficient sourced content justifies a break-out. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ottawa-Carleton District School Board per usual practice. DigitalC (talk) 06:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ottawa-Carleton District School Board. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or in need of major expansion. There is nothing much to this article, unless it can be expanded and proof its notability, I'd say delete. Smcafirst the Roadgeek (Road talk) at 22:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ottawa-Carleton District School Board. Also create a redirect from the school's proper name, Robert Hopkins Public School. Mind matrix 23:41, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bedlam in Belgium[edit]

Blatant reproduction of a previously deleted article. Non-notable album track article with no sourced information not already available at Flick of the Switch. Prod removed by creator. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a recreation of a prod-deleted article about a non-notable album lacking reliable sources. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 00:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Non-notable song. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:56, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodshed (rapper)[edit]

Non-notable rapper. Being related to someone famous does not make you famous. Corvus cornix_talk 22:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Notability is not inherited. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 00:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MUSIC & Notability is not inherited. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per > Esradekan Gibb . Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:58, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sonoma presentation school[edit]

Delete unreferenced article about a school which is poorly written and contains no indication that the school is secondary or otherwise notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N and WP:V. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Content-free and non-notable. Alternately, redirect to a district article. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:36, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

La Palma (Barrio)[edit]

Delete unsourced, nothing to indicate that this barrio (neighborhood) is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if nothing else is added. The information already exists on San Benito, TX, namely that La Palma is a barrio in San Benito, TX. « D. Trebbien (talk) 19:40 2008 June 17 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no actual assertion of notability (other than saying it is a notable barrio). Fails WP:N and WP:V. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:01, 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-phone[edit]

If verbosity and original research removed, nothing left to warrant an encyclopedic article beyond wiktionary Mukadderat (talk) 22:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - maybe a soft redirect to wikitionary would be appropriate? --T-rex 22:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And the purpose if this redirect is...? Mukadderat (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to wikt per T-rex. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 00:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Also, this is not a commonly wikified word. As stated in Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects#Soft redirects from Wikipedia to a sister project, "Please keep in mind that only commonly wikified words should become soft redirects. We don't need a soft redirect for every possible word or phrase to be included in Wikipedia." Accurizer (talk) 11:33, 21 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael A. Jackson (sheriff)[edit]

Notability has not been established. Tagged three weeks ago, removed yesterday,[3] and when asked for clarification on where notability was "debated and established", I was directed to the history.[4] Explanation disputed on my talk.[5] LaraLove|Talk 22:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability neither asserted nor proven. Corvus cornix_talk 22:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No secondary source evidence of notability. Kevin (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability. Keep. Per my thoughts below and the updating of the article. Rnb (talk) 23:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is a stub and WP:N is not a policy, it is a guideline. That being said, this person is an elected official and elected officials are notable by default. Since this article causes no harm and is very neutral, I see no reason why it should be deleted. It is a model of how good biographies start off. Let it have more time! Perhaps someone in the good sheriff's hometown could provide some newspaper cites? And a photograph perhaps? --Dragon695 (talk) 03:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POLITICIAN seems to disagree with the idea that "elected officials are notable by default." Rnb (talk) 04:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete unless "Jackson is also the President of the Maryland Sheriff's Association" is an assertion of notability the article fails the notability criteria. Simply being an elected official doesn't make you notable (you still need to be a notable elected official). The person fails WP:BIO, WP:N, WP:POLITICIAN, and probably a few more I'm not fully aware of yet. The article doesn't appear to have been improved in establishing notability or reliable 3rd party sourcing for said notability and simply pointing someone to the history doesn't equate to debating or establishing notability. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Interesting. A sheriff in the US is often the senior law enforcement officer and often the most powerful single elected official in a county. We probably need to modify/create a guideline for sheriffs. In Duval County, Florida, the JSO provides police services for 3/4 of a million people. In Pinellas County, the PCSO provides services to nearly a million people. In smaller or less populous areas, the sheriff's office is the law enforcement agency. The holder of such an important office should probably be notable. At any rate, while the subject does not meet WP:POLITICIAN, it might be an example ofWP:IAR to keep this anyway. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 22:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think on the surface it makes sense that the head law enforcement officer for a large number of people would be notable, but according to Sheriffs in the United States, there are around 3,500 sheriffs in the country and I can't imagine that all of them are notable. In my mind, if it would be accurate to update this article with the assertion that the area he is a sheriff for is large or somehow significant (I've never heard of the area in question, myself, so I don't know whether or not that's true) then the article would probably be worth keeping. Rnb (talk) 22:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've added notability to the subject and his jurisdiction. Hopefully this satisfies WP:N, WP:POLITICIAN, and WP:BIO! Cheers! --Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 02:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the references in the article are just about the county, the stadium, the harbor, or whatever, or are mere directory listings. Sheriffs are not inherently notable like state legislators. I see him mentioned in 2 articles whic are reliable and independent sources. Seems too weak to satisfy WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I added county facts to create notability for the subject's jurisdiction (i.e., as opposed to a no-name county in the middle of Yuck-Yuck, Mississippi with a minimal population). I have also added some awards the subject has received. Because of the notability points of the subject and his jurisdiction, the fact that the position is not inherently notable is a moot point. If anyone can see anything else that needs to be added please make a comment and I'll bring it up standards! Cheers!--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 23:02, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FOSD AHEAD[edit]

WP:NOT a repository for product documentation and how-to material. KurtRaschke (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Not encyclopedic. Mukadderat (talk) 22:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a how-to or demonstration. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 00:46, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Wind[edit]

The article was created by someone who may have a conflict of interest. All but one of the sources are from the company itself, and the remaining source describes a 33-employee local start-up. I did not find evidence that the company meets our notability criteria with a search through Google News. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC) FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of this page, I do not believe the National Wind entry should be deleted. The purpose of creating this page was not promotional and, in my opinion, does not violate Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. I created this page because National Wind had contacted various landowners near where I live, which prompted me to do research on the wind energy industry and the specifically National Wind.

Wind energy is a rapidly expanding industry in the United States, and for various economic and environmental reasons, it's posed to remain lucrative for decades to come. After doing my research, I realized the community-based wind energy model benefits local citizens and economies far more than the average out-for-profit development does. The problem was that there was no information on Wikipedia that dealt with the differences between the two different business models.

Therefore, I created a page for National Wind a few days ago, and I recently authored a page titled Community Wind which deals with the overall community-based business model. With all due respect, I do not understand why the Wikipedia employee wrote:

“All but one of the sources are from the company itself, and the remaining source describes a 33-employee local start-up. I did not find evidence that the company meets our notability criteria with a search through Google News.

If you check the references, all but three of the sources are published article from outside news sources. In addition, if you type in “National Wind” in a Google News search, there are four news stories on the first page of results that deal exclusively with the company. As mentioned in the article, National Wind was recently featured on the font page of the business section of the Star Tribune, Minnesota’s largest newspaper.

More importantly, it is hard to deny the relevance of the community wind movement or specifically National Wind, the industry’s clear leader. I do not feel the site is overly promotional or biased. The article's language is objective and nearly every potentially contested fact is properly sourced.

I hope Wikipedia reconsiders and does not delete the National Wind page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdsteinberg (talk • contribs) 22:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: CEO of this company is named Steinberg. Bdsteinberg, are you related? Please reveal your conflict of interest if so. Corvus cornix_talk 22:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes parts of this read like a press release, and I have no opinion on the COI suspicions. But, the sources present in the article strike me as good enough to preserve the article, at least for now - noting that one of the business journal articles is incognito under a National Wind link (its a PDF reprint). Townlake (talk) 01:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - coming from the Energy Industry (once upon a time) I have to say it does read like an advertisement to me. However, the references seem to be okay (though they could be improved). I think the article could be improved from a language standpoint and the COI thing doesn't mean it needs deletion. Unfortunately, I'm not sure the subject meets the notability policies and guidelines (WP:CORP in particular). Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stub and keep. There is a great deal of advertising style language in here that needs to be edited out. On the other hand, the business is operating in a field that seems likely to generate public interest and disinterested commentary, and it does seem to have already done so. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Smerdis seems to have it right. Some of the links to National Wind's own website are to reprints of local press articles, so are much more useful than they look at first sight, though I can't find a mention of National Wind in the Twin Cities Business reprint (help me.) While its model of community co-ownership is unusual (unique?), I would like to see it do something that gets it into the national press (not just trade press), but with 33 employees doing project management and property development, that may not be soon. When it does, someone will be justified in creating a Wikipedia article. There is no guideline to prevent me from saying keep per WP:CORP, but I think AfD precedent does. See Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)#Local notability for more. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Helping The article's yellow-highlighted sections cite observations from one of National Wind's principals (Pelstring) vis-a-vis wind energy development progress. National Wind isn't mentioned by name in that article unless I'm missing it; this wouldn't work as the only source for the article, and the way the article is described in the article is misleading / needs fixing... but it does relate and work as one source in a framework of many. Townlake (talk) 16:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the help! --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The language is a little promotional, but I looked into the company and they are definitely relevant enough to have a Wikipedia article. If you look at the In the News portion of National Wind's website, you'll see links to a fairly extensive amount of press coverage. The references and language need to be tweaked, but the article should not be deleted. Trichrome (talk 17:09 17,June 2008 (UTC)
- It is a long In the News page linked above (thanks btw) but it seems to be either Minnesota or Iowa news, or trade press, which doesn't change my view, though others are entitled to change theirs. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:51, 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 speedily deleted by another admin.. Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lin Pei Fen[edit]

Delete unsourced one-liner for a local radio personality. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no claim to be notable --T-rex 22:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability - tagged for speedy deletion. Kevin (talk) 23:43, 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 speedy deleted under WP:CSD#A7 for being about a group of people, which is what a church is, while failing to assert any significance or importance in the one sentence it had. (I also failed to find any sources in a google search.) GRBerry 13:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St. Antony's Forane Church[edit]

Delete nothing to indicate that this church is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:56, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jet Delivery[edit]

Queried speedy delete. Its author claims notability. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article contains no independent sources. 5:15 23:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am the article’s original author and I would just like to say a few things. I don’t believe that this article promotes any entity (namely, Jet Delivery) anymore than the quantum filed theory article promotes quantum field theory. Or more specific to the industry in question, any more than the UPS, FedEx and DHL articles promote those companies. That is, the article was written objectively, and from an unbiased frame-of-reference. I know the reference section needs some updating (I’m working on it, but also hoping that other people can help me since there's a ton of information on Jet Delivery out there). Even though everything in this article has not "yet" been verified, everything in this article is verifiable (which is one of the distinction Wikipedia.org brings out here: [6]. It says, "...it is important to not just consider whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be.") Anyway, I hope the community can see the value of having an encyclopedia article on Jet Delivery because the company is over 50yrs old and has been growing rapidly in the past few years. There is absolutely nothing temporary about this company and they’ve been leading same-day shipping industry since the early 80s (in front of FedEx, UPS and DHL). If anyone has any ideas on how this page can be improved, please let me know. Or feel free to just change it! Bbarbata (talk) 00:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets 5 pillars. Unbiased and articulates the differences between the 50’s and modern day business. Jbarbata (talk) 00:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the way forward for you is first to declare your relationship with the company (I assume you are related to CEO Michael Barbata). Then you need to provide reliable secondary sources to show that the company is notable. Kevin (talk) 09:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin thank you for your constructive assistance. You are correct with you assumption that I am related to the CEO and my brother is actually the writer of the wikipedia article. I do understand the notability concern. I have forwarded bbarbata some independent secondary references to post, in hopes that it will help to community see some notability. Jbarbata (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Notability not only not established by the article but, both Google and Google News shows notability can't be readily established. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So I’ve been working on the third-party references, and according to wikipedia’s definition of notability (Notability) it seems to me that there’s significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, which should merit notability. Wikipedia claims "significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. It seems like the criteria has now been met. Would you mind reevaluating the article? If something is still wrong, please let me know and, if possible, I’ll fix it. Thanks. Bbarbata (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a look at the references added, and I feel that they still fall short of proving notability. Only the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin (at highbeam.com) is more than a trivial mention or press release. If there is another similar source then it can be a argued that there are multiple independant sources. As to some of the other comments here, once you get below the history section it does start to read more like promotional material. The only way around that is to reference more, i.e. if someone has written about SmartFlight then you could paraphrase that. Kevin (talk) 22:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Kevin. I'll work on that. I really appreciate you trying to help and thanks for the examples. Bbarbata (talk) 23:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. Zero evidence of notability from reliable and independent tertiary or secondary sources. Wikipedia can not be its own source; neither are the owners' web sites independent. We are not a directory of all 4,500 fastest growing companies in the United States. Bearian (talk) 15:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the links to Notability and reliable sources. I will admit, you were right and the previous references looked pretty sorry. Let me know what you think of the new references, and if they are up to par.
  Also, my reference to Inc.com’s 5000 fastest growing businesses was not an attempt to make Wikipedia a directory of fast growing businesses; it was an attempt to show that a valued source in the business community (inc.com) has included Jet Delivery in a category which makes up less that half of 1% of every privately held company in the United States. Thanks for your help.
  Oh yeah, what looked like spam in the article? Was it the language, pictures, or the link to the website? I can remove the website link if that will help. Or even rewrite sections that contain spam-like language. Bbarbata (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. Also not notable. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I’m interested in what looks like spam to you. I’ve read through the Wikipedia:Spam page, and the only thing that seems to fall into the spam category is the link to the website. It’s not a problem if that needs to be removed. Everything else, though, seems like it should be fine to me – it’s not promoting any products, services or anything that has to do with public relations. Thanks for the help. Bbarbata (talk) 21:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that someone sharing your same last name (probably a family member, or maybe it's you) runs this company, according to the company web site, you shouldn't have anything at all to do with this article because it violates Wikipedia's policies against conflict of interest. To me, this is clear evidence that this is promotional material, nothing more. As such, it really should be deleted immediately, this AFD notwithstanding. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 22:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check that...reading above, you admit that the President/CEO of the company wrote the article and that you are related. Clearly...without question, this is a total violation of WP:COI. This article should be deleted immediately. You folks had no business adding this to Wikipedia in the first place because of your obvious conflict of interest. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 22:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First off, where exactly do I admit that the President/CEO of the company wrote the article? I wrote the article, and I'm am not the President/CEO/Vice President/Janitor/Whatever.

The COI page states, "If you do write an article on an area in which you are personally involved, be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, third-party published sources, and beware of unintentional bias." I do not own the company, nor do I work at the company. The company belongs to my father and has been killing everyone in the same-day shipping industry lately. Since FedEx, BAX Global, DHL and UPS all have Wikipedia articles, and Jet Delivery is better than them as far as same-day shipping goes (yes, bias here, but not in the article), I though it would make a relevant article so I decided to do some research on the internet and talk to a few people who have been at the company for a while.

Thus far I have written an objective, "unbiased" (EVERYTHING is biased to some extent) encyclopedia article, cited reliable third-party sources, followed the five pillars and satisfied the requirements for Notability as defined by Wikipedia.org.

As far as COI goes, I have not once cited myself, gain nothing financially, make no legal gains, am not promoting myself nor am I campaigning. The only criterion met under COI is "close relationships". However, Wikipedia explicitly states, "Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias." I agree - closeness "may" incline one towards bias. Though, up to this point, not one community member has pointed out any bias, nor has any member given a concrete example of this article being spam. Bbarbata (talk) 23:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not, but it sure looks fishy. And you know what they say...if it looks fishy (in this case, your obvious relationship to the company doesn't add crediblity. Rather, it seriously detracts from it), it usually is. I'm not accusing you of anything. But IMHO, it really looks bad that the owner of the company wrote the article, regardless of content. Think of it in terms of journalism. This would never pass muster. You may have perfectly noble motives. However, it has a strong appearance of self-promotion and using a free resource to do it, IMHO. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your brother isn't the President/Owner/CEO? Your earlier statement led me to believe that. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 23:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've made your point here. I think Bbarbata is trying to do the right thing. Kevin (talk) 23:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, if the owner (my father) wrote this article, then I would be much more inclined to agree that there is a COI. I understand your concern about my relation with the company as well. I really did try to write it as neutral as possible. Ha when I showed my father the published article (besides me having to explain to him what wikipedia is), he actually wanted me to change a lot of the article, but I explained that the article must be written from a neutral frame-of-reference. And my brother, Jbarbata, doesn't own the company. He works on the IT side at the company. Bbarbata (talk) 23:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True. But he DID ask. :-) -- Gmatsuda (talk) 23:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam and per everyone else. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:55, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Rob Smith[edit]

Delete unsourced BLP about an author just published his debut novel. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOTE. Warrush 21:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No assertion of notability and unsourced. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His book has been reviewed by The Guardian, The Times, The Independent, The Telegraph, Newsweek, USA Today ... and it's also been shortlisted for the inaugural Desmond Elliot Prize: [7], [8]. Plus he's been interviewed by The Guardian, New York Magazine and Metro. There are many reliable sources covering him and his book that could easily be added to the article. -- KittyRainbow (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Kitty has clearly established notability. I wonder how the nominator and others calling for deletion managed to miss those sources during their research? Phil Bridger (talk) 11:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete this article is totally useless as it stands -- totally unsourced. If you source the facts I would have said weak keep lacking the mention of notability. As it sits it fails to meet criteria for notability or for a stub. And, presumably he is living so it violates WP:BIO. EvanCarroll (talk) 05:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Clearly there are reliable sources on this author, the quality of the article should have no bearing on a discussion of the notability of the author. WP:DEL clearly states: If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion.--Captain-tucker (talk) 17:47, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Downtown Markham, Ontario[edit]

A very optimistic article about all the things that a proposed urban community will be, but isn't yet because it hasn't been completed. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enterprise Drive. (Yes, "proposed." That's what the article said when I nominated it.)

Now it does not say proposed. See my new edit. In fact, it is not proposed because it is under construction. Smcafirst the Roadgeek (Road talk) at 00:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. WillOakland (talk) 20:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a crystal ball anymore. Smcafirst the Roadgeek (Road talk) at 00:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which part is it that relates to WP:CRYSTAL? Everything are plans that are discussed in the past. All that is left crystal is the projected population, which is also approved by the Town of Markham as official projected population. As it stands, the history, the smart growth technology, the boundaries, the transportation, and the environmental sustainability are all official government plans. They are "almost certain to happen" (quoted from WP:CRYSTAL). There's such as an automobile, where one can travel to downtown markham to see all these happenings. There is also a tool called the internet. Before claiming it as a crystal ball, one should consider that the history has already happened in 1992 and in 2005, the smart growth technology has been all over the news and had been planned since 1992, the boundaries are set along with the plan, the transportation (GO, VIVA, 407) are all already established, environmental sustainability was also planned, as a negotiation between the Town of Markham and the builder Remington Group to reserve 72 acres of greenland. This plot of greenland is already reserved, and the area right now, if one is to observe, is already planted with tree seedlings. I don't see how crystal it is, other than the projected population. If the projected population does not meet Wikipedia's standard, then I'll delete it. But the rest of the article? Seems more like reality than hallucination from some crystal ball. Smcafirst the Roadgeek (Road talk) at 00:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 21:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well something that is under construction is not considered as WP:CRYSTAL. And something that is partly built is not crystal. Smcafirst the Roadgeek (Road talk) at 00:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment depending on how notable the plan for this community is, an article discussing the plans as they are today (rather than the community as it is planned to be in the future) might be worth keeping, but it would take a strong rewrite to address the WP:CRYSTAL tone. NoDepositNoReturn (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One reliable source would be from the Toronto Star stating how important this community is. The Toronto Star article gives viewpoint from every single prospective of people involved in the Downtown Markham project. It states the importance of Downtown Markham within the article's scope. Smcafirst the Roadgeek (Road talk) at 00:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there's a tangential discussion about this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enterprise Drive. Mind matrix 22:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - although I think this is a notable subject, there is little in the current article that is sufficiently convincing to keep it. Reliance on one source, the developer's website for the planned community, is inadequate per WP:RS. I'm certain there should be a few reliable sources which discuss the nature of the planned community, and the reason for its existence, in reasonable depth. In fact, it has been the centre of discussion and debate regarding new techniques in urban planning, so it's just a matter of finding these sources. I'm willing to give interested editors time to find and incorporate them into the article in order to salvage it, but I'll refrain from rating this as a keep until I see evidence of this. As is stands, this article doesn't merit inclusion in Wikipedia. Mindmatrix 22:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have found some very reliable source stating Downtown Markham's importance. I have incorporated these sources to the article. If you think that is still inadequate for Wikipedia, let me know. I'll search for more. Here are some of the new sources added, the Town of Markham, the Guelph Civic League, and the Toronto Star. Smcafirst the Roadgeek (Road talk) at 00:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This article is NOT a crystal ball. As per NoDepositNoReturn said, the article actually discusses plans that are discussed years ago in the Markham Town Council. It's actual, under construction, it's current, and will span into the future. It is an official plan, not that I make it up and predict about the future of Downtown Markham. Any variation of the plan will be included here. If so, you said, this is a Crystal Ball article, there are many other more planned community articles. Planned communities are NOT crystal balls. These articles reflect official plans from the government. As well, many parts of the article, such as the Toll Highway, Bus Rapid Transit, the road Enterprise Road, the Honeywell and Motorola and the apartments are all built. They are reality, not some hallucination we see in a crystal ball. An extra point, Enterprise Road and Downtown Markham is home to an European architectural style that is unique across the GTA. Nowhere in the GTA can one find such architectural style. Villages centre, such as Old Markham Village, are considered as American Small-Town Style. Smcafirst the Roadgeek (Road talk) at 00:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps I wasn't clear enough that the crystal ball aspect is the assertion that the community will be successful enough and influential enough to justify having an article about it, when it isn't routine for Wikipedia to have articles about every land development. WillOakland (talk) 01:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The [Toronto Star article has the answer and the different perspectives to that. 3 bus routes, one highway, one major road, GO train, do you think a traffic-dependent community will work? I think so. Plus the community's small area, it only takes one's logical sense to know that. If that does not satisfy one's needs, there is always the Toronto Star article. Smcafirst the Roadgeek (Road talk) at 02:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Firstly, even a not-yet-built community within the third largest city in Toronto is going to be notable whether it succeeds or fails. Toronto, folks. But secondly, I think the article itself needs to be almost completely rewritten to eliminate WP:CRYSTAL -- it talks about the population in the future. That's about as WP:CRYSTAL as it comes. Rather than read like a real estate brochure, this should describe the Downtown Markham project -- something that currently exists. If it can't be done, then Delete and wait for someone to recreate it who can write factually. NoDepositNoReturn (talk) 03:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enterprise Drive can be resolved by a single line addition to this article stating "The main street in Downtown Markham is Enterprise Drive, of which X kilometers have been already laid." I see no reason why they need to be split at this time, and they can always be split later. NoDepositNoReturn (talk) 03:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please list out everything that is WP:CRYSTAL, I'll eliminate them now. However, it seems to me that only the population part is crystal. The introduction may contain traces of crystal, about the future CBD. Other parts remain just fine. I mean, history has already happened. The transportation network is currently existing, the Smart Growth strategy was officially in the plan when the Town of Markham laid it out, and that includes the environmental sustainability. Please list the CRYSTAL items out and I'll rewrite it. Thank you. Smcafirst the Roadgeek (Road talk) at 12:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The population on the infobox have already been "resetted" to 0, to satisfy WP:CRYSTAL. But, I have a question. When all subdivisions have a plan, don't they have a projected population? As long as I cite reliable source, wouldn't including the future projected population be okay? Just a thought. I have removed most of the WP:Crystal related in the article. Smcafirst the Roadgeek (Road talk) at 13:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There seems to be articles on all the subsections of Markham, and since this is coming on line, it might as well stay, to be updated later.Ron B. Thomson (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: in the infobox, the image_dot_map is using the Georgina Island version, with Georgina Island clearly coloured. A proper version of this map needs to be created.Ron B. Thomson (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just did it myself.Ron B. Thomson (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google News finds plenty of coverage to demonstrate notability. There's nothing wrong with writing about things such as projected population and facilities as long as it is made clear that this information is projected, not actual, and it states who it is projected by. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Media coverage, major development. Using WP:CRYSTAL as a tool for determining if this is a viable article is invalidated by the fact construction is underway. Crystal ball-related comments contained within the article (if any) are content issues that can be addressed accordingly if they haven't been already. 23skidoo (talk) 14:17, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable speakers at Tulane University[edit]

Unencyclopaedic listcruft; merely speaking at a particular place is entirely non notable and not really important in the speakers' lives; there's no reason to have a compilation of all those who happened to give a speech in the same place. --Rory096 20:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR - this is clearly a collection of loosely related topics, as the entries have nothing else in common aside from the fact that they spoke at Tulane. Shereth 20:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Shereth and also due to the lack of any way to determine who's notable and who isn't in this context. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Shereth Bulldog123 (talk) 22:44, 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 redirect to Book of Mormon#Moroni's Promise. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moroni's promise[edit]

I can find no evidence of real-world notability for this phrase. There are plenty of ghits for it, but I'm not turning up any reliables sources for this one, just a lot of primary sources from LDS websites and blogs. Furthermore, the article is little more than a block quotation and a brief snipped explaining the name. At best this could be merged somewhere, but even then, I'm not at all certain Wikipedia is the place for this kind of stuff - it's borderline promotional material. Shereth 20:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to ~~LDS Church~~ / Question Was this article given a prod or suggestion tag prior to AfD listing? I didn't see a prod or suggestion tag in the history though I could be wrong. I'm not sure how "inside" this term is, and I know your intentions are good, but it might have been useful to encourage interested editors from the LDS project to find good cites prior to listing here. Townlake (talk) 20:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Update Merge / Redirect per Good Ol'factory below. Townlake (talk) 03:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It had been tagged in May 2007 for improved references and sat for 6 months with no help until an IP edit removed the tag. I did not see how adding a tag this time around would result in anything better. Shereth 21:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - didn't notice that on earlier reading, I see it now. I'd rather see this merged than deleted based on my own perspective, but we'll see what others say. Townlake (talk) 21:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Book of Mormon#Moroni's Promise. I work in the Latter Day Saint project, and I don't think the subject of this article is notable enough to warrant a self-standing article — it can easily be merged into the already existing section at Book of Mormon. (More churches than just the LDS Church use the Book of Mormon, so it's probably better to merge to Book of Mormon#Moroni's Promise than LDS Church.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the information here is already at Book of Mormon#Moroni's Promise. No need to merge - it is essentially already been done.--Descartes1979 (talk) 04:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Book of Mormon#Moroni's Promise as a reasonable search term. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard this used to me by LDS missionaries, so I'm not surprised to see it be fairly commonly used. The article as it stands now is unsourced, so unmergable. This book, which has been cited repeatedly uses it solely for the promise to Joseph Smith that he would find the gold plates, and is not discussing the topic of the article, so should be disregarded. This book uses it in this sense and could be a source, but google scholar isn't aware that it has been cited before and it published by Lulu.com, so essentially self-published by the author. I'd discard. This book also uses the phrase, but again google scholar isn't aware of any citations and it is also from Lulu.com, so self-published and I'd discard. Much better, page 122 of The Complete Idiot's Guide to Understanding Mormonism has a small section on the promise that describes it as "critical to LDS philosophy". If it is critical, there ought to be good sources. But I didn't find any better sources myself. If the sourcing doesn't amazingly improve soon, I recommend delete then redirect as a plausible search term, with no merge occuring. GRBerry 19:52, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goal Line Blitz[edit]

Has no assertion of notability. Has been speedied before. seresin (public computer) 19:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sure I've come across a notablilty guideline for RPGs. But this one looks like it fails it. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 19:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I deleted this once as a G4 (recreation), but I did find at least one review of it (in a game site I've never heard of), and Google suggests that it's a popular forum topic. My take is that it has borderline notability at the moment, but is likely to become increasingly notable. I usually lean toward "keep" if the notability is borderline. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no verifiable notability yet. Mukadderat (talk) 22:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I find lots of ghits but, none which appear to be from reliable 3rd party sources (mostly being blogs/forums). Possibly nearly notable but, notability needs to be verifiable through reliable 3rd party sourcing. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Goalline Blitz is in a similar position to that of Hattrick when that game first had a Wikipedia entry created. Obviously they are on two different levels today, but Hattrick's usage in 2003 was similar in number to GLB's today. That said, I would also support deletion under "Will it stand the test of time" thinking. JeffHCross (talk) 05:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, basically, your argument for keeping the article is that it is similar to the state of another article in its early stages, and that article became notable, so this one will too? I'm not seeing it. seresin (public computer) 06:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There is one thing that Goalline Blitz has going for it. If you type in "american football mmorpg" in google, it's the only thing that pops out. Now certainly this "first american football mmorpg" status isn't third-party certifiable, but that is somewhat notable. Clearly, the article itself is poor, but I think we would do well to give a little bit more time. Kinglehr (talk) 06:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, It is a very popular game that is just getting larger and larger. More and more people are going to want to know about it. This is a must keep.--Flete17 (talk) 05:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Only if the page is rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Demonicangel82 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I fail to see how a game with over 150,000 players is not notable.--IU2002 (talk) 06:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep substantial return on google search, sizable and growing population. Notable links per ohnoitsjamie. Comparison to Hattrick by JeffHCross is relevant - this article's subject is now the second largest massively online sport simulator after Hattrick. Othercrapexists isn't a reason to delete as the excellent meaning of that essay has been horribly corrupted to mean comparisons are never valid but comparing No 1 and No 2 in a genre surely is a relevant and valid comparitor. MLA (talk) 06:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The numbers/size make it notable, there's quite a few games with much smaller player bases listed on Wikipedia. Also,MPOGD did a review of it as well. Even if it's borderline, it's trending up. Warhawk137 (talk) 12:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I had recommended this article for deletion/speedy deletion before, when it was essentially an ad. But it has improved a lot and a game with 150k people definitely deserves to be kept if it follows WP:NPOV. NuclearWarfare (talk) 04:04, 21 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kickoff Goal[edit]

No references. Barely and Google hits. Doesn't seem to be notable. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wow. I'm too nice to call it VG cruft. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 19:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sounds like a vanity article or something made up at home one day if you ask me. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 22:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no references. no notability. --T-rex 22:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable apparent OR/How to with no reliable third party sourcing. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with fire. No evidence of notability, an online search reveals no references, seems as if it fails WP:NFT, WP:OR, and WP:NOT#GUIDE. --Craw-daddy | T | 16:42, 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 Speedy delete g3, vandalism. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slavodonia[edit]

Proposed new name for the Republic of Macedonia. The external links suggest this is an hoax. Certainly the Google hits suggest that it is not notable. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:45, 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.--Kubigula (talk) 04:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cambusbarron Rovers F.C.[edit]

non-notable amateur league side Emoscopes ^Talk 19:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete non-notable. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as above. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Does the Scottish Amateur Cup count as a national competition (like the FA Vase)? If so, would this be enough to make the club notable, or does the fact that it's an amateur competition count against it? Bettia (talk) 11:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's notable within Scottish football at all. That's reflected by the fact that hardly any of the recent winners have their own article. One of those is Queen's Park, who are a senior league club and won the Scottish Cup several times back in the day. The Scottish Junior Cup and the former Scottish Qualifying Cup are / were the only really notable cups outside the three professional cups. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Fair point about the Amateur Cup, but when was the last time they were in that competition? They haven't won since 1978. JMalky (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:N#Notability is not temporary. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per arguments above, winning the Scottish Amateur Cup doesn't make the club notable. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:18, 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, consensus is that the sources found do meet the WP:WEB notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 12:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FunOrb[edit]

Is not notable. There are millions of sites just like this, and the only real hype it has gotten is from the runescape community. If you google it, the hits are from runescape based, fansites. BUT, based on the april 8 poll, even the community at runescape does not play it, and has only heard of it from runescape itself. I think this article would be best merged into Jagex Warrush 19:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Fails WP:WEB. *Merge Per RS Ren. With jagex, then split off when you feel it's appropriate. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 19:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it is sufficiently notable for its own article. It has made it onto a fair number of news websites. It is the second major release from one the UK's largest independent developer by staff level, and they intend to go into the mobile phone games market meaning the brand is greater than for just a gaming arcade. It is also interesting because of it uses underlying Java technology as opposed to the more common Flash. I think the article has a fair amount of room for expansion, such as more detailed information on games, more history and information from interviews and more games as they are released. If we merged it with the Jagex article then it'd probably soon have to be split anyway. --RS Ren (talk) 19:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a great site, more organized that many "Arcade" game sites. You have to give it time, it is currently developing. --Ballyscoff (talk) 20:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC) Note- Please read WP:DP before using articles for deletion. Warrush[reply]

Comment Articles relating to FunOrb in the media: [9][10][11][12]. --RS Ren (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Theres NOTHING notable about this site. There have been java scripted games before it, and theres been mobile phone arcade games as well. Just because Jagex releases it doesn't mean it should have its own article. Its not even in the top 200 on google search, online games. Until this site becomes larger, or does something worth mentioning, it should stay on Jagex. Warrush

Merge There is nothing particularly unique or special about this site, merge into a smaller article in Jagex. The only reason that it is popular in the first place is that it has a connection to Jagex, so that's where it should go. BinaryWeapon (talk) 21:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ballyscoff's keep arguments. Corvus cornix_talk 22:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The web notability guidelines suggest, "...web-specific content is deemed notable based on meeting any one of the following criteria. 1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." The articles on Gamasutra and Eurogamer are non-trivial third party reliable sources. It's not for us to judge if the site is unique or special. Two third party reliable news sources have decided it's worth of coverage, therefore it's appropriate for Wikipedia to cover. — Alan De Smet | Talk 23:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes but it also has to pass the notability content. Specifically, this stands out- Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability. The Wikimedia project Wikinews covers topics of present news coverage. The news reports that have been displayed are that of Jagex releasing the site. Warrush
- I'm unfamiliar with the guidelines or policies you're referring to. I'd be interested in reading up on them. Can you direct me to them? — Alan De Smet | Talk 19:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC) *Note- wp:n Warrush[reply]
Keep Multiple reliable sources cover the site in dedicated articles, that's what notability asks for and that's what it's got. Someoneanother 04:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And another [13]. Someone another 05:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Someone another 04:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There may be 'millions' of web sites like this as stated by Warrush, but most of them are not covered by media which is why they are not suitable for Wikipedia. This site does have reliable sources, which I think is enough to be notable. Also, the web site is relatively new and may yet develop, and it would be a waste to delete or possibly even merge this article only to create the article again at a later date. Also Warrush, can you actually provide any examples of similar sites which have just as much media coverage but are not suitable for Wikipedia? If not, I see no reason to delete or even merge this article. gm_matthew (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Which is the point in which i'm making. As I have stated, this website is ONLY known for its affiliation with jagex and runescape, it is not known for its online hits or anything else for that matter. The "coverage" it is getting is from runescape fansites and/or business/game business sites stating it is being released. As WP:N states, an article is not notable if the sources are only about one event, and that event in this case is that jagex is releasing the site. Warrush

Keep - It's fairly notable, a google search returns up many media articles about the website unlike others. The article needs some work done on it, and it would be silly to delete it now in my opinion. ۩ Dracion ۩ ✎ ✉ 19:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC) Note- Author of the article. Warrush[reply]
Keep - FunOrb has only been out 4 months give it time to grow. FunOrb is a Jagex product and is linked to RuneScape, removing this would be bad for the Runescape Article and players wondering what FunOrb is. TehKittyCat (talk) 22:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC) Note- Please read WP:DP before using articles for deletion. Warrush[reply]
Delete per Corvus, add one sentence to the Jagex article and wait a year. Alternatively, print it as a great little marketing brochure. Franamax (talk) 19:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep i have to agree here. the article is about 4 months old so we need to give it time to expand. or we could just merge it with another article.--Hawkey131 (talk) 22:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The site is continuing to get articles written about it in the gaming pressFlashNerdX (talk) 10:38, 21 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 --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 11:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Courage the Cowardly Dog (character)[edit]

Whilst he is the lead character of the show, there is never going to be enough for a whole article on him. The infobox itself demonstrates that as it is just the box for the show (which is notable) Ged UK (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

redirect There is no need to nominate this for deletion. If there is not enough content simply make it a redirect to the show. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per DJ Clayworth, although I recommend the list of characters (preferably his section) as the target. AnturiaethwrTalk 00:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I'm a huge fan of the show, this character is already adequately described in the above articles, and I'm not seeing enough evidence of separate notability to justify a stand-alone article. The only reason I'm saying delete instead of redirect is that this isn't a likely search term -- if people are looking for the character, they will type in Courage the Cowardly Dog and not add "(character)" to the search.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed with Fabrictramp, no way anyone will type it fully as it is there and it'd be creating a fairly unlikely redirect treelo _talk 02:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks reliable sources and doesn't establish independent notability and as such, is eligible for deletion. I also think this would be an unlikely search term. Seraphim♥Whipp 11:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I actually think it's a possible search term; I often use parentheses like that in searches when I think I'll get more than one result. That said, I would agree that a redirect isn't critical, since there are no incoming links that aren't related to deletion. AnturiaethwrTalk 15:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable and unlikely search item. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:44, 21 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 notability and copyvio concerns. Davewild (talk) 19:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ernesto Cantu[edit]

Practically no WP:A does not show notability Triwbe (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not show external sources, examples of his work. In all, WP:NN. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 19:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - cut 'n' paste of material found on [14] and [15]. Remove the copyvios and there wouldn't be much left. B.Wind (talk) 02:39, 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 Result is a mess to clean up, but doesn't seem to be anything to delete. I'll try to untangle things.... Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, refreshing. Already cleaned up during AFD. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skybox[edit]

~~Non-notable band, only sources are their Last.fm page. Wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle for your band.~~

~~I am also nominating the article on their debut album, Arco Iris (album) under the same criteria. TheLetterM (talk) 19:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)~~ With the new sources provided per Paul Erik, I am withdrawing my nomination for the article's deletion, provided that the Skybox page be reverted to its previous state as a disambig page, the band article moved to Skybox (band), and the sources be cited in the article. TheLetterM (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to WP:MUSIC (or whatever the shortcut is), indie bands need to have several major, widely popular and charting releases. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 19:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7: Article about a band which does not assert notability. A google search for coverage in reliable sources turned up nothing. Skomorokh 20:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and move per Paul Erik
Revert back to previous state Was a proper disambiguation page about luxury boxes and the trading card company and a video game construction term. This band is unnotable and there was no need to relocate that convenient disambig for one band that should've gone to Skybox (band). Nate • (chatter) 20:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to disambiguation page, per above. FYI, it's always good to check an article's history before bringing it to AFD. Zagalejo^^^ 21:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to dab page. I see nothing useful in the first or last 100 of the 496 unique Ghits for skybox +indie (no quotes). Even if I'm wrong and the band is notable, it is not notable enough to be the main entry on "skybox." AnturiaethwrTalk 23:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to dab page Necessary dab for a term that has multiple definitions. The band isn't notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to dab page, non-notable band. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to dab page if the band is notable or becomes notable the article should be created as Skybox (band). Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Arco Iris (album) as a non-notable album and change the Arco Iris dab page back to the one about the band of the same name. Making sure to name the band page Arco Iris (band). Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Skybox (band). Sources that help to establish this band's notability under WP:MUSIC criterion #1 include this article in The Arizona Republic, and a review of their album in Billboard (Dec 2, 2006. Vol. 118, Iss. 48; p. 40); see here. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Skybox (band) per Paul Erik (the two cited articles, most notably the Billboard review, help satisfy WP:MUSIC) and move Skybox (disambiguation) to Skybox per WP:D and WP:MOSDAB. B.Wind (talk) 02:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Revert to dab page - as failing WP:MUSIC. TerriersFan (talk) 15:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I moved Skybox to Skybox (band), which is not notable enough to claim first rights, intending to clear up any resulting double redirects. I posted on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Untangle please for help with the tangle after having been slammed by sudden acute dyslexia :/ — Athaenara ✉ 16:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[Many thanks to TerriersFan for straightening out that problem. — Athaenara ✉ 18:00, 24 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skippy List[edit]

Original research about someone's joke of dubious notability. Laudak (talk) 18:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely not-notable. When are articles on lists notable? Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 19:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-per WP:NN, also only references are to the primary source, which is named after the article, and the other is a forum, which is not allowed as a reference per WP:V#SELF--SRX^--^Latino Heat 19:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Could not find any coverage of this topic in reliable sources via Google. Will change to keep if evidence of such coverage is forthcoming. Skomorokh 19:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional Delete for failing our Verifiability and Notability policies. Will happily support keeping this article if multiple reliable sources are found which are independent of the list author / webhost. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article may have been created as a prank. May be someone's original theory. Artene50 (talk) 10:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per Skomorokh and SHEFFIELDSTEEL. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. MrPrada (talk) 23:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Could you please elaborate on how you see WP:INDISCRIMINATE applying to this case? Thank you, Skomorokh 23:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Skippy's list is it self an indiscriminate collection of information, but merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. MrPrada (talk) 01:31, 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 --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 11:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SNES-Station[edit]

Software is absolutely non-notable (fails WP:N), and has no reliable sources (fails WP:RS). No matches in Google Books, article contains zero citations or references, and software appears to have been discontinued five years ago. Software appears to be nothing more than a port of SNES9x. There's no reason for WP to have articles on every port of SNES9x -- of which there are dozens. At best, maybe a footnote in the main SNES9x article would be appropriate, and that's pushing it.The muramasa (talk) 18:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failing WP:RS and WP:VIDEOGAME (i think that's the video game notability shortcut). Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 19:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-as there is no verifiability (WP:V) of the system, and is non-notable (WP:NN) and seems like a hack someone created off of the original SNES9x port, and per failing WP:VG/GL.--SRX^--^Latino Heat 19:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 04:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pomp & Circumstance Magazine[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Pomp & Circumstance Magazine

Utterly nonnotable magazine. A dozen of google hits Laudak (talk) 18:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No verifiable independent coverage from reliable sources that would demonstrate notability. WilliamH (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of WP:N My Google search revealed only 20 hits here almost all of which are not from independent reliable sources. This suggests the magazine is not notable. Artene50 (talk) 05:25, 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. Note that you may contact me or any administrator to request a copy of the page. Cenarium ^Talk 23:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of redundant expressions[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This is an arbitrary collection of phrases which are redundant. Nonencyclopedic original research. Non-maintainable. It survived AfD two years ago when wikipedia policies were lax. Laudak (talk) 18:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No OR, and policy is better now. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 19:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indiscriminate list of non-encyclopedic information, plus apparent original research. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nomination in invalid as it concerns the article's current, rather than potential state; likewise the above !votes errantly cite problems with the current article as reasons for deletion. Why would a referenced list of redundant expressions be worthy of deletion, given that the topic the list pertains to is notable? Skomorokh 20:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- First, I did not mention issue of notability. Even if I, notability is not inherited in wikipedia. "Synonym" is notable. All your synonyms are not belong to us. Second, wikipedia lists are lists of articles rather than indiscriminate collections of information. Third, it is inherently non-maintainable. There are many ways to say something right, but infinitely more ways to screw it up. Finally, nomination is both about current and future state of the article. Mukadderat (talk) 23:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You might note this passage from WP:NOTINHERITED: "In addition, notability of a parent entity or topic (of a parent-child "tree") does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities. That is not to say that this is always the case (two of the notabilty guidelines, for books and music, do allow for inherited notability in exceptional circumstances), or that the subordinate topic cannot be mentioned in the encyclopedia whatsoever. Often, a separate article is created for formatting and display purposes; however, this does not imply an "inherited notability" per se, but is often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation, such as with books and albums." I consider this akin to a discography of a notable band. There is nothing indiscriminate about this list: it is to include cited redundant expressions, the nature of which is narrowly defined in the Redundancy (language) article and in the academic literature. It is not non-maintainable; there is no reason why sourced expressions cannot be added and unsourced expressions challenged in a non-arbitrary fashion. Skomorokh 23:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - "List of expressions" is not "child topic". It is not even topic. Discography of a band is finite inherent part of band. List of redundant phrases is not part of "redundancy". 2-3 examples in the main article is enough. There is joke and stupidity and baldness, but there will never be list of jokes, list of stupid people or even List of bald peoiple. The rules in WP:NOT precisely answers your "there is no reason why ... cannot". We don't have List of expressions used by Shakespeare, nor list of trees in the Sherwood forest, neither List of teen champions in biatlon. Mukadderat (talk) 23:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, canonical example of an indiscriminate list. WillOakland (talk) 21:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep somewhere. Maybe not in the article space, but we shouldn't just throw out useful information like this. Zagalejo^^^ 21:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe somewhere off Wikipedia? WillOakland (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can this be transwikied somewhere? Zagalejo^^^ 21:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, I meant off Wikimedia entirely, like, on a personal web site, because this article is original research with a dash of how-to (for writing) and therefore is not appropriate here. WillOakland (talk) 23:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Wiki-How, maybe? Zagalejo^^^ 00:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Wiki-Zagalejo. And I don't mean your user page. WillOakland (talk) 00:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Why can't I keep it in my userspace? I can tag it as an essay or something, and maybe reduce the list to items that are described as redundancies in external writing guides. Zagalejo^^^ 01:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Does Wiktionary do lists of examples? Alternatively, this could make a useful WP:MOS subpage! Skomorokh 21:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Tranwikiing an unreferenced heap is gross disservice. Wiktionary is not a dumpster for arbitrary wikipedia lists. Mukadderat (talk) 23:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not useful information. It is useless, because it is unreferenced and hence not reliable. I bet half of it is erroneous interpretation and original opinion and half of the remaining half is for language purists. Mukadderat (talk) 23:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll admit that a few of these are debatable, but many of these are self-evidently redundant (eg "ATM machine", "I personally", etc). Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Much of this content can be salvaged. Zagalejo^^^ 23:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - ATM machine is not "self-evidently redundant"; it is ""genetically redundant" and only in a given strict context. If people (not all of them are illiterate morons) say and write "ATM machine", this means the live language needs this and hence it is not redundant. Hey, man, just look into the "ATM" page! Mukadderat (talk) 23:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - What am I supposed to find at the ATM page? The phrase "ATM machine" is never used there. And are you arguing that if people use an expression, it isn't redundant? Zagalejo^^^ 23:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, that's what I wrote. In the ATM page you were supposed to find that the word "ATM" alone is insufficient to identify the thing called "ATM". I am arguing that your usage of "self-evidently" is not so self-evident. The whole stuff about the "ATM machine" in fact may constitute a good piece of "redundancy" article. And I am further arguing that this indiscriminate list taken out of context is more harmful than useful. But this is not my main point for deletion. Mukadderat (talk) 00:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        ATM is usually good enough by itself. If you're worried people will confuse ATM with "active traffic management", then you can just use the phrase "automated teller machine". There's no situation where you'll have to use "ATM machine". Zagalejo^^^ 00:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - There are plenty of sources that specifically mention "ATM machine" as a redundancy: [16], [17].
        Hehe you shoot yourself in the foot: the first ref specifically says "for those of us who consider these phrases redundant as wrong", meaning that redundancy is opinion rather than ironclad rule. Mukadderat (talk)
        Still, if enough people consider something wrong, it's best to avoid it when possible. Zagalejo^^^ 00:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Just for fun of the argument per se: nope. Earth moves, you know.:-) Mukadderat (talk) 00:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        LOL, fine. Zagalejo^^^ 01:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ~~Completely~~ Mostly unreferenced, with many of the listed items either so uncommonly used as to be not worth mentioning (e.g. "and etc.") or, even worse, flat-out wrong (e.g. "approve" does not mean the same thing as "approve of"). I'm sure someone put a lot of work into this, but I don't see how anything encyclopedic can be salvaged from it. Klausness (talk) 00:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not completely unreferenced (see also the References section), as dozens of the examples have references to their source. WP:SYN maybe, but not unreferenced. Skomorokh 00:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, not completely unreferenced -- there's a handful of references (though there are none for most entries), but many of those references are just attributions of quotes (rather than indicating that the expression in question is, in fact, considered redundant by a reliable source). And, as you say, it's definitely WP:OR. 00:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
    - So we are agreed that the current state of the article violates our core policies, but again, I would ask why it is that no improvements could be made to resolve the issues? Is there no possible form the article could take that would avoid OR? If there is, then there is no reason to delete; we can simply stub it to the references and build from there. Regards, Skomorokh 00:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I just don't see how it can be turned into a decent article without scrapping the whole thing and starting again from the beginning. But if someone wants to turn it into a stub with only referenced content (with the references indicating that an expression is considered redundant, not just that it's used by someone), I'll change my !vote to a "keep". I do generally try to err on the side of keeping articles, but this article seems to have so much misinformation in it (not to mention the mostly unspoken assumption that redundancy is a bad thing) that none of it can be trusted as it currently is. So I'd say it should be kept as a stub or deleted. Klausness (talk) 01:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Here is my suggestion. The current article redundancy sucks. If you find good references, you will have an occasion improve this article and add well-referenced cases as examples for various types of redundancy. and various opinions about redundancy. This suggestion is in line with the common approach in wikipedia towards various "In popular culture" and "Trivia" sections. See WP:TRIVIA: Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous facts. Mukadderat (talk) 01:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it's mostly OR and and POV doesn't mean we should delete it. Judging from the title alone, I think it would be encyclopedic to have an article with this title (although it could perhaps be moved to List of expressions considered redundant). So yes, I personally am very absolutely sure that we should totally keep this. J kasd 05:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If we keep it, I think it needs to be stubified, getting rid of all unreferenced expressions. In most cases, I'd only insist on referencing everything for controversial topics and articles that fall under WP:BLP, but this article has enough misinformation in it currently that we need to do something to make sure that it's not just a list of people's pet peeves. Also, wed need to get rid of the "eliminate all redundancy" POV (including all those recommendations done with strikethrough text). Klausness (talk) 10:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subjects such as weasel words are highly notable these days, with books and much discussion on language about. It would then strike me that a comprehensive sourced list of such a notable topic would be encyclopedic. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But this article is not about weasel words -- it's about redundancy. Klausness (talk) 10:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move This list could be very useful indeed (especially to contributors looking to improve their writing skills), but certainly not as an article. I suggest moving this to userspace or WP:space and linking it from User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a as this list is highly relevant to that particular subject. Bettia (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or more specifically, this section of my 1a page and my redundancy exercises. I've copied the list onto a Word file, and may use parts of it to expand the exercises at a later stage. Some of the examples are useful, but some are dubious, especially without a larger context. In my own tutorials, people have pointed out these issues in a few places, and I've had to make changes or deletions in response. The OR factor renders this inappropriate in the main space. Although well-meaning, I think it should be deleted and reconceived as part of a writing tutorial. Citations would be irrelevant, which kind of proves that point. TONY (talk) 13:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely do not understand why people think that the list being "useful" in their opinion is any reason to keep it on Wikipedia's servers. WillOakland (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They mean useful for Wikipedia editing, like everything in the Wikipedia namespace. --Itub (talk) 17:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Shamelessly plagiarise~~Tonyfy and Delete. I reserve the right under GFDL to copyright Tonyfy. I know, I know, but I'm very proud of it. Seriously, irredeemably OR city, even if quite entertaining and educational. --Dweller (talk) 14:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per Malleus Bulldog123 (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Undeleted and Highly Aggressively Source It or - better yet - Transwiki Move to Wiktionary. Okay, I admit it, I commented here just for fun, but I think I have a point. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Changed my mind) as OR. Too little sourced content. Perhaps userfy. Weak keep for not deleting. Some source references are included and cited. The article could be cleaned up and unsourced/unreferenced OR edited out and removed. The external links include more information. Not an indiscriminate list, since expressions lacking redundancy are excluded and not incorporated in the article. Useful to English teachers or anyone working in the Department of Redundancy Department anywhere. Edison (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many, if not all, of these expressions can be sourced to reliable sources indicating that they are considered redundant. Even if an expression's redundancy is a matter of opinion, it is notable and sourced opinion, which is allowed under both original research and neutral point of view policies. Multiple reliable sources have lists of redundant expressions which independently cite some of the same examples, such as "ATM machine" and "PIN number", making this list quite different than the various hypothetical non-encylopedic lists given above. For examples, see The American Heritage Book of English Usage, pp. 59-65, and Write Right!: A Desktop Digest of Punctuation, Grammar, and Style, pp. 156-158. The books Words You Thought You Knew: 1001 Commonly Misused and Misunderstood Words and Common Errors in English Usage also include many examples of redundant expressions. Given the wide availability of sources, any problems with this article are solved by editing, not deletion. DHowell (talk) 21:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A list ought to have well-defined criteria for inclusion. What are the criteria for inclusion in this list? I'm not saying that the material isn't interesting or worthwhile, simply that it has no place in an encyclopedia. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same as for any other list in Wikipedia: It must be verifiable and attributable to a reliable source that the expression is redundant. If a reliable source says the expression is redundant, then we can include it. If this for some reason becomes unworkable (e.g., it turns out there are tens or hundreds of thousands of expressions which can be attributed in this way), then we can revisit the criteria (e.g. we could limit the allowed sources for this list to academic or professional sources written specifically about the subject of English usage, and exclude things like newspaper editorials). This would be decided by editorial consensus, as with other Wikipedia lists and articles. I'm really at a loss to understand why you think that a useful, worthwhile, and interesting list, similar to lists which appear in multiple academic sources, and which can be written to violate no Wikipedia policies, would have "no place in an encyclopedia", a "comprehensive written compendium that contains information on ... all branches of knowledge." DHowell (talk) 22:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you misunderstood my comment. A well-defined criteria would also define what was excluded. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By logical inference from my statement above, any expression which is not described as redundant by a reliable source should be excluded. DHowell (talk) 23:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Violates numerous policies such as no language guides, no trivia and no repositories. I think arguing about sourcing is irrelevent, this is after all a list of facts, or can be. But we have more than enough encyclopoedic coverage of this topic at Pleonasm and Redundancy (language), with examples. I like the analogy above to List of jokes which would be similar in terms of interpretation and scope, but of course, other stuff doesnt exist is no defence. MickMacNee (talk) 14:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, and unmaintainable OR.Yobmod (talk) 17:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even if sources are found, this should not be the basis of an article --T-rex 18:53, 24 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 by nominator. References have been added since the article was nominated. Hellno2 (talk) 02:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC) (non-admin close)[reply]

Royal Canoe Club[edit]

Local club that has no references, just a single external links to the club's own site. Even though the article states that the club is more than 140 years old, age is not a free pass to notability, and there are no references provided to back this up. The article also states that various Olympic athletes and other high-profile persons have been involved with the club, but once again, this is not backed up with anything but the club's own site, so unless Notability can be established and reliable sources provided, the article should be deleted. Hellno2 (talk) 18:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Before adding my own comments I refer Hellno2 to the notes made in response to a previous attempt at more general AFD against Canoe clubs (copied below) Motmit (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Also I would urge you do do a Google Books search before listing the Royal Canoe Club - I don't think that many people would agree that a subject with over 300 book sources including the Encyclopaedia Britannica and Chambers's Encyclopaedia doesn't have notability. Phil Bridger (talk)"

Keep Seems notable as "The oldest Canoe club in the world, the Royal Canoe Club of London, was founded in 1866."[18] and numerous other sources saying its the first club and "the first organisation interested in developing the sport" [19] -Hunting dog (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. A Club of this age that had such an influence in the early days of the sport is clearly notable. The article justs wants improving. --Bduke (talk) 01:10, 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. Soxred 93 22:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of highways numbered 19A[edit]

A list consisting of two highways does not strike me as being notable. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no need for this list. Perhaps the two articles could link to each other --T-rex 18:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I know there are more highways with the 19A designation around. I can vaguely recall one in Florida I was on one time. Perhaps changing this to a disambiguation page would do the trick, and additional routes can be added whenever anyone wishes. Hellno2 (talk) 18:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If this article is deleted, then we will have a ton of AfD work to do in Category:Lists_of_roads_sharing_the_same_title. --Millbrooky (talk) 18:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Millbrooky « D. Trebbien (talk) 20:59 2008 June 16 (UTC)
Keep This in essence is a disam page, in a specialized format. DGG (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hatnotes would have been the better approach to connect the articles. To Millbrooky's point - I would say that several of those lists should be deleted. Some of the lists have only one item in them: eg this one and this one. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS PKT (talk) 01:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I don't believe List of highways numbered 12E is any less notable than List of highways numbered 20. I may or may not support converting the whole lot (from the cat I listed above) back to disam pages instead of their current list forms, but that would require overturning an Aug 2006 decision first. --Millbrooky (talk) 02:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as DAB page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dabify. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I truly don't see the encyclopedic value of any "List of Highways numbered..." lists, however, given that there is a whole category devoted to them, and that this list NOW has more than 2 entries, I don't see a valid argument for deletion. I have not voted to keep, as I have made recent edits to the page, AND because, as I stated above, I don't see the encyclopedic value of any of these lists. DigitalC (talk) 07:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment: Should Florida State Road A19A Also be included in this list? How about Nebraska spur 19A? DigitalC (talk) 07:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I nominated the article for the AfD because the original version consisted of two highways. I just got word that the number of highways was increased from two to six. However, I am still not convinced about the value of this article. Outside of the coincidence of having the same numeric designation, these roads have absolutely nothing in common. Ecoleetage (talk) 11:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to above comment: A disambiguation page is really the norm on Wikipedia in these situations. Disambiguation pages exist when two or more articles exist on topics that have identical or similar titles. In many cases, that could be a number. Hellno2 (talk) 13:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - more highways need to be added to the list, hence the reason it says

This list is incomplete; you can help by adding missing items.

This disambiguation page lists articles about roads, streets, highways, or other routes which are associated with the same title. If an internal link referred you to this page, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article.

Ngs61 (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a dab page. Bearcat (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a disambiguation page. The only issue is that redirects need to be created from titles like Route 19A and Highway 19A. --NE2 23:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It is a dab page, but it can always merge with List of highways numbered 19. Smcafirst the Roadgeek (Road talk) at 22:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This has now been converted to a valid dab page. Mindmatrix 23:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, move to Highway 19A, which is a more conventional title for a dab page. Mindmatrix 23:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The problem is that not all are normally called Highway 19A; some are Route 19A or other terms. --NE2 07:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - You can deal with that issue by naming the article by one of these terms (whichever is more accepted by Wikipedia standards) and having the other term redirect to the page. Hellno2 (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's right. If its a valid dab page we can't have it start with "list." --brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment: What makes it invalid as a list? Please see Category:Lists_of_roads_sharing_the_same_title DigitalC (talk) 01:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Then rename them. Bearcat (talk) 12:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of highways numbered 19. For an example, see List of highways numbered 531 under Florida. --CG was here. 01:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While it seems that people are trying to use disambiguation as a defence of these lists, these are not disambiguation pages per the set index section of the disambiguation guideline, they are in fact, and as their names suggest, index list type articles. Therefore, their existence needs to be defended en masse at Afd under the principle that they do not contravene the policy that wikipedia is not a directory. MickMacNee (talk) 14:36, 21 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 no sources were dug up.--Kubigula (talk) 04:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silent lapse[edit]

Seems to be not notable since they just released a demo record. →Christian .И 17:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable band that has released zero albums --T-rex 18:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see a notability criterion of WP:BAND#Criteria for musicians and ensembles that this group might satisfy. « D. Trebbien (talk) 20:16 2008 June 16 (UTC)
Delete as article seems to rely on future notability. It can easily be recreated if the band or this record gets some coverage after its release. Of course, as usual, if someone can dig up sufficient sources now, I'd happily and quickly change my mind to "keep". Ford MF (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've searched for sources with several combinations on Google News archives and also in a library database of newpaper and magazine articles, and have come up empty. Delete unless someone is able to find some sources before the end of this deletion discussion. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per D. Trebbien. tomasz. 13:57, 21 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 Although I note the significant views of one very concerned editor, the consensus is clear for Delete. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 11:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprise Drive[edit]

Delete article about a short road in a commercial/industrial area in the town of Markham, Ontario. This road has no historical or cultural importance, and is simply generic municipal infrastructure. Although it may be slightly re-aligned, it cannot be extended much beyond its current location, since a residential area blocks it to the east, and IBM Canada headquarters are to the west. Mind matrix 16:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Is an important road in the town where it is located with well-known landmarks within the area. Hellno2 (talk) 18:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To which well-known landmarks along the road are you referring? Even if you can name one, it would warrant an article, not this road. Further, this is not an important road other than through opinion.It will never be longer than 2km, and will serve as a minor bypass between other roads. Mindmatrix 18:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Before I vote my opinion, I just want to say that this street is not a minor bypass. It is an important road. It will be longer than 2 km as it will stretch as far as Woodbine Avenue to the east and McCowan Road to the west. For your information, the road currently IS 2.0 km, not counting the part between the YMCA and Kennedy Road, which is already under construction. Residential area block is not a problem, it will chain up with current roads there to form a complete by-pass. IBM? No problem, the road will dive south, utilizing the unzoned land just immediately south of IBM. The residential zoning on South Unionville Avenue (the portion where the Markham government is planning to chain it up) is already upgraded to medium density. It will chain up the existing Yorktech Road (by bypassing the existing IBM Canada), Unionville Gate, and South Unionville Avenue. It is not a minor bypass, it is a major one spanning across the town, from the western end towards the east. If you do not think the road can merit an article, we can rename the article as Yorktech-Enterprise-Unionville-South Unionville, as an alternative, referring to this stretch of road. It is much anticipated to hold up huge volumes of traffic once Markham Centre and Downtown Markham completed its construction. In Downtown Markham alone, there will be at least 10,000 residents and 10,000 (maybe even more) employees, plus IBM employs even more employees. If these 20,000 people uses the road daily, plus any other visitors to Downtown Markham, the AADT will be much higher than the current highest record of AADT (the highest record is held by Warden Avenue, at 14,000). Minor bypass? A minor bypass will serve an AADT value of more than 20,000, which is more than any other roads in Markham (as of 2006)? Hellno2 is right, the road is important to the development of Downtown Markham (not to mention Markham Centre as well). The road serves Markham's Central Business District (as seen here (point your cursor to #5 of the map) and in this sense, comparable to Toronto's Bay Street, and Mississauga's Hurontario Street. It will the "main street" of Markham. Don't all Main Streets (for towns over 50,000 according to WP:50k deserve an article?) The road is also home to 3 Viva transit routes. For 3 Viva routes to travel on one road, this is extremely rare (if not, it is unique to Enterprise Road). Even Yonge Street only merits for 2 routes. Therefore, we can see how much traffic the road is anticipating. As well, the road is home to Markham's first high density developments. Along the road, in Downtown Markham, there will be high rises. There has been no high rises before in the Town of Markham, and this will be Markham's first time. Now cultural aspect wise. Enterprise Road, along with other local streets within Downtown Markham (i.e. Montgomery High Street) will consists of pubs and cafes, resembling to a typical European City Centre. These are cultural values. In addition, there will be a Central Park (mimicking New York City), and "luxury shopping" (from Bloor Street in Toronto). Culture? Enterprise Road will "copy-and-paste" culture values from Europe, New York City and Toronto. All of these quoted from the Downtown Markham's site, so are these cultural importance? Absolutely yes. Simple generic municipal infrastructure? Absolutely no. Would something that is planned since 1992 be considered as a simple generic municipal infrastructure? Absolutely no. Other subdivisions in Markham typically go through a "planning period" of 2, maximum 5 years. Downtown Markham? It was planned since 1992, and started to build in 2006. That's a 14 year period. Enterprise Road is the heart of Downtown Markham, an important road we cannot ignore. Smcafirst the Roadgeek (Road talk) at 20:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Per my previous comment. Smcafirst the Roadgeek (Road talk) at 20:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a rather short road with not a single source establishing its significance to anyone. Currently the road does not pass through "downtown" anything, as "Downtown Markham" is a proposed development. WillOakland (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's no longer proposed. The "proposal period" would be in 1992 to 2005. Buildings are well under construction. The Honeywell Office Building on Enterprise Road is long completed. Apartments on the side of Enterprise Road is close to being completed. Rouge Valley Park that passes through Enterprise Road is already laid out. The Viva Bus Rapid Transit System is already in used. The Motorola is already is use as well. Townhouses near the road is also building. The road is already built and painted with four lanes, both directions. Signages of Enterprise Road is already erected. All it needs is the development east of Birchmount Road, and the extension east of Kennedy Road. Downtown Markham is not a proposed development, but a development under construction. There's a sharp difference between the two. Downtown Markham (western section, west of Birchmount Road), was scheduled to be finished by Summer 2008. Proposed and Under Construction. Proposed means To form and put forward a plan" (Webster Dictionary), in other words it means "nothing has been built". Under construction means something's building. Smcafirst the Roadgeek (Road talk) at 20:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - FYI I can look up definitions of words myself. There's this thing called the internet, you see. The point remains that (1) the road is currently quite short and (2) Wikipedia doesn't accept notability claims based on what will be in the future. WillOakland (talk) 20:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - FYI There are notability claims at The official site for Downtown Markham and the road is not short as it is currently under construction for its extension. Then what IS the point of having a template called "future roads" if future notability claims are not accepted. Why would future notable skyscrapers, communities, cities, highways, deserve an article? I KNOW there is such thing as an Internet (here is an article for you to read). If you search Downtown Markham, it's all over the news. Smcafirst the Roadgeek (Road talk) at 20:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's not an official site; it is run by Scott Thornley + Company, The Remington Group of Companies and Blue Sky Public Relations Inc. Guess who's building downtown Markham? Here's an internet search for "downtown Markham" within the markham.ca domain, the town's official site. Those five pages of links are far more relevant. Here's a search for the phrase excluding the town's official site. Not exactly all over the news, but it is there. If you want better links, try looking through the TVO archives for The Agenda and Studio 2, which had the occasional coverage of urban planning issues for the GTA. I'm certain this community was mentioned at least in passing. Mind matrix 21:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        This is indeed the official site. The Town of Markham government has voted and decided to let Remington Group to do the planning and the building. However, the plan and the construction must be approved by the Town of Markham. All the plans and constructions listed on the Downtown Markham website has been approved and official. And not only TVO has the news, the Globe and Mail, 24 hours, 100k Club, and the Canadian Building and Architech had been publishing articles about Downtown Markham within the past year. Prior to 2007, there are more sources that had made references to Downtown Markham, about its cultural aspect, and how it adopted the smart growth technology. Smcafirst the Roadgeek (Road talk) at 21:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        One of the reasons this article and Downtown Markham, Ontario are up for deletion is because there are no sources attached to any of the claims made. If there are reliable sources which support the claims (and not just parroting the adcopy of the developer), then provide the citation in the article. Simply stating that they exist is useless - remember that at AfD, your goal is to convice people that know nothing about the subject that it is verifiable and "notable". I'll concede the first point, but you're failing at the second. Also, I'm well aware that the town has simply granted licences to the developers to build, but that doesn't imply the website is "official" - it is simply a marketing vehicle for the developer, nothing more (that is, it is the official development site - the three most prominent links are all to advertise condos and homes). Further, this discussion has strayed way off course, since we should be talking about issues pertinent to Enterprise Drive, not Downtown Markham.
        
        Regarding the media, I was trying to provide you with sources that are more substantial than simply stating that a development is underway. I already know about the other sources; most of them have little value, and some of them are word-for-word copies of press releases issued by the developer. Find the good ones, and incorporate them into the article. (Aside: since there is no community there right now, there is no "culture" - you can't plan culture.) Mind matrix 22:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, one can plan culture, by planning the style of buildings along Enterprise Road. The European style building (which is already approved, well under construction now) depicts the European culture. Smcafirst the Roadgeek (Road talk) at 00:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        As well, the Toronto Star article gives viewpoint from every single prospective of people involved in the Downtown Markham project. One of them referred to Downtown Markham will have the European sense of downtown to it. Since Enterprise Road is the major main street of Downtown Markham, Enterprise Road will inherit this sense of European culture. Smcafirst the Roadgeek (Road talk) at 00:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        That's called architectural style, not culture. The latter is the collection of ever-changing interactions between humans . The fact that a building is modelled after a specific style has little bearing on the cultural development that will occur within or around it. "Depicting" a culture, or using its stylistic components, is not the same thing as the culture that exists and develops. Anyway, I'm not going to debate this any further, as it has no bearing on the AfD here. Mind matrix 00:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Alright, I'll stop the debate for this point right here (after I make my last argument). I admit it's stylistic components, but keep in mind this stylistic component is only unique to Enterprise Road and Downtown Markham, Ontario. It is very rare for anyone to find such style across the GTA (and no, Old Markham Village has an American small town style). Smcafirst the Roadgeek (Road talk) at 00:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a nn local road, or merge and redirect into Downtown Markham, Ontario should the latter be kept. It seems this roads only claim to notability is its attachment to a community that is just starting to be built. Resolute 23:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While merging to Downtown Markham article is a good idea, I think the road is notable to standalone as an article itself, as it is the backbone for the Town of Markham, after all, and for the reasons I listed above. Smcafirst the Roadgeek (Road talk) at 00:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or merge and redirect into Downtown Markham, Ontario should the latter be kept (per Resoute NoDepositNoReturn (talk) 03:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or merge and redirect into Downtown Markham, Ontario should the latter be kept. This local road does not meet notability requirements at this time. DigitalC (talk) 00:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or merge and redirect into Downtown Markham, Ontario should the latter be kept - per Resolute. A 2km commuter road, possibly to expand to a 6km commuter road, notable how? Let's see the vision actually unfold, since we're not a crystal ball - Google Earth looks like a bunch of clay right now, so there's no actual community to describe. And re "Old Markham Village has an American small town style" - funny that, since the real downtown Markham was preserved as an example of a Canadian small downtown. All those years and I never noticed the US flags flapping in the wind - who'd-a thunk? Franamax (talk) 04:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, Google Map is not updated. I bought a new house in northern Markham in 2004, and the house was completed in 2005, and until now, Google Map is not showing the house. Who'd-a thunk? Google Map still uses data from 2005 and 2006. And in 2005/2006, the road hasn't been even built yet. Downtown Markham will use a European style downtown. Old Markham Village uses an North American style (Canada + United States). Smcafirst the Roadgeek (Road talk) at 22:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Key word there is will use. When it does use that style, we definitely should have an article. And actually the original Markham is "small-town Ontario" brick buildings. They didn't exactly roam the continent looking for style tips when it was built. Franamax (talk) 22:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But keep in mind the plan proposed by the Remington Group is already approved by the Town of Markham. The plan was to use European style buildings. It is almost definite it will use these types of buildings. And no, I didn't mean they roam the continent to look for style tips. I just meant that the style resembles most downtowns for North American small towns. Smcafirst the Roadgeek (Road talk) at 00:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in WP:OUTCOMES, WP:N and other recent Markham road AFDs, a road's local importance does not generally justify an encyclopedia article. A road needs to transcend the individual town or city it's located in — under most normal circumstances, you have to demonstrate at least a provincial or state level of importance for a road to merit a Wikipedia article. This doesn't have that and never will. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 12:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never? Are you sure? This road could be the first in Ontario to have bus rapid transit and the first road to be public transit-dependent! The road extends throughout Markham, and therefore transcend within Markham. Provincial or state level? Many streets in Toronto that has a Wikipedia article does not have a provincial or state level of importance. In fact, if you were to think about it, only streets like Yonge Street and Queen Street have provincial level of importance. Even concession roads of Toronto does not have a provincial level of importance. So what? Concession roads? There are millions in Ontario. If those articles merit an article, why not Enterprise Drive? Smcafirst the Roadgeek (Road talk) at 22:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ottawa has bus rapid transit, therefore this cannot be the first road in Ontario to have bus rapid transit. DigitalC (talk) 06:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it's the first road with 3 lines of bus rapid transit operating at once to strive for a transit-dependent community. Ottawa's bus rapid transit lines are not striving for that. Smcafirst the Roadgeek (Road talk) at 14:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "bus rapid transit", you mean "bus" right? So it looks to me like Eglinton has the 51, 56 and 100 routes, York Mills has the 115, 122 and the 95 express route, Wilson has the 165 C, D and F. Lots of roads have three sets of buses running on them. Franamax (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bus rapid transit is something a little different than just a regular bus route; it has a much higher frequency of buses than a normal bus route, and usually involves dedicated bus-only roads or lanes as well. But that would justify an article on the BRT system, not separate articles on each individual road that constitutes part of the network. Frex, the Ottawa Transitway itself has an article, but the existence of the Transitway doesn't singlehandedly confer notability on the likes of Tremblay Road, Albert Street, Slater Street or Waller Street. Each of those still needs to meet WP:N and WP:RS on its own merits. Bearcat (talk) 22:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please start keeping in mind that important to Markham is not, in and of itself, a sufficient claim of notability to justify an encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 22:55, 21 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 a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Morgado[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Google search for article's subject: "Jamie Morgado"
This article does not appear to be notable because it is non-notable an unreferenced. I am listing this on behalf of User:Fireaxe888, who failed to list the original AfD correctly and requested assistance at the help desk.. Above is a Google search link to help you determine notability...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 16:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn bio. Tempshill (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:26, 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, default Keep. Cenarium ^Talk 23:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HiVOLT[edit]

Article about a non-notable, vaporware space tether product proposal. It will never be built. It is highly speculative. "hivolt tether -wikipedia" yields under 150 Google hits. Tempshill (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:CRYSTAL. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 18:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply if it's a worked proposal by a noted physicist. "Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions."- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the tether was seriously proposed by the late Dr. Robert L. Forward a noted and highly respected physicist, and it has had substantive description in 3rd party publications such as New Scientist, NASA outreach, Space.com. Notability is not temporary, and the article is linked from elsewhere in the wikipedia.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The NASA link you mentioned has a single paragraph mentioning "they had a clever idea" and no followup; the Space.com article also discusses the idea. There are a billion ideas for never-created products and they are mostly not notable; and this one IMO is not notable. It's sort of like an advert, IMO, as the company hopes somebody funds the idea. Tempshill (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between an advert, and sorta, kinda a bit like an advert. It's not an advert.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The NASA link essentially describes it as a historic idea. Who are you to argue with NASA?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think WP:CRYSTAL arguments apply here. Wikipedia is full of articles about proposed designs for space habitats, alternate methods of transporting goods and passengers for space that remain theoretical, etc. I'm not convinced of its notability or lack thereof, but that's what should determine if the page is kept or not, in my view. NoDepositNoReturn (talk) 21:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply, since this is credible research. — scetoaux (T|C) 22:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Robert L. Forward. The question is not whether it has been or will be built, or how many Google hits it gets, or whether Wikipedia editors think is is feasible or even a horrible idea. The question is whether it has substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, or in respected refereed scientific journals, since it is a scientific/engineering proposal, to satisfy notability. The proposal seems to lack evidence of independent notability, so merge to the scientist's page. (After we destroy the Van Allen Radiation belt, let's unleash genetically modified disease microorganisms in the world.) Edison (talk) 20:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal was a joint effort by Robert Hoyt and Bob Forward, so I don't think that merging it with Bob Forwards page seems appropriate. (As to your latter comment, about modified diseases, that's precisely what the attenuated polio vaccine is, and this has saved very many lives indeed.)- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 22:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why are people searching for sources for the AfD, then not adding them to the article? Mixed up priorites anyone? Keep with sources added.Yobmod (talk) 17:09, 24 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. enochlau (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pudh[edit]

Fails WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:15, 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 Wombwell#Education. Nomination was withdrawn after this action was completed and there are no outstanding delete !votes. TerriersFan (talk) 20:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St Michael and All Angels Catholic Primary School[edit]

~~Non-notable primary (up to age 11) (grade) school. Fails~~ ~~WP:N ukexpat (talk) 16:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)~~ Nomination Withdrawn - article has been merged and redirected. – ukexpat (talk) 19:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wombwell per WP:WPSCHOOLS; Makes no claim of notability, and the signs of probable notability at WP:SCH are not met (not a beacon school; not a training school; not got an outstanding rating by ofsted) -- Ratarsed (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Wombwell#Education per precedent. No need to come here to do that. TerriersFan (talk) 19:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have now gone ahead and carried out the merge. TerriersFan (talk) 19:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I have redirected to Wombwell#Education. – ukexpat (talk) 19:44, 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 Speedy delete a3, no meaningful, substantive content; WP:NOT. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How to play guitar[edit]

Wikipedia is not how-to-guide. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. Tempshill (talk) 16:21, 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. Not notable, promotional. Malinaccier (talk) 01:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anne and the Reverend[edit]

Unremarkable documentary short. Article most likely written by director/screenwriter of the film to promote it. (Original version of the article even included stills and a trailer!) Pichpich (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Notability (films) --Cameron (T|C) 16:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:29, 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. Consensus is that the topic is notable, but most commentators ignore that the article (which attributes hundreds of individual murders to still-existing organizations!) is entirely unsourced, violating the core policy WP:V. I'll userfy the article on request so that this omission can be remedied. Sandstein 21:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Political violence in Spain since 1975[edit]

This article is basically a POV article. Political violence is a phenomenon not only in Spain, but in all countries. The entire article is unsourced and documents some news events, and violates WP:NOT#NEWS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything that can be sourced to List of ETA attacks which would cover a large majority of the items on the list. Linking the different groups on one list seems a poor idea to me and would be better documented for each group individually. Davewild (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strangely there is no mention at all of murders by the Spanish far right in the article. The article subject might be valid, but just have a random listing is not leading to any understanding of the subject. So, unless there is a through rewrite i'd vote delete. --Soman (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is no mention by murders of the far right because I havent reached them yet. I have been starting on 2008 working backwards and Im now on 1993. The last far right killings were in 1989, I think.--Damam2008 (talk) 20:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article seems fine. Don't see how this is "POV". It is a new article, and contributing to it may be a better solution than trying to delete it! The reasons given for deletion (POV??) are difficult to understand and it sounds like this user simply dislikes its content. In any case, there are many similar articles, an example: Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 2008. --Burgas00 (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Spain has a long tradition of political violence. There is ETA, and there is the following (probably due to a failure to sack torturers in the police forces when the Franco regime ended): "Reports of torture and other ill-treatment by law enforcement officers continued to be widespread. Law enforcement bodies and judicial authorities failed to investigate such cases in line with international standards, leading to effective impunity." [20] For a state in the west of Europe all of this is quite remarkable. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable and sourced subject, similar to other articles on the "violence" subjects.Biophys (talk) 20:13, 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 delete. PhilKnight (talk) 22:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Fowler (animator)[edit]

Suspected hoax article. Google searches on subject's "notable films" turn up zero returns. The claim to being Jim Fowler's son also appears to be false, as Fowler reportedly only has a daughter [21]. Article has no references, and in fact, I can't find a single reputable source to back up this article at all. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - having looked on google, I also can't find anything, not even a trivial mention from an unreliable source. That is, unless, the subject is the actor described here. The article creator is an established editor, so perhaps he can shed some light on this. Otherwise, delete on notability grounds. PhilKnight (talk) 16:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't think so - this person would have been only 13 when Russkies was released, which makes the "Production Assistant" credit shown at the link above extremely unlikely. I think what happened is that Dramatic didn't check on the notability of this Fowler after an anonymous IP deleted the bio of an actually notable Michael Fowler. I've done some more searching, and I've found and removed some other spurious notability claims by similar anon IPs, including one about his dog. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Something fishy happened to the article here where the entry on a presumably notable person was completely rewritten as someone else. What should have been done was just revert it but it was moved to its own entry. This has given it a slightly misleading history and this article has basically been started by anonymous IP on a person who doesn't seem to exist. I say delete it and move Michael Fowler (architect) back to Michael Fowler. Which ultimately is just fixing the dodgy edits which should have been reverted. (Emperor (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Agreed - I've deleted the disambig page and moved the article about the architect. All that remains is to Speedy delete this hoax. PhilKnight (talk) 20:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It should never have been preserved, things like that happen though. Time to speedy delete the mistake though. Or just close this as delete under WP:SNOWBALL. (Emperor (talk) 22:15, 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 --JForget 22:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Young & Restless (Young Dro album)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Young & Restless (Young Dro album)

Contested prod. Article is about a future album, fails WP:CRYSTAL. TN‑X-Man 12:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nomination. Renee (talk) 13:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge - Not enough info to start an article yet. Perhaps a merge would be best for now. Limetolime ^{Talk to me} ^• ^{look what I did!} 13:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:CRYSTAL & WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 14:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator, fails WP:CRYSTAL as noted. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 21:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources. Fails WP:V and WP:CRYSTAL. The article can be recreated if and when there's an official release date from the record label etc. - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom Toddst1 (talk) 15:32, 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 Speedy deleted as verbatim copyvio. – iridescent 03:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fun With Jazz Educational Program[edit]

Appears to be spam for this educational program, which is a small portion of the activities at the Alabama Jazz Hall of Fame. Relevant content is already provided on the AJHoF's article. Chubbles (talk) 15:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spam. As nom said, already covered. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 20:01, 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 Speedy Deleted per User Request. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 15:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brian D. Oakes[edit]

Article on "an American photographer and graphic artist", started by an intriguingly named user, prodded by me, and thereafter edited further, whereupon I removed my prod. The assertions of notability seem very minor, but there are two external links. Let's look at them. First, "Brian D. Oakes featured on Seahawks.com" says about Oakes, "Brian Oakes, webmaster for the Sea Hawkers website, also made a special trip from New York to watch the game." That's it. That's all it says. Secondly, "Brian D. Oakes hosts Sea Hawkers Annual Awards Dinner (as shown on Seahawkers.org" is actually shown on briandoakes.com, and says: Headlining the evening_s entertainment was Brian Oakes, a/k/a _New Yawk Seahawk,_ who hosted the event and kept the crowd in stitches with jokes and the occasional improv routine (including a brief rendition of _La Bamba_). Brian also told the story of how he became a Sea Hawker after traveling to Seattle in the fall of 2001 and presented Sea Hawkers Council President Smokey Simons with an authentic road Seahawk jersey with the name "Smokey" on the back. Brian said they chose a road jersey in the hopes to get Smokey and as many Sea Hawkers to the east coast this season for the December 19th game against the NY Jets. (Underscores ["_"] here stand for illegal characters that Firefox unsurprisingly renders as question marks on my system; Oakes' command of HTML might benefit from a refresher course.) Not yet encyclopedic material, I fear. -- Hoary (talk) 14:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 14:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 14:28, 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, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 12:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MIX (café)[edit]

Unreferenced article created by SPA fails to assert or prove notablity. WP:ADVERT and WP:COI. PROD removed without reason given. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:ADVERT and WP:RS. Also doesn't appear to be notable. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 18:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I nominated the article for speedy (declined by Lifebaka, and I give him credit for trying to clean it up) for blatant advertising, the article has been cleaned up a bit (I wouldn't really call it advertising now), but in my opinion, it fails WP:N and WP:RS. Fraud ^{talk to me} 22:22, 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 One halfway decent source does not an article make nor notability establish. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Fenity[edit]

Journalist. Unsubstantiated award claims. Fair number of ghits, but lacking WP:RS (see existing article refs - small-market non-daily paper, self-published site, blog, WP article). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Will change when reliable sources magically appear. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 20:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Judging by how many times someone has removed the AfD template from the article, I suspect those sources aren't going to be appearing... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:17, 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 Redirect. Seraphim♥Whipp 14:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sneakernight[edit]

Contested redirect of non-notable song, per WP:MUSIC#SONGS. Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Re-Direct-per WP:MUSIC#Songs, does not warrant enough detail for notability, and only ghits go to lyric websites and youtube music videos. If it is absolutely necessary, redirect to the album Identified.--SRX^--^Latino Heat 13:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Deletion is useless, but redirection is certainly in order. There just isn't anything to say about this song.Kww (talk) 14:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Kww. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 14:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vanessa Hudgens as the upcoming album doesn't appear to meet notability criteria anymore than the song does. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to album until (unless?) it appears on notable charts. SKS2K6 (talk) 04:15, 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 Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MIT Cables[edit]

Article is just marketing fluff for a company. It got de-proded, so I bring it to AFD -- RoySmith (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-the article fails WP:CORP and violates WP:NOTADVERTISING#ADVERTISING.SRX^--^Latino Heat 14:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, weakly, and without prejudice. This might be a notable company making consumer goods. But the only references are to their own websites or to blogs, and to their list of patent claims. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See the references at this Google News archive search. --Eastmain (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This seems to be in some way the progenitor of Monster Cables, if I understand the article correctly. It certainly needs a good deal of re-writing. Has the nom even tried to source it? DGG (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If Roy isn't going to do the very basic courtesy of notifying the creator that his article is being deleted (which he hasn't), then he should have his deleting privileges revoked. The fact that he apparently deletes constantly, but apparently does not notify creators says loads about his etiquette skills. ImpIn | (t - c) 21:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume people watch the articles they create and notice when they're edited. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is easy to miss things on the watchlist, and new users are often not even very aware of the watchlist. This happened to me on an article I created. It's hard to miss the "you have new messages!". Also, I'm not sure if this is the case here, but on Wikiquote I get emails when someone posts a message on my talk page -- this should be the default if it is not on here. ImpIn | (t - c) 23:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Article reads like a blatant advertisement and the MIT cables I find in reliable third party sources are the cables themselves and not this company. Notification should have been given on the auhtor/primary contributors page but, absence of that isn't reason enough to keep. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I've gone ahead and placed notification on the author's page. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:53, 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 delete. Seraphim♥Whipp 14:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relativity (Album)[edit]

Contested prod. Fails WP:MUSIC, requires substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. None provided, none found. Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 14:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both the above. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:57, 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 Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 07:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GetAmped[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Nominated for AfD by User:Paul 1953; I've changed it to point to 2nd nomination. Article suffers from the same problems as before, no notability WP:N, so I also recommend deletion. Marasmusine (talk) 13:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Marasmusine (talk) 13:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article seems to suffer from being about an Asia-centric subject that has been little noted in the west. On Commons, we have places to go to request foreign language assistance for certain tasks. Is there a place here to do the same, so we can find out from someone familiar with the languages of the countries in which this game is supposedly popular, about coverage in those countries? Notability doesn't require English-language sources, just sources. Ford MF (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The first few pages of Google results are all primary sources. I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject matter, so as far as I can see it fails WP:N. Una Laguna^Talk 16:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Rather then deleting this article, i suggest to move it to other languages.XeonEX (talk) 02:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like an online mini-game. Y5nthon5a (talk) 04:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage by reliable verifiable sources independent of the topic. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 22:01, 24 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 Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huntly Park[edit]

De-prodded. The article is an advocacy piece for an apparently non-notable group formed to prevent development on this non-notable park, complete with instructions on how to participate in the advocacy. Gross NPOV violations, nothing worth keeping. delldot talk 13:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: look like the NPOV problems have been improved somewhat, but I'm still thinking this fails WP:V. delldot talk 18:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It certainly has potential to be a good article given the time and hard effort but it really does fail WP:N, specifically WP:NPT even though it's not yet a confirmed guideline. Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 18:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:SOAP - the article isn't written about the place, but about the actions of a group. CultureDrone (talk) 18:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What are you on about? "Huntly Park is a park in Giffnock, East Renfrewshire, Scotland." — sounds like it's about a place to me. Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 20:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much everything after the first 3 sentences is about the development and the group formed to stop it. delldot talk 20:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying for me - I suppose it's my own fault for not being completely accurate in my comment :-) Peanut butter and jelly without bread - you rebel !! :-) CultureDrone (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aaaack! Sh! Sh! :P delldot talk 00:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect sourced information into park's town - Giffnock. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-encyclopedic, non-notable and POV pushing. Ben MacDui ^Talk/Walk 21:22, 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 Cenarium ^Talk 23:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Phillies Fan Union[edit]

Completing an incomplete nomination by User:Killervogel5. Eastmain (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See 4 potentially relevant references listed at http://news.google.com/archivesearch?hl=en&ned=us&q=%22Phillies+Fan+Union%22&ie=UTF-8 --Eastmain (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Those all strike me as trivial mentions - about other topics where Phillies Fan Union is brought up solely to describe something else. Townlake (talk) 20:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close No rationale for deletion stated. Townlake (talk) 20:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn deferring to Spanneraol's delete rationale. Townlake (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article contains no sources and is written as an advertisement for this fan group.. Essentialy a fan club for the Phillies, what makes this group notable enough to have their own article? Spanneraol (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Spanneraol. It's just some site with free membership. Their member count is just proving that the Phillies have at least 120,000 fans who know how to use Google. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:58, 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 per below, and Speedy per User Request. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Estefan Gargost[edit]

Delete. Unreferenced, an unremarkable campaign worker, appears to be a vanity article. WWGB (talk) 12:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and WP:COI. CultureDrone (talk) 13:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone suggest what can be done to avoid deletion? The reasons given above seem immaterial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EGGArgost (talk • contribs) 13:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - dropped a note on the users' talk page suggesting he read WP:AUTO. CultureDrone (talk) 13:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given the content there now, I've tagged it for WP:CSD#A7. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've had a talk with the author - he's requested the article be deleted, so I've changed the speedy to a G7 (author requests deletion) - a bit nit-picky, I know ! :-) CultureDrone (talk) 14:17, 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. John254 00:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cognitive closure (psychology)[edit]

old. also see this Cognitive closure (philosophy)Spencerk (talk) 06:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, weakly. The only content of the article as it stands is, (t)he term cognitive closure refers to "a desire for definite knowledge on some issue and the eschewal of confusion and ambiguity., followed by a valid looking reference. This seems to be something entirely different from cognitive closure (philosophy). Unless it can be shown that this phrase is an academic hapax, the existence of what seems to be a longer journal article devoted entirely to the exposition of the subject suggests that this definition stub could be expanded. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Inadequate. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep first time I've seen "old" as a reason for deletion without any additional comment. DGG (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although I don't know enough about the subject to feel comfortable adding them, Google Scholar turns up a respectable number of relevant-looking articles. AnturiaethwrTalk 23:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a dictionary. The term fails WP:N. Edison (talk) 04:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No plausible reason for deletion given in nomination, and the article can clearly be expanded using the many scholarly sources given above. --Itub (talk) 06:06, 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 Redirect to University of the Sacred Heart (Puerto Rico). The subject itself is not notable enough for an article on its own, and there are not enough reliable sources to merge it. Malinaccier (talk) 01:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Community Linkage Center[edit]

Non-notable school/community center/program. Mr. Absurd (talk) 01:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to University of the Sacred Heart (Puerto Rico). No claim of meeting WP:N in the article, but it could be a valid search term. Might merit a sentence in the university article.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non reliable sources and wouldn't be even kept in University of the Sacred Heart (Puerto Rico) as proposed by User:Fabrictramp. Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 21:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to University of the Sacred Heart (Puerto Rico). A search for 'Centro de Vinculación Comunitaria' produces a number of sources but with no knowledge of Spanish I am not able to add or evaluate them. However, merging a short section into the University page, seems a reasonable idea. TerriersFan (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising. Nyttend (talk) 01:06, 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. Seraphim♥Whipp 14:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cora Skinner[edit]

From talk page:

I really don't think this person is notable. Can someone initiate the process to have this article deleted?--Agnaramasi (talk) 13:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The page was voted on, and the vote was to delete way back in 2006. She has not become any more notable since then, so the article needs to be deleted--Unsigned comment

Wikipedian06 (talk) 02:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per claim of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SYSS Mouse (talk • contribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: claims of notability are used to avoid speedy deletions, not to avoid deletions altogether. Corvus cornix_talk 22:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Fails [{WP:BIO]] - also I don't see an actual assertion of notability anywhere (except she is apparently dating someone "famous"). Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of the appearances that are in her bio aren't even listed on IMDb. If anything, she's a glorified extra who doesn't even get credited for her roles. Pinkadelica 07:32, 21 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. Esteffect (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Italian cover versions of The Beatles' songs[edit]

As the title states, this article is simply a listing of Italian cover versions of songs by The Beatles, a violation of WP:NOTDIR (Wikipedia is not a directory). Mr. Absurd (talk) 01:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Italian artists can just be added to List of artists who have covered The Beatles if necessary.--T. Anthony (talk) 13:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - covering a beatle's song is nothing special, even if in a foreign language --T-rex 18:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable on its own. Information can be included in individual articles where the subject is notable. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN Avalon (talk) 12:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be original research as it lacks sources and displays the album configurations (both US and UK) with the English title for each song on the album... and then under some titles show the Italian titles and the artists who recorded them. Note how "lean" the latter list seems to be after Sgt Pepper. B.Wind (talk) 12:28, 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. Fram (talk) 12:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keroro Platoon Double[edit]

This article contains unnecessary information and clutter. If any information in this page is needed, it should be merged with another appropriate article. A list of minor characters for example. Chaoshi (talk) 05:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, based on the fact that nobody else seems to mind this article but the nominator. 68.81.95.231 (talk) 10:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - asserts no notability through significant coverage by reliable verifiable sources independent of the topic. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, little more than a linkfarm. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:18, 25 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. Seraphim♥Whipp 15:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luba Shumeyko[edit]

Notability not established in article. A single link to one porn site doesn't establish notability. Wikipedian06 (talk) 08:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - based on, umm... well, there's also a book linked in the article. And an interview I found from here. --Millbrooky (talk) 04:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment The author of the book is her husband. Vinh1313 (talk) 14:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Vinh1313 (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I changed my vote to delete. I was sure there were other sources for her besides her husband. After some searching, it seems I may have been wrong. --Millbrooky (talk) 15:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please go on searching. It's easy to find her.

All the others (but here are not as many :-) should asked themselves: Am I really the last one on this planet, who have not seen her yet? 78.48.126.16 (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - (Addressing above comment) It's been hard to find signficant coverage of her in independent reliable sources. Vinh1313 (talk) 20:15, 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 Cenarium ^Talk 23:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Masanjia Labor Camp[edit]

non-notable, content fork, mostly non-independent sources being used here. Useful content should be incorporated to Persecution of Falun Gong--Asdfg12345 07:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This camp seems to have plenty of in depth secondary coverage by reliable sources [22], the core criteria of WP:NOTABILITY. --Oakshade (talk) 15:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe any of those are in-depth on Masanjia, and its particular practices. They seem to mention it in passing in context of the wider persecution. Don't you think? And they just repeat the same couple of lines, that it's a place where the practitioners are tortured. I just don't think the article can have more than a couple of lines, about how it's a place where Falun Gong practitioners are tortured. It's no big deal, I guess. --Asdfg12345 07:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep so the nominator of the article wants it kept now? If the nominator doesn't want it deleted then it seems rather pointless having it up for deletion. Nick mallory (talk) 13:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? I nominated it for deletion because I don't think it warrants an article. I don't think it's notable enough. Sorry if my previous comments were unclear. I don't think this labor camp is notable enough to warrant an article; I think it should be deleted, and relevant content (which isn't a great deal) moved to the persecution of Falun Gong page. Why are you voting keep?--Asdfg12345 13:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Suspect Bad Faith Nom. After lenghty experience with DE, POV, by editor Asdfg12345 can no longer Assume Good Faith. Just look at Asdfg12345's edit hostory and edit wars he has intigated/coordinated around the Falun Gong-related articles. Simple facts like Epoch Times is affiliated with Falun Gong, and Qubec Supreme Court Justice declaring Falun Gong controversial - all backed up with Notable sources - somehow get blanked and hacked up. This is a real shame, and demonstrates why wikipedia is a joke. Bobby fletcher (talk) 21:51, 24 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. Seraphim♥Whipp 15:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Tadmor Anderman[edit]

This article seems to be in violations with Wikipedia's posting policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by St. Hyginus (talk • contribs) 2008/06/14 16:57:42

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I presume the nom means that the article lacks independent sources, does not establish the notability of a living person, and appears to be promotional in nature, in which case I concur that it should probably be deleted unless notability can be established. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ultraexactzz's clarification CultureDrone (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy. No assertion of notability whatsoever. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:23, 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 redirect. Seraphim♥Whipp 15:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once-ler[edit]

An article for a character from Theodor Geisel's The Lorax. A previous attempt to redirect it to the main book article was reverted by Ombudsman without comment. It consists almost entirely of in-universe plot information—no sources, background information, context, or real-world information—and it's not notable enough for a separate article from The Lorax. Mr. Absurd (talk) 20:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Lorax. Nom has it right. Dr. Seuss characters are often memorable, but there is little by way of independent sources to use to make a proper article on this one. There is plenty of room to expand the parent article, and if proper sources eventually emerge, it can be spun off later. No independent notability, the character is primarily a plot device. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a duplicate and redirect. Last time I checked the Lorax article had two plot summaries. Now here's another one. Hooray! WillOakland (talk) 19:51, 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, sources have been pointed out, passes Notability requirements. Possible bad faith AFD? Non Admin Close, Dusti^SPEAK!! 13:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Real World/Road Rules Challenge[edit]

Delete Article is completely unsourced. All the pages (individual challenges ) are also unsourced, making this a chain of unsourced materials supporting its own weight.Zredsox (talk) 12:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its notable, just because something has no sources doesn't doom it to deletion. You should be bold and find them yourself. Passes WP:N. Also, you wanted sources? here's one, and another from the network and 556 Google News Results Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability isn't an issue, and there's no deadline on Wikipedia so the rush to deletion is odd. Solution is to improve the article, not delete... of course it needs better sourcing, but otherwise it's not bad now, and it will definitely be recreated (probably in worse form) if this is deleted. Townlake (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no rush to delete here. This article has been around for years completely unsourced, so I won't call it a rush. Just because there are sources out there doesn't mean anything because they are not in this article. Unless sources are actually applied to the article, it is a fairy tale without any basis for preservation. Sure, in theory we could wait around forever for the article to be made better, but Wikipedia is not a storage place for half baked ideas. This should be deleted and when someone does have the time or desire to properly source the article, they can rewrite it and it will be reviewed on those merits alone. As for the concern that this will be recreated in lessor form, there are many ways to stop that from happening, including restricting the recreation of the specific title. If Real World/Road Rules Challenge: 2008 can be deleted with sources, for not having good enough sources I don't see why this article should stick around with no sources.Zredsox (talk) 17:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is in fact a storage place for half baked ideas. That's the whole wiki concept. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - So basically it is a double standard. Some articles need sources and are deleted otherwise - while others do not need to be sourced and anything goes. I think I am beginning to understand how things work around here.Zredsox (talk) 18:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of good sources exist, and AfD is not cleanup (we're already at top-level, nothing/nowhere to merge). – sgeureka ^t•c 17:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, WP:POINT violation. Corvus cornix_talk 22:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The point is this article is not sourced. I don't think it could be any clearer. Zredsox (talk) 00:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, the point is that you got huffy because you couldn't provide reliable sources for Real World/Road Rules Challenge: 2008, and therefore want to get rid of this article which just needs to be sourced. Corvus cornix_talk 15:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Interesting how you flipped sides on this issue. One minute it is all about the reliable sources and the next there doesn't have to be sources. Zredsox (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You wanted sources? I already posted several in my vote, but i guess it bears repeating Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I guess it bears repeating that they need to be in the appended to the proper points within the article. It does absolutely nothing to post them here. Zredsox (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - This is about cleanup. You nominated this for deletion when you could have put tags on the article requesting sources. AfD is not to be used to cleanup articles. You were unable to provide reliable sources for your pet article, that's why it got deleted and why your DRV failed. Don't mix apples and oranges. Corvus cornix_talk 16:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Stop making this personal. Obviously you threw objectivity out the window when you came here to whine. My DRV did not fail, I withdrew it. I am just going to repost that challenge article as soon as we go through the process here and prove that sources are not needed to keep any of these challenge articles - something you fully agree with (from reading your recent posts.) In the end I'll get what I need. However I appreciate your concern and please stayed tuned for more exciting RW/RR action.64.89.250.90 (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And it will be speedy deleted as recreated material. Sourcing for a possible upcoming season of a TV show is by necessity more strict than for seasons that have already passed. The result of this AfD has no bearing whatsoever on the previous (and possible future) AfDs for Real World/Road Rules Challenge: 2008. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 18:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New material and sourcing has come to light. Just because a few people want to make a point by deleting it does not mean it is not valid or notable. It will keep being recreated and eventually it will remain. All the information that was in it initially will be there 6 months from now (being it was 100% correct) so deleting it out of some sort of vendetta is quite childish to say the least. What I have garnered from this discussion is that deletion is personal around here and has nothing to do with the quality of an article. BTW: Are you saying that The Real World: Brooklyn article should be the next to go being it is not even in production yet? I totally agree! Zredsox (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it is reposted without reliable sources it will be deleted. Obviously, if there are reliable sources it will be kept. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 20:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: Popular and long running television show on major cable network is obviously notable. Most of the article can easily be verified. Also, being unsourced is not a valid reason for deletion. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 04:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Some confusion on the sourcing rules, and how the CSD rules work, seem to be driving this AfD. Check out the closed DRV discussion here re RW/RR_2008. This AfD (and numerous other AfDs currently in process on other RW/RR articles) seems to have been inspired by that deletion and subsequent DRV. Townlake (talk) 16:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Real World/Road Rules Challenge: 2008 article DRV set a clear path as to how articles in this genre should be sourced if they are to be kept. This and many others have no sourcing. If different standards are applied to articles of the same vein, then we end up having a serious consistency problem across the board.Zredsox (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Each season of The Real World/Road Rules Challenge can easily be confirmed and sourced from MTV's website as well as imdb.com or tv.com, for example: Battle of the Sexes 2 and The GauntletEliRykellm (talk) 00:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand much of what is here can be sourced. What I am saying is that is it not sourced. It could have been sourced years ago but was not and unless that changes we are left with an article that doesn't even meet the lowest standards of quality on Wikipedia. Eventually you need to draw the line and decide - Is this article going to be sourced? Zredsox (talk) 02:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment If nobody else has done it by the time I get to work tomorrow, I'll add some of Strange's sources to the article myself. Townlake (talk) 03:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Update The good faith effort to add useful reference links has begun. I encourage everyone to improve the formatting and add additional sources. Townlake (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep

Jaime Moore 19:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep per all the above and a bit of advice to Zredsox: While you may have felt bitten, perhaps justifiably, by the deletion of your article, it is a considered a severe breach of wiki etiquette to try to retaliate by making a point to delete other articles which you perceive to suffer from similar problems. They actually don't—these articles are being kept because reliable sources exist to back them up, regardless of whether they are currently cited in the articles or not. If reliable sources exist, then the lack of them in an article is a problem solved by editing, not deletion. On the other hand, your own article was based on sources which were not deemed reliable by the community, so no matter how many similar sources you add to your article it will not make a difference, it will still be deleted and you will be perceived as a disruptive editor if you keep recreating without community consensus (please realize this is not a threat, but an observation of how the community generally reacts). On the other hand, why not have your article put in your userspace (I'm sure Fram would be willing to, and even if not, there are many admins who will) where you can work on it to your heart's content until MTV makes an verified announcement and mainstream newspapers and magazines start covering the show? Remember that there is no deadline here, and you can be sure that if this show is going to air, unambiguously reliable sources will eventually exist, and if you are patient, you can then bring this to DRV again and get this article back into the mainspace. DHowell (talk) 01:45, 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 00:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary Wealth[edit]

Non-notable book; does not satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (books). ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Book written by Alvin Toffler, a highly noteable author, at least to those of us of a certain age. The author of Future Shock and The Third Wave is likely "so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable," and as such this falls within one of the book notability guideline's keep rules. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment which certain age would that be ? I've never heard of him :-) CultureDrone (talk) 15:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Future Shock appeared in 1970. Just about everybody I went to college with was reading it at the time. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Google News comes up with extensive coverage including reviews in The New York Times, The Washington Post, People's Daily, The Hindu, The Korea Times, International Herald Tribune, Hindustan Times etc. Looks pretty notable to me. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:35, 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 keep. With only the nominator arguing to delete, and with the sourcing issue addressed to some degree, there is clearly not any consensus here for deletion. The question of merging is left for talkpage discussion and normal editorial process. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Road Rules: All Stars[edit]

Delete Article without valid sources. External Link to Road Rules page points to Road Rules 14 (which came a decade later.) Unless there are better sources provided, there is nothing here that would warrant keeping this article.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zredsox (talk • contribs) 2008/06/15 22:16:18

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

Jaime Moore 19:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep Article can be better sourced and is one season of a notable series. Zredsox has tagged numerous RW/RR articles, in a regrettable series of WP:TE actions that is somewhat explained here. Townlake (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While I know the closing admin isn't bound by this, here's a link to a resolved AfD on another RW/RR article, brought under the same circumstances. Might be helpful, might not. Townlake (talk) 23:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Real World/Road Rules Challenge per lack of secondary sources. –thedemonhog talk • edits 19:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm working on the sourcing for RW/RR stuff in general; just added a TV.com source and will seek others. Deletion /merger for lack of sources should only take place if the article's content is unsourceable, and given all the other RW/RR seasons have their own pages, I respectfully don't see a compelling need to break the pattern by merging one season into the umbrella article. Townlake (talk) 22:51, 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 Keep (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 15:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sayh Diba[edit]

Delete Not notable enough for wikipedia standerds. Stoplight18 (talk) 17:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a stub Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a named, sourced geographical feature. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: significant geographical features are considered notable. Nyttend (talk) 01:05, 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 per WP:CRYSTAL and verification concerns. Davewild (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures Of Sally Meerkat and Tod Tiger[edit]

There a quite a few reasons for nomination.

1. No relevant hits on Google.

2. Cartoon Network has never stated in public that they were picking up this particular show.

3. I got the creator's friend to admit to it on the Jellyneo Forums Shoutbox. As it is a shoutbox, however, this cannot be linked to. One of the main contributers, Cruise meerkat, has a history of articles that are vandalism. they claimed that "their sister hacked in", however was observed bragging in the previously mentioned shoutbox about their added misinformation.

These reasons make this article a very likely canidate. Kimera Kat (talk) 19:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's Brandy and Mr. Whiskers under a different title, poorer writing, and a hoaxish nature. Crystal for sure. Nate • (chatter) 22:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as speculation without verification. –thedemonhog talk • edits 19:48, 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, due to the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xdelta[edit]

Speedy deletion was declined for this article, so let's discuss it. It is my view that this article does not meet the basic criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia. xdelta, while a wonderful implementation of the rsync algorithm, has never seen wide use -- at least not the sort which merits maintaining an article on it. It is omitted from most major Linux distributions despite being licensed under the GNU General Public License. This article has generated very little content since started many years ago, and its only sources are from the software's own Web site and its GoogleCode project page. Few Google results tell anything about the software in question and instead simply state its existence and link back to the software's Web site. If this software is really popular enough to merit maintaining an encyclopedia entry on it, then someone should provide real references from publications beyond one section of a person's PhD thesis which goes uncited in the article. The muramasa (talk) 14:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I declined the speedy because it's been a FreeBSD port for years. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does everything in the FreeBSD ports collection have an article, or more importantly, should it? The muramasa (talk) 14:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or possibly partially merge or redirect to rsync or diff. xdelta is included in Debian, at least, and crops up in weird places, but I agree it's a less known tool. I believe it warrants some sort of mention somewhere, however. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks notability and reliable sources. Significant coverage in independent reliable sources is required for notability. swa q 17:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Swaq; WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid argument. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of media coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 13:53, 25 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. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UEFA Euro 2008 miscellany, mutatis mutandis. Sandstein 21:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2006 FIFA World Cup miscellany[edit]

When Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UEFA Euro 2008 miscellany appeared, some editors pointed out that there is a similar article on the past World championship. A close examination of this (though referenced) article shows, that it contains mostly trivial facts, such as what girlfriends of the footballers were doing and how a piece broke off the trophy. Some things could be incorporated into other articles, such as dubious referee decisions, however, the article itself should not exist as such. Tone 11:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the nominator nailed it. It's pretty unencyclopaedic collection of assorted facts. This violation of WP:TRIVIA should be deleted immediately. Ohconfucius (talk) 12:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Like I said in the deletion discussion for the Euro 2008 version of this article, the article is being used for completely the wrong purpose. It should be used to discuss the match ball(s), organisational issues and the music of the tournament (for example). In its current state, the article is nothing more than a glorified trivia section, though there are certain items that could be kept. – Pee Jay 12:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep May not agree to most policies, but I'd claim WP:IAR and use common sense. The World Cup is such a vast and world-wide phenomenon that even records and statistics can become notable. And plus does it really hurt anyone such article. There are lots of people that consider this notable.
P.S.: This nomination sounds like WP:POINT to me...See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UEFA Euro 2008 miscellany. Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 13:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. I refer you to WP:NOHARM, you yourself have admitted that the article violates policy and it is not WP:POINT it is a simlar article that has been overlooked before and should be judged through consensus like the other one. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 15:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything useful into the main article. Giant Snowman 14:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete I agree with Pee Kalivd (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge useful info, all arguments per my nomination of UEFA Euro 2008 miscellany. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 14:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Might as well delete lists of minor Seinfeld characters or anime storylines as well...trivia is an integral part of yore. --Mr Accountable (talk) 20:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The inevitable reply: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Yes, we have lots of articles containing trivial information which only fans are interested in; most of them, I'm sorry to say, should be deleted as well. Terraxos (talk) 21:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is a trivia section. "miscellany" is another word for trivia, see Wikipedia:TRIVIA: "A number of articles contain lists of isolated facts, which are often grouped into their own section, labeled 'Trivia', 'Notes', 'Facts', 'Miscellanea', 'Other information', etc." If you just changed the world 'miscellany' in the title to the word 'trivia', this article wouldn't last a minute. But of course 'miscellany' sounds better and because of that article actually has a change of staying . -- Coasttocoast (talk) 21:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - a lot of this information is pertinent to the discussion of the competition, but can be included in a general summarized write-up of the competition in the main article. It would be a shame to be deleted outright, but there is no real reason for it to stand on its own. matt91486 (talk) 05:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't do trivia. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pure trivia article. Any particularly important information can be merged into the main World Cup article, but we don't need most of this. Terraxos (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not understand what's wrong with having a miscellany-type article about a World Cup. It's one of the biggest sporting events on earth, the stuff's interesting - and it's in one place. --NeofelisNebulosa (моє обговорення) 21:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- This is what's wrong: WP:TRIVIA. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 06:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not voting, as I am an IP editor, but the summary that the nominator uses in the intro to dismiss the triviality of the article is not an accurate reflection of the article as it stands. The nominator dismisses the article as one containing information about girlfriends and such, but upon reviewing the article, it's clear that 90% of the information there has to do with matters related to qualification of teams to the tournament and the progres of those teams in the tournament. Thus, if I actually had a vote, I would vote to keep simply because the nomination summary here is not a truthful representation of the article nominated. This AfD should be closed and a new one with an honest summary opened.--71.6.12.114 (talk) 20:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not how it works, we don't close AfDs because of a nominator's statement and this is not a vote either, we are simply discussing whether this article is appropriate so you are free to state your opinion as you did and there is no need to "vote" (although I believe you are allowed to as an IP). As per the policy WP:TRIVIA, the useful facts should be merged to the appropriate article(s) rather than kept on one page. The pieces of information are judged on their individual merit, hence we are arguing not that the facts are not notable, but rather that the concept of "World Cup miscellany" is not and violates Wikipedia policy. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 03:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Oooh...soccer-brand listcruft and a WP:TRIVIA violation! Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 23:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge the referenced bits to the main article. --John (talk) 06:33, 21 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 Snowball close, Delete. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heat Source Unit Nuclear Reactor[edit]

Unsourced, unverifiable statement of design goals, attempting to solicit discussion of an idea rather than contribute to an encyclopedia Philip Trueman (talk) 11:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: Non-encyclopedic - would require a major rewrite. Doesn't seem notable either. Just some advert for available jobs asking for discussion of this 'revolutionary' idea...... Densock .. Talk^{(Dendodge on a public network)} 11:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Agree with above, also note in Talk:Heat Source Unit Nuclear Reactor the primary author says "At this stage, this is more of a mental exercise". This implies that this is the author's own research, thus WP:NOR applies. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:43, 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. Seraphim♥Whipp 16:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Grant[edit]

Non notable individual, unsourced claims of 52 wins with no losses Sherdog has nothing so unlikely, 1 source, that he has a brother... Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the one reference doesn't even mention any "Grant". Morenoodles (talk) 10:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to fail WP:BIO/WP:ATHLETE, but really there doesn't seem to be anything out there about this fellow. Plus all the info on MMA in the article got reverted. I'd go so far as to say there isn't even an assertion of notability in there anymore, probably green-lighting it for WP:CSD#A7. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the info after I nominated it. 52-0 is a HUGE claim without even a dodgy home page as a source feel free to A7 it if you think it qualifies. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 12:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The chances are some guy (called Nick Grant) came along and decided to make a false article about themselves. Assuming good faith, it may be that it's real but not notable. Therefore it's a non-notable possible hoax article...... Densock .. Talk^{(Dendodge on a public network)} 11:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence this individual exists. JJL (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a Nick Grant who competes in MMA possibly as a lightweight ([23]), but he isn't notable. gnfnrf (talk) 20:38, 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 --JForget 23:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outloud.tv[edit]

this really pisses me off -- Outloud.Tv has been online since 2003 and was definately before youtube and current.tv the one and only website what is now called a "video sharing site". A total shame you guys deleted it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.194.154.90 (talk) 21:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article is an advertisement, site is not notable at all, no source has ever written about this site. LightSpeed (talk) 08:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think this is an advert, though if you're sure you might as well hit it for WP:CSD#G11. That said, I don't see much real notability. The self-label "grandfather of Youtube" doesn't seem sufficient. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advert with no real notability. Alberon (talk) 09:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong (Speedy) Delete: WP:CSD#A7 (possible WP:CSD#G11)...... Densock .. Talk^{This means Dendodge is on a public computer} 10:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just tagged it for speedy deletion as blatant advertising. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 11:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lack of reliable sources suggests that this topic may not deserve an article. EdJohnston (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of WP:N and WP:SPAM. When an article has a dotcom title, its definitely targetting viewers to this web site. Artene50 (talk) 10:28, 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 Withdrawn by nominator due to obvious WP:SNOW. -Djsasso (talk) 05:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Teal[edit]

Subject fails WP:N. Teal played only 6 games in the NHL for the Montreal Canadiens in 1984/1985 and then disappears permanently from view. Previously, he played junior hockey. If someone played only a few games in the big leagues and were designated notable, we would have hundreds of articles on minor players who didn't make it in the NHL, MLB, NBA, etc. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artene50 (talk • contribs)

Delete Teal played only 6 games in the National Hockey League. Fails WP:N. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Passes WP:ATHLETE: "Competitors who have competed in a fully professional league[...]" He played in the NHL. Sadly that's it. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 09:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:BIO/WP:ATHLETE does not have a time of tenure or X number of games test. When a player reaches the top, additional WP:RS coverage will likely be found eventually. That is good enough for a stub. "Disappears permanantly" is an assumption that WP:BIO does not make. As for the hundreds of athletes, they're here. WP:NOTPAPER applies. • Gene93k (talk) 10:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:BIO/WP:Athlete with experience in the AHL and NHL. ccwaters (talk) 10:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whether you agree with them or not the criteria for sports people in WP:BIO are much more objective than for most people, and this subject clearly passes them. Also when you say, "we would have hundreds of articles on minor players who didn't make it in the NHL, MLB, NBA, etc." horses, bolting and stable doors come to mind, as we already have thousands of such articles, and anyway worrying about opening the floodgates is not Wikipedia policy. I would also question whether any player who has played at all at this level "hasn't made it". Only a very small percentage of people who take part in organised sports get to such a high level. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He became notable when he played his first game in the NHL per the project's notability standards -Pparazorback (talk) 13:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This one isn't even in a grey area as he played in the highest level pro league. And per WP:BIO anyone who plays in a fully professional league is notable. Minor leagues or not. -Djsasso (talk) 14:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. Played in the highest level hockey league in the world. Easily passes WP:BIO. Reso lute 15:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In fact, we do have thousands of articles on minor league players who made little or no impact on major league sports. This just happens to be in accordance with WP:BIO, is all, and changing the consensus there should be nom's first stop. RGTraynor 15:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would have been preferable if he had done somthing noteworthy after his short stint in the NHL. (like being a player agent) I suppose this article will be no more than a stub on a minor player unfortunately. Artene50 (talk) 19:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They can't all be Gretzkys, Orrs, or Hulls. Current notability guidelines are not asking them to be either. ccwaters (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He played in the NHL. Whether it's one game, six games, or 1,000 games, playing in the NHL makes you notable. Patken4 (talk) 21:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm dubious about this subject's notability, I humbly ask that my deletion nomination be withdrawn per WP:SNOW. I guess everything is subjective; different people have different views on a subject though I echo Mendaliv's comments that this article will be nothing more than a stub, sadly. Artene50 (talk) 03:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Many things are subjective, but this one is not. The phrasing of WP:BIO is quite unambiguous: "Competitors who have competed in a fully professional league" are held to be generally notable. Strictly speaking, it isn't merely someone who has played six games in the NHL who prima facie passes the notability bar; a player who's played six games in the ECHL does. RGTraynor 04:09, 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 merge into Hindu texts. I'll do my best to cut it down to the viable content when doing the merge, but I'm basically going to put it into a single section on the target article and count on the normal editing process to fully integrate it. --jonny-m t 04:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Post-close update) I did my best to put in a brief overview, but unfortunately the only cited content is on the use of Sanskrit as a vehicle for the literature, which seemed a little too specific to put in. At any rate, the history of the source article remains visible if anyone would like to include the more verifiable content. --jonny-m t 04:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu Literature[edit]

Article seems like a newbie's essay with no citation. Another page (Hindu mythology) already includes similar information in more detail. No need of duplicate information as it confuses reader. --gppande «talk» 08:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unencyclopedic article, fails WP:N, no sources. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Comment While not arguing the merits of this article ""Hindu literature" seems like a topic that could merit an article. Although what might work is a redirect. Buddhist literature redirects to Buddhist texts so this could become a redirect to Hindu texts.--T. Anthony (talk) 08:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Hindu texts per T. Anthony. --Nat Miller (talk) 08:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retain and Expand: This article has a separate and independent standing & relevance as regards to its subject. However, the contents need serious editing and proper expansion. 'Hindu Mythology' and 'Hindu Literature' must not be confused. Mythology comprises of a small part (sub-set) of literature, Literature being the super-set.
References to the current article are needed.
There is absolutely no point in deleting the article. To the contrary, it requires invitation for accretion. --pdipu «talk» 23:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Stubify and) Move to Hindu literature per Manual of Style. As far as defining scope, I should think that Hindu texts should relate to texts relating to hinduism as a religion. Hindu literature should refer to works that intentionally incorporate Hindu themes as a major device. As it stands, much of the current article is unsourced (possibly original research), or redundant to the Hindu Texts article. I admittedly know nothing on the subject, but I should think it would be possible to write a fine and informative article on the subject, but it would need an expert or possibly a trip to a good library. Creating a stub that properly defines the scope would facilitate such an article being written. Setting up a redirect may cause the article to be overlooked and left undeveloped. -Verdatum (talk) 18:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Apt Categorisation -- The entire gamut of ancient and early medieval Indian literature composed in Sanskrit has strong impct of Hindu beliefs and faith in plotting, characterisation, narration as well as final outcome. These pieces can be clearly classified as 'Hindu literature' - the main dynamics of the literary piece being defined and designed under tenets of Hindu belief system. Further, early medieval period of Indian literature also reflect significant impact of HInduism on its form, structure and substance. Hence, the literature can aptly be labelled as Hindu literature. Furthure, certain section of literature in modern and post-modern scenario of India bear significant semblances of Hindu faith and desrve to be classified under Hindu literature. In post-modern and contemporary scenario, the writings of the ilk of Sir V S Naipaul, Dr Arun Shourie, Dr. Subhas Kak, Dr David Frawley etc. can be classified as Hindu literature. -Vamanavatarm (talk) 19:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is regarding keep or delete. Please select your option. --gppande «talk» 14:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Hindu texts and then redirect to that article. The paras of "Sanskrit literature" and "Four Vedas" are word to word copies of extracts from All about Hinduism by Sivananda. Also the article has WP:OR with sentences like "I propose".Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Hindu text per Redtigerxyz. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand The article should be WP:SS for both Hindu text with the section 3. Hindu literature in Modern Period expanded. Wikidās ॐ 00:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Redtigerxyz; address the OR, tone and copyvio issues. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Hindu text per above. PhilKnight (talk) 13:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete - Same topic of then non-OR Hindu text --T-rex 16:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Add & Expand: Hindu text and Hindu Literature are entirely two different entities.
Texts are mere partial manifestations of Literaure.
Literature encompassess far greater magnitude of dynamics than simple Texts.
Texts can not have periodization, but Literaure can have.
Texts can not be analysed in respect of general patterns and themes, while Literaure is amenable to such analysis.
Further, Hindu Literature has a great degree of oral tradition, which can not be classified under Hindu texts.
Thus, the two entries possess separate and independent standing. Thus, Literaure must not be confused with Texts.
The ways of looking at things are different when dealing with Hindu Literature on one hand and Hindu texts on the other hand. Hence, the current article on Hindu Literature should neither be deleted nor merged with any other entry. That will be injustice to the article and the topic. -Softdynamite (talk) 23:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
— Softdynamite (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -Verdatum (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Request for Reasoning -- Everyone is requested to put down the reasons for their opinion [Keep/Merge/Delete] on the article.-Softdynamite (talk) 23:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - From what I see here, everyone has done so. Anyone who doesn't will be appropriately noted by the closing administrator. They are fully aware that AfD is not a vote. As an aside, your syntax does not seem to be following AfD conventions (Curiously, in a similar fashion to other implicit votes of keep). While it is not a requirement, and I'm sure any closing administrator will take any comments you may have into account; to facilitate this process, you may wish to review the AfD Wikietiquette section. -Verdatum (talk) 18:20, 25 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 --JForget 23:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kieran Murtagh[edit]

Contested prod. Original concern was "Player has never played at a notable level of football, having only signed for Yeovil from Fisher Athletic on 13 June 2008. Doesn't meet notability criteria." – Pee Jay 07:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has yet to play in a fully professional league and thus does not meet the criteria of WP:Athlete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. – Pee Jay 07:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; maybe in a season or two. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & comment, it'll probably be a lot sooner than "a season or two". --Jimbo^[online] 12:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 14:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails Kalivd (talk) 14:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A one line article with no references to establish notability. Artene50 (talk) 05:27, 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, per article improvement and RS. Dweller (talk) 13:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Filler (media)[edit]

Pure original research/personal essay/venting/opinion type material; has remained unreferenced for a year and a half. Primarily a fan term, and article basically just recites various fan opinions on what a "filler" is for different media. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N, no sources. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think this fails WP:N, but it sure does fail WP:NOR. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep pending rewrite as result of changes made since original nom. The original research is going away. I see a decent article emerging here. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless references can be found. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 11:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not fit in the norms and no much references Kalivd (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has much potential as it is based upon a common feature of many media. I have made a start upon improving the article to demonstrate this potential and have added references. The above comments can therefore be discounted. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no, they can't just "be discounted" they are still valid. Two minor references for a single entirely new section that actually introduces an entirely new meaning of filler does not mean the above arguments are now all invalid. One, the first, claims to be a book reference without any actual page numbers to support the claim. The second, again , talks about a totally different style of "filler" which would be more accurately called by its more official name of interstitial, and is already covered in Interstitial program.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep I'm not completely sure on this myself. I think the topic has potential, but we definitely need to cut out the original research. I would suggest a merge, like maybe to some kind of TV terms list, if we have one. I suggest a merge because, as it is now, I can't see our coverage of this being more than a few sentences or maybe a paragraph. -- Ned Scott 02:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fancruft, better served by a dictionary definition, which I'm sure it already has. Doceirias (talk) 03:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I agree with Ned. Also, you could just cut out the sections that don't have references if you're going to nitpick. All of the information in this article is undeniably true though. I think it would be unwise to cut the article just because it has NOR. Rather than delete it, find sources to back it. It's a useful article and a popular term.Vinny (talk) 03:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, the only referenced material, added by Colonel Warden, is already covered in Interstitial program, which is the proper name for that particular type of program. All of the information in the article is not "undeniably true" by any stretch. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps interstitial program should be our merge/redirect target? -- Ned Scott 05:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, I might agree, however the only part of this article that is discussing interstitial programs is the part added after it was sent for AfD. That's part of the problem with the article. Its various people's personal opinion of what a "filler" is, with none of them being the same thing, or even related. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interstitial program is an inferior article in that it has no sources and is a narrower term. Filler is a more general concept which applies to several media in somewhat different ways. It is proper to address it at this level because we have considerable crossover and convergence between media - hence the academic field of media studies to which this topic belongs. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Can be improved, it's not a neologism. AfD shouldn't be used for cleanup purposes. --Ave Caesar (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PLease provide the reliable sources to verify that filler is a valid term (not a fan term) and that the article is not OR. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The OED provides an example of usage in a literary sense: "1913 Writer's Mag. Dec. 247/1 Fillers of a few hundred words in this field..are desirable in this department.". Colonel Warden (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin Article has been significantly improved as of 20 June. Please take into consideration when evaluating recommendations and consensus. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:05, 24 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. Fram (talk) 12:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Secricom[edit]

This program has 32 Google hits, 0 Google News hits, 0 Google Books hits and 0 Google scholar hits. Deprodded by with the comment that most "Seventh Framework projects are notable." Well, this one is not. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; doesn't even seem to have any hits on Google blog search. That's pretty bad. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed unsourced and Merge/Redirect to Seventh Framework Programme. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's like redirecting some scientist's project to the National Science Foundation. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 18:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The way I understood it was that the Seventh Framework Programme orginazation was directly involved in the creation of Secricom (I do love your userpage, however). --brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, thanks. I just worry that this Secricom amounts to a nameplate on some professor's door. As the deprodder mentioned, many of these projects are notable; as can be discovered by a Google News search, some are making waves. As for being "involved in the creation", I visualize a committee with a lot of money to spread around. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 18:49, 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. May be restored for selective merging purposes if someone urgently wants to merge one of the few sourced items from this grab-bag of indiscriminately collected information. Sandstein 21:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UEFA Euro 2008 miscellany[edit]

This article is pure trivia and is just a place to shove pieces of trivia that don't have a place in the main article(s). The title "miscellany" implies that it's going to be an article about trivial details. I suggest deleting this article and adding anything meaningful to the main article UEFA Euro 2008. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 06:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - I have nothing against trivia itself, but it should be integrated into the main article(s). --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 06:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some of the facts may be notable, are not written with a POV and can be tracked to realiable sources. But, the subject of the article itself fails notability standards. Lets get it right. Miscellanies are not notable by themselves, and are not what Wikipedia is about. I cannot say it violates WP:TRIVIA as that is a guideline, but the this kind of trivia listing does not justify the creation of an article itself. The EuroCup 2008 is also a recent event. The kind of info that the article contains may change rapidly, and should be included into the more general article only when the event is over, and only if the info itself is notable. --Legion fi (talk) 06:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is also a trivia page for the 2006 World Cup which is well written and is useful for reference. Trivia sections themselves are discouraged in the main article so they should have their own article. User:03md

Comment. Trivias are DISCOURAGED. <-- note the period. That doesn't mean that they are discouraged only for the main article. That means they are discouraged at all. I repeat myself. Wikipedia is not about trivias. And the existance of A to keep B is not a valid argument. Please base your arguments in policies. Thank you. --Legion fi (talk) 06:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. But just for the record, I think that the "trivia" page for the world cup can be kept for several reasons over this one. It includes many good references, it isn't "just" a big amount of trivia but actually has useful info, the world cup is a worldwide event while the EURO just involves Europe (though it could be argued that the popularity of the two are on a similar level there's also the factor of there being more teams, players, games etc.) and a major point is the fact that the EURO 08 is indeed a current event as mentioned above and we cannot be sure of the notability of individual pieces of information now. However I would not support a miscellany page for the world cup but I'm not going to AfD it as it has been up and referenced for several months. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 08:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect anything usable to the main article. As above this will just become a list of trivia. Davewild (talk) 07:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what is relevant in the other articles, delete this one. --Tone 07:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In its current state, the article is not being used the way it was intended to be used. The miscellany article should include info on the match balls, the music of the tournament and other sundries, not just a list of pointless trivia. – Pee Jay 07:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In fact, 2006 FIFA World Cup miscellany consists of pretty much only trivia as well. I am nominating it here. --Tone 11:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the nominator nailed it. It's pretty unencyclopaedic collection of assorted facts. This violation of WP:TRIVIA can be corrected by merging anything useful into the UEFA Euro 2008 article, and the article can be deleted immediately. Ohconfucius (talk) 12:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment should the following Euro 2008 articles be considered as merge with the main article?

...and basically anything else in the middle section of the following template;

v t e UEFA Euro 2008
Stages	Qualification Group stage Group A Group B Group C Group D Knockout phase Final
General information	Bids Scotland–Ireland Broadcasting Squads Statistics
Official symbols	Europass (ball) Trix and Flix (mascot) UEFA Euro 2008 (video game) "Can You Hear Me" (song)

--Jimbo^[online] 12:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd say that UEFA Euro 2008 schedule is very redundant and should be nominated for deletion. UEFA Euro 2008 controversies is kind of premature and we can't tell what's going to be notable or not, but I'd say that can stay. I think the problem with the articles is redundancy, the question is, would the major article be too long if we merged everything from all of those in? The Dominator^Talk_Edits 14:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep May not agree to most policies, but I'd claim WP:IAR and use common sense. As I said for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 FIFA World Cup miscellany, these are vast and world-wide phenomenon that even records and statistics can become notable. And plus does it really hurt anyone such article. There are lots of people that consider this notable. Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 13:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything of use to the main article. Giant Snowman 14:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per GW. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 18:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a perfectly encyclopedic collection of common football knowledge in the making, common knowledge that will be referred to again and again down through the years. If we do not know our history, are we not doomed to repeat it? One may as well delete lists of minor characters on Seinfeld and anime shows, "trivia" is functionally integral to yore. --Mr Accountable (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - some of the information can be turned into prose and included easily in the main article. Unimportant things can be deleted outright. matt91486 (talk) 05:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely irrelevant collection of trivia. Not even anything of use to merge to main Euro 2008 article. - fchd (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is, by definition, a trivia article and should be deleted. Any particularly important information here can be merged into the main Euro 2008 article, which already has a trivia section anyway. Terraxos (talk) 21:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 03md. --NeofelisNebulosa (моє обговорення) 21:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Your going to have to come up with a better argument than that since this is not a vote but a discussion. O3md obviously misunderstood the trivia policy and his first argument is simply WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS completely invalid as that article is up for deletion now as well. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 06:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a encyclopedia not a collection of trivial facts. Anything in this article which is worthy of note, should be put in the appropriate UEFA 2008 articles, essentially as WP:TRIVIA suggests. Delete the rest. Peanut4 (talk) 00:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, anything notable in this article is duplicated elsewhere: Villa's hatrick is in UEFA European Football Championship, the first goal and cards can be worked out from the match report articles (it doesn't take a brain surgeon), the only thing to keep is oldest goalscorers, which could possibly go in a new page: UEFA European Football Championship records, along with some of the records currently in the championship page. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If this is going to be deleted, there will be lots of pages that have to be deleted. Miscellany isn't necessarily the same as trivia, and is useful to a lot of readers and fans. Maxcheung (talk) 07:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please enlighten us with which pages will "have to be deleted" (not that that is true, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) and please tell us precisely in what way is "miscellanea" different from "trivia", because from my observations here, the term "miscellanea" seems to be an excuse not to use the term "trivia" otherwise it's identical. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 15:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maxcheung, the existence of A similar to B to support B existence is not a valid argument. We are not talking about the other "lots of pages that have to be deleted". We are talking about this one. I agree sometimes miscellany isn't the same as trivia.. But read the article and realize that, IT IS TRIVIA. Also, the fact that it "is useful to a lot of readers and fans" means nothing towards NOTABILITY of the subject. Wikipedia IS NOT a repository of information. It is an encyclopedia. The fact that wikipedia is in the top of the search hits, does not justify the inclusion of a not encyclopedic article. --Legion fi (talk) 02:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I agree that some of the entries here may be trivial in nature, it doesn't necessarily mean that the entire page should be deleted. Perhaps deleting some of the entries is a better option? Also, I would say many people would argue that the following pages are TRIVIAL and should be deleted. And besides, how do we decide whether something is notable?

And many would argue that pages such as Deaths in sports are TRIVIAL should be gone too. -- Maxcheung (talk) 09:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "And besides, how do we decide whether something is notable?" ... Would you mind checking the notability guideline? Thank you.--Legion fi (talk) 04:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. Cruft magnet as it stands. --John (talk) 18:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why is it that Wikipedia geeks seem to want to delete everything? Stop quoting stupid Wikipedia policies to backup your votes. I want to know what YOU think and not what some shit policy says. Wikipedia policies are decided by a very small number of very frequent Wikipedia users. Most ordinary users don't bother to vote on policies (or AFD, for that matter) because their views are never taken as seriously as that of long-time Wikipedians (who seem to win every argument because they can quote more policies). The majority of Wikipedia users never edit and the majority of Wikipedia editors (whether registered or anonymous) never vote for policies. Your policies are not representative and destroy what Wikipedia aims to be - an encyclopedic tool for everybody. And of course my view here won't be considered because I'm "not logged in" which is a joke considering how Wikipedia claims to allow people to edit anonymously (except when their opinion counts). Wikipedia has become a joke and is dominated by a small number of people who seem intent on controlling everything (and deleting much of the encyclopaedia).--217.202.22.246 (talk) 22:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But this is why we have the deletion process, to weigh up individual articles against policy. If you wish to change policy, comment on what you dislike there, but until there is consensus to change the policies, we must measure individual articles to these policies. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 06:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah right! Everyone knows that on Wikipedia the views of the admins and super-regular users are considered more important. Most regular users don't have time for the long-winded and endless discussions that take place on Wikipedia leaving every decision to the select few. --217.201.102.17 (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so, but if "regular users" don't have as much time as the regulars, doesn't that really imply that they don't really care as much? The Dominator^Talk_Edits 23:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- article lacks relevence.- Gilliam (talk) 00:29, 21 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 and redirect. Dweller (talk) 13:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outreach Judaism[edit]

This article is about a tiny organization that is run by Rabbi Tovia Singer. He is its founder, sole rabbi, and director and it is almost a duplicate of the Tovia Singer article with almost identical external links and there is no need to have duplicate articles when it can all be easily said on one page. At this time this looks like WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:NOT#WEBHOST. (Note: At times there are articles about rabbis that should be merged into their organizations' articles and at other times there are articles about organizations that should be merged with their rabbis' articles.) IZAK (talk) 06:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Tovia Singer. IZAK (talk) 06:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 06:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tovia Singer. Outreach Judaism is a NN organization. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per IZAK. M0RD00R (talk) 15:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge to Tovia Singer per IZAK. Culturalrevival (talk) 19:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Deleted and merge" can not be done; if the developers ever purged deleted history then we would be inviolation of the GFDL. Deleted and redirect can be done, or merge and redirect, but not delete and merge. GRBerry 13:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your knowledge is up to date but noone has the intent to violate the retention policy for histories. So it's six of one or half a dozen of another and therefore merge and redirect is fine. IZAK (talk) 00:31, 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, the nominator's rationale for deletion is invalid. This leaves the question of notability and the consensus is that Saadé is notable. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 18:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Saadé[edit]

one sentence article Eli + 05:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- seems notable (see 1 2 3), just needs expansion and sourcing. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even that one sentence said "CEO of CMA CGM, the third largest container shipping company in the world, " "One sentence article" is not a reason for deletion! DGG (talk) 06:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. But sadly, lack of notability is. The subject is not notable outside the scope of the company it represents. Furthermore, the sole source of the whole article (may it be a line or bible-sized) is self-published. Therefore, due to the lack of reliable sources, the article clearly violates the verifiability policy. Adding a personal opinion, I'm surprised this article wasn't deleted via an A7 speedy deletion.--Legion fi (talk) 06:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Saadé is a notable businessman. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. And as such he is noted in the CMA CGM article. There is no need for an independet article about him, as he is not notable outside his company (which is the notable object, not the CEO himself). --Legion fi (talk) 08:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

consistent practice here has been the the ceos of notable companies are notable. If the company is important they affect more than the company, but the industry. DGG (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to CMA CGM per Legion fi. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Legion fi. --Jessika Folkerts (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment new references were added, the "article" is more credible --Eli + 18:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Comment What is the encyclopedic interest of this article? Sounds like self-promotion.--Jessika Folkerts (talk)
Keep. Loads of sources found by Google News and some by Google Books that show notability. If anything I would say that Jacques Saadé is more notable than the company. He is the founder of the company, so it was created as a vehicle for his business activities, rather than Saadé being appointed to run the company. For confirmation of this just look at the headline of the Financial Times article cited in our article: it says "Shipping magnate makes waves in the Mediterranean", not "Shipping company makes waves in the Mediterranean". Phil Bridger (talk) 14:16, 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 snowball keep Sceptre ^(talk) 08:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hwang Jin-i (TV series)[edit]

Not notable for an English version; no references; bad grammar used. Y5nthon5a (talk) 03:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hwang_Jin-i. Halifax Nomad (talk) 04:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless someone who speaks the language can say it should be deleted. We frequently have a bunch of sub-pages for English language TV shows. One page for the show itself is not overkill. Korea has a high level of technology, so I bet they have at least two RSs that discuss this show in detail. If you think that the burden of proof is on the article creator, then that's a part of NOTE that's broken when it comes to foreign subjects. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Peregrine Fisher, you have made a good point. However, we need sources. Fails WP:V and WP:RS. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep What the Hell is going on at AfD? The cultural arrogance on display here is just astounding. This is a major TV show on a major historical figure on Korea's largest network. The article has bad grammar? Then FIX IT! It lacks sourcing? TAG IT UNSOURCED! You might, if you were feeling especially adventurous, even notify Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea or even Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Popular culture or Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Korean cinema task force that this article needs work. But even a lack of knowledge of Korea or the Korean language is still no excuse for this AfD since just a quick Google news search shows an article on the TV series in the Chicago Tribune (Jan 1, 2007)-- that's an American, English-language newspaper covering a Korean, Korean-language TV series. If that, in itself is not evidence of notability, there are the dozens of articles and sources specializing in Korea. Then, if we have the audacity to check Korean language sources, again, a quick Google news search brings up dozens of pages. Here is one, here is another. (Yes, the Chosun Ilbo and the Hankook Ilbo are major news sources in Korea.) This type of usage of AfD is getting to be beyond ridiculous. I've seen major, clearly notable Japanese, Korean and other-language TV-series put up for deletion just because "I ain't never heard of it," and people actually going along with this. Meanwhile, every episode of The Simpsons gets its own article-- because it's an American show, in English, which appeals to the average Wiki-editor demographic. Wikipedia's lack of coverage of subjects beyond the knowledge of the average American teen or tween is partly because this is the demographic of the average Wiki-editor. But the AfD is becoming the way to actively remove any article beyond the interest of this, globally, very small demographic. Dekkappai (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well if maybe the people that put this page up actually had more information, I wouldn't have AfD'd it. So now you know why it was AfD'd in the first place. Oh by the way, you HAVE to have references for us to keep pages here at wikipedia, not only that, but there's bad grammar and several other issues. Take those things into consideration. Y5nthon5a (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, we HAVE to have sourcing to keep an article here, do we? Let's take just a quick look through U.S. pop-culture at Wikipedia, shall we? Dick Dastardly-- unsourced. Muttley-- unsourced. Laff-A-Lympics-- unsourced. We could probably keep this up all day, but I'd rather spend my limited time here guarding major Japanese & Korean subjects from "never-heard-of-it"-type deletions... And the next time you come across an article where "there's bad grammar and several other issues" try either working on it, or notifying someone with interest in the subject to work on it. It would save us all a lot of time and effort. Dekkappai (talk) 19:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have just proved why I said that. Those things you listed are well-known here in America. I do not know what your problem is, but the reason this is my SECOND deletion I'm trying to get regaurding the culture, it's because I go to "recent changes" on the left, then click on new pages. I make sure that there aren't any stupid pages being made. I am trying to clean up Wikipedia. Hell, I had a person make a movie page the other day (it's in AfD right now) because I guess the person wanted to be creative. It looked like a real movie, but they didnt have any sources so i tagged it. And everyone is saying to delete it. I dont do much research, but I wasn't sure if this page should be around, so I put it on AfD. If I didnt think it should be around at all, i would put it on speedy deletion. But I wasn't sure. That's why it's here. Y5nthon5a (talk) 21:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you need to read Wikipedia:Deletion policy, Y5nthon5a, and not use AfD as an easy way to get an article sourced. Personally, I would have been very happy to work on this article if you'd checked a Korean project, found my user name there, and dropped me a note. Or if you'd done this in any other similar way. But to threaten this article with deletion-- this is an extremely popular, award-winning Korean TV mini-series which was broadcast also in Taiwan and Japan-- seems to me to be unnecessarily disruptive. It is not my view of what AfD should be used for, though, obviously, many people disagree with me. Indeed, your path-- not researching or contributing, but threatening removal and telling others how and what to edit-- seems to be the general path to Adminship. So you probably don't want to listen to anything I have to say. "Never take advice from an old fool," as they say... Dekkappai (talk) 22:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just want Wikipedia to be reliable as a source and not some joke or anything. You mistake me for being stubborn, I have no clue why. Y5nthon5a (talk) 22:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable series; the fact it's not an English-language production nor widely known in the English-speaking world is irrelevant. Needs expansion and cleanup, but that's a content issue not an AFD issue. 23skidoo (talk) 19:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy KEEP. I concur with Dekkappai. This is a notable enough to exist here. I don't understand the nominator's definition of "notability"--Caspian blue (talk) 21:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has been cleaned up. Y5nthon5a (talk) 22:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I ask that people please refrain from personal attacks, and stick to the argument rather than criticising the poster. If everyone was perfect all the time, wikipedia wouldn't exist. Halifax Nomad (talk) 22:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia would exist, but not AFD :) DGG (talk) 00:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This was a very popular Korean series. SKS2K6 (talk) 00:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Keep The Korean drama is admitted to be highly notable, and therefore is appropriate content for all Wikipedias in any language--there is no such thing as notability in a particular language--the english Wikipedia is a universal world wide encyclopedia, just written in English. DGG (talk) 00:32, 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 Snow Keep, notability established, also see this Non Admin Close Dusti^SPEAK!! 13:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think this person is notable. Y5nthon5a (talk) 04:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shigenobu Nakamura[edit]

Weakly Keep , for now. This person may very well be notable. The person who created the article should be contacted and asked to contribute more to the article including secondary sources (even in Japanese would be better than nothing.) Halifax Nomad (talk) 04:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alas I don't speak Japanese. My sister is in Japan, but I don't think she follows classical music. I created it because I saw his name in several other Wikipedias and I occasionally try to do stuff with Asian music.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found him mentioned at UNESCO's "Knowledge Portal", but maybe he's not notable. Sometimes foreign Wikipedia coverage can deceive me.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep; The listing at UNESCO suggests he is notable, but probably isn't good enough to establish notability on its own. There are some cursory mentions found on Google News that pretty surely refer to him. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep. One piece noted as part of a performance in the NYT does suggest an international profile, but there's very little on him in English. --Dhartung | Talk 05:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the CV seems to give adequate reasons for notability. He's Professor of Acoustic Design at Kyushu, a very important university by any standards.DGG (talk) 06:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very clearly keep per criteria #2 for composers and lyricists at WP:MUSIC: Has written musical theatre of some sort (includes musicals, operas, etc) that was performed in a notable theatre that had a reasonable run as such things are judged in their particular situation and time. The UNESCO biography states that "some of his Music Theater pieces using computers were accepted at the ICMC in 1992, 1995, 1996, 1997." That's the International Computer Music Conference. Not a traditional opera house but it's the biggest and most prestigious thing possible for computer music practitioners with a history dating back to the mid 1970s. --Bardin (talk) 07:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies notability criteria, particularly the NYT and UNESCO references. 23skidoo (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Google gives 330 hits for the Japanese name[24] Someone might find additional relevant sources among them. Fg2 (talk) 02:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the NYT review. Observe the results in Google Scholar.[25]. There are also articles in the German [26] and Dutch [27] Wikpedias. Plus there is some stuff in German on Südwestrundfunk about a prize he won for one of works [28]. Voceditenore (talk) 20:40, 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 --JForget 23:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gangster's Paradise (film)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Gangster's Paradise (film)

There are no sources.Y5nthon5a (talk) 03:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Listing malformed AFD. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 04:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Likely hoax. Google search turns up no relevant hits. Personally, it feels odd (Jake & Maggie playing a couple), plus the author has previously created hoax articles. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 04:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The related article Jeff Tudor has been listed for speedy deletion. If Gangster's Paradise (film) is not a hoax, Jeff Tudor should be restored; if this is a hoax, then Jeff Tudor may need to be deleted or substantially revised. --Eastmain (talk) 04:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't see it in Google, don't see it in IMDB. I agree the user has gone around making plenty of links to this without adding a single source, and been repeatedly reverted by a variety of editors. Jclemens (talk) 04:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in this article is cited and based on a preliminary search at all the usual places, nothing has turned up. Therefore, does not meet WP:V. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 04:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above; cannot find sources. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Crystal Ball. Sebwite (talk) 06:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete maybe re-create at a later date Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing on the Net to support that this film exists; the Gyllenhaals and Lohan have a big enough following that this would at least rate a mention on a fan page. Nothing. 23skidoo (talk) 19:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete creator of article is banned, so this can probably be written off as a hoax. JuJube (talk) 03:57, 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 Photios I of Constantinople, because of the phonetic relationship, this search term appears reasonable. Note that while Wikipedia normally does not have articles on the etymology of various given names, I believe Wiktionary does accommodate such articles. The history is in tact if anyone thinks transwiki is appropriate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fotios[edit]

Discussion with the creator on the article's talk page. Despite what could have been an expired PROD, the article remained and he rightfully removed the PROD tag. There's still no evidence this is a notable name and the only reason he provided is essentially WP:OTHERSTUFF in that, "Fotios is not a family name - it is a first/given name. Therefore, it has nothing to do with genealogy and is very much a type of entry like Michael". Regardless of names that do and don't exist, WP is not a name directory and there's no evidence this is a notable name. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 02:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the provided references in the original article please do check the following links that demonstrate how "Fotios" is a first name given to a significant mumber of people all over the world.[29] [30] The first one lists registered people with a first name of "Fotios" just in the state of NY. One can imagine that with Greece included there are thousands of people by that name and that is demonstrated by the Google search link, which obviously brings up only those who have something to do with computers and the internet Lonwolve (talk) 05:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Patriarch Photios I of Constantinople - valid search term - Peripitus (Talk) 03:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:53, 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 --JForget 23:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motor Torpedo Boat PT 105[edit]

Most of the material in this article is generic and should be in PT boat. The rest of the material is unsourced and borders on trivia. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has a book (PT 105 ISBN-1557504695) written about it as well as mentions in At Close Quarters: PT Boats in the United States Navy, John F. Kennedy: A Biography, Hunters in the Shallows: A History of the PT Boat and others. Seems ample material available to write a good article on this small boat - Peripitus (Talk) 03:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I associated it with WP:MILHIST... let's see if the good folks there care to take an interest in improving the article. Jclemens (talk) 04:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I verified the ISBN # that Peripitus provided does exist. There might be a gem of an article waiting to be written here. Halifax Nomad (talk) 05:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as per above) and Move to Motor Torpedo Boat PT-105 for consistency with the PT-109 article's official name. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep interesting article but need more resources Kalivd (talk) 15:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable vessel that's the subject of a book. 23skidoo (talk) 19:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have not heard anything convincing in terms of a deletion rationale. Cleanup, and rename, certainly. MrPrada (talk) 01:45, 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 null. Consensus is that the policy problems with the article are unlikely to be solved.--Kubigula (talk) 03:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carmelo Papotto[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Yes, we've been here before and it was a 20-day no consensus AfD. The issues remain that there is a lack of significant non-trivial RS coverage that doesn't rehash the exact same text. The man saw a UFO, that doesn't make him notable. Appears to be a clear case of WP:BLP1E with the only possible wrinkle being that we don't know whether he's alive. Many people claim to have seen UFOs, there's no evidence this sighting was notable. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 02:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Big deal. I always see UFO'S. Unless of course there's substantial coverage in reliable sources. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom / WP:V / WP:BIO1E CultureDrone (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Dear Travellingcari, you don't really seem to give up, do you? Anyway, there's nothing I can do for the article, so go ahead and delete it. I've found this reference (In Spanish), but I don't think It'll help. Victor Lopes (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the previous AfD was closed with, "No prejudice against a re-nomination at a later date." That was four months ago and the article has not been improved in the mean time. As for not giving up, no, I don't when it comes to improving the encyclopedia. Unfortunately, geocities is generally not considered a reliable source, the language is not the issue. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 00:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I truly understand your point. However, although I know you didn't intend to offend my with these words, be careful when stating something like "when it comes to improving the encyclopedia". I've got more than two years of hard work here at Wiki, and my contributions do not prevent it from being improved. Actually, most of my edits are made in order to improve this encyclopedia. Victor Lopes (talk) 19:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Apologies I didn't mean to offend you in the slightest. I've come across your work on a couple of other articles, although I'm not sure exactly which they were at the moment. What I meant re: improving the encyclopedia was in response to your "never give up" I don't, I want to make it a better place and I don't think we're helped in that cause with relatively weak articles such as this one. That's all I meant, nothing with regard to your other contributions. Apologies again. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 20:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment: Please, don't feel guilty. I also want to make Wiki better, otherwise I wouldn't be here for two years. If you and other editors feel that this article is not good, OK, let's make it better (even if it means deleting it). Victor Lopes (talk) 21:01, 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 SPEEDY DELETE as blatant advertising. JIP | Talk 04:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Learning Engine[edit]

Software application written by Matthias Meisenberger and described here by user:Meisenberger. Is it notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant advertising, clearly G11. So tagged. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:37, 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. PhilKnight (talk) 12:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sephiron[edit]

Article about a "paranormal creature with a great killing lust". Appears to be original research. Three of four references are blogs (see WP:RS). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of evidence in WP:RS that paranormal creatures with great killing lust exist. JJL (talk) 02:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google Scholar and Google Books have no entries for this creature unlike "ordinary" Shadow people. Most hits that I found in Google suggests that this might be a mispelling or variant of Sephirot and Sephiroth (Final Fantasy)--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No G-hits, suggests it's wholly OR (note to JJL, Unicorns don't exist but are a notable topic nonetheless, this is just non-notable OR). Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it gets sourced. Lack of Google hits and lack of reliable sources. Unless sourced, my view is the article should be deleted. Fraud ^{talk to me} 03:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR Artene50 (talk) 04:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jclemens (talk) 04:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's speedy delete it as plain nonsense. Just tagged it with such. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 12:00, 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 Cenarium ^Talk 00:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GeoDaSilva[edit]

Speedy declined; no particular assertion of notability; probably violates WP:NOTMYSPACE. Biruitorul ^Talk 02:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is not a notable DJ. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced appropriately. Jclemens (talk) 04:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep- Fails all but maybe one of the sufficient criteria in WP:BAND; #2-

~~2. Has had a charted hit on any national music chart.~~

The listing on the Belgrade Dance Top 40 is, by its own name, restricted to Belgrade, but I'm not sure if that's sufficient to disqualify it ~~as sufficient~~. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Delete; Ice Cold Beer's argument was enough to convince me. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As mentioned above, the charting on the Belgrade Dance Top 40 is, apparently, restricted to Belgrade, so it's not a national chart. As far as I can tell, this DJ doesn't pass any of the other criteria either. I should probably note that according to this (a link provided in the article), this DJ has two songs currently in the Top 40. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I created this article because while I was travelling in the Balkans, this guy seemed to be all over the radio and in the clubs. He accordingly satisfied the necessary and sufficient condition WP:BAND #11 so I created the article, thinking the rest of the world could be informed. He's from Romania, not Belgrade or even Serbia, so the argument that this guy is just a Belgrade phenomenon doesn't make sense. His presence on a CD titled "Number 1 Hits 2008" marketed by a Turkish label is evidence he's big in Istanbul as well (or hit #1 somewhere else than just Belgrade). Google "Geo Da Silva" and count the hits. Anyway, reject if you will, but do so for relevant reasons. If one thinks sourcing could be different, that's an argument for editing or deleted what's sourced, not the whole article.Bdell555 (talk) 11:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't especially relevant, but let me just point out that Belgrade and Timişoara are fairly close - 73mi/117km, but as noted, he's made a CD produced in Turkey. Biruitorul ^Talk 15:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:33, 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. Enough notability to avoid speedy, but issues raised of lack of non trivial RS citations make it impossible to keep. Dweller (talk) 12:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Souza[edit]

I am realizing that links like You Tube are not allowed but do contain information which verifies this article. We are dilengently searching for more "verifiable" links to adhere to Wikipedia's standards. :) I Do not wish to have this deleted. It is all true and verifiable through sources such as the following. Organizing [direct links http://www.artistdirect.com/nad/music/artist/credits/0,,495680,00.html] currently. We have removed all external links in the text and placed a few external links under the heading: external links. I see that is being done on other pages. Am I on the right track? Thanks, Charlie :)

Biography created by user:Charliesouza. Is he notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable, meets A7. So tagged. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy declined asserts notability with having recorded for Myrrh Records, Fantasy Records. However, this will require verifiable sourcing. I have not found independent sourcing for these claims. (Allmusic did not confirm assertions made.). Sourcing appears to be entirely from sites controlled by the subject. The article requires careful reading as it is convoluted and drops a lot of names. Dlohcierekim 02:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified the article creator of this discussion. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 02:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this mention on the Florida Music Hall of Fame indicates notability or not. The invitation to email in the name of someone that belongs on the list causes me to doubt.] Dlohcierekim 03:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The email was for the "Music Honor Roll", not to be a member of the "Hall of Fame". Bubba73 (talk), 01:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And FWIW, the official White Witch website mentions him on these two pages: page 1 and page 2. Bubba73 (talk), 01:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This entry] suggests he is not signed with a major label or "one of the more important indie labels". Dlohcierekim 03:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that he did record with White Witch (band) on Capricorn Records, and I know he was with the Tropics and they released some records. Bubba73 (talk), 00:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bubba. However, we need published sources in the media-- see WP:V and WP:RS. Personal testimonials are not sufficient. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 01:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does his name printed on the CD insert count? Bubba73 (talk), 01:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, no reliable sources that I can find. I can be persuaded to change my mind. Corvus cornix_talk 23:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found just a mention as I searched Google News archives, but it does confirm that he was a bassist with Tom Petty. When I searched a different database, I found a 1999 article in the Tampa Tribune ("Reunited band turns back clock 30 years", Curtis Ross, 11 May 1999, p. 6) which is a full article about Souza's band The Tropics—"one of the Bay area's most popular bands in the '60s" according to the article. A similar article is Blank, C. "'60s band reunites for benefit", St. Petersburg Times, 7 May 1999, p. 14. I think this justifies a keep although it might be that The Tropics (band) would be the more appropriate place for this content. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly local notability, unless the work with Tom Petty does the trick? Dlohcierekim 04:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No that does not do it. It's a small blurb about the New Tropics. Local notability. No charts. No awards. No national tours that I saw. Don't see this meets WP:MUSIC, unless reliable sourcing for the Indie labels can be found. Dlohcierekim 04:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a "strong keep", that's for certain. I was arguing purely on the basis of WP:MUSIC criterion #1, not the others, and it has no stipulation that the reliable sources cannot be local media. The articles in the Tampa Tribune and the St. Petersburg Times are 401 words and 773 words respectively, both about The Tropics, and the second one mentions Souza's past work with Tom Petty. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not word count so much as "significant media coverage." These are mentions in Tampa Bay Area papers. No mentions otherwise? None outside of Florida? If no, then "not significant." Cheers, Dlohcierekim 13:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that is your own definition of "significant", not the definiton from Wikipedia's guidelines: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. There is no requirement that the media coverage be national or international. Don't get me wrong; I do agree that having national media coverage provides a stronger argument for notability. But "local coverage" is not to be completely discounted, at least according to WP:N and WP:MUSIC #1. You could propose a change, if you like, at WT:N. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vanity article.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:COI: "Avoid using the word "vanity" or similar judgmental terms — this is accusatory and discouraging. It is not helpful, nor reason to delete an article. Assuming good faith, start from the idea that the contributor was genuinely trying to help increase Wikipedia's coverage." Bubba73 (talk), 23:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Autobiography, if that's more neutral. It comes down to the same for me anyway.--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify my position-- Neutral. I suspect subject meets WP:Music but have not yet seen compelling WP:V of more than local notability. I would like to see a major label or one of the indies listed in the article. A national tour. The articles cited do not provide reliable sourcing that the subject meets WP:Music. Just getting mentioned in the papers does not make someone notable. Dlohcierekim 02:34, 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. No evidence of notability. Dweller (talk) 13:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The integral (band)[edit]

The band's notability is not easily confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN melodic modern rock group. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no problems about the band existing, but finding reliably sourced info on them is pretty slim pickings. The closest I got was this; [31]. Everything else pointed to myspace or to blogs which had their press release from myspace. Couldn't even find anything about said tour to Japan (apart from myspace) which would have allowed them to get in on WP:MUSIC#C4. a bit to soon I think, delete. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Fails all WP:BAND criteria. Fails WP:BAND#C4 specifically due to lack of sources on the Japan tour. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep needs heavily editing and to have reliable sources added too. Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - anyone searching for sources may also want to look for the band name Pacer, as that is what they were called until 2007. DigitalC (talk) 01:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried various searches (for example) on Google News archives, and also in a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, but have not been able to find any third-party sources. Delete unless sources are forthcoming before the end of this deletion discussion. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to consider that the band might be sufficiently notable, per Vans Warped and Japanese tour claims, as well as a prior band name that does sound vaguely familiar to me, but don't see any evidence in the article as written. I'll change my vote to keep if proper sources can be located, but right now it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if there is no listing of band members, it is most highly unlikely for the band to have even sufficient coverage by reliable sources to meet WP:MUSIC. While the article attempts to establish local notability. there is not enough there to differentiate this group (sorry folks - with that name, I had to try) from the hundreds, if not thousands, of local bands in North America. B.Wind (talk) 02:29, 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. — Tivedshambo _(t/c) 22:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bayou bucks[edit]

Notability on this film is not confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable movie. 99.230.152.143 (talk) 01:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN movie, no sources. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Where are the sources? Nowhere apparently. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable movie on all accounts. Chimeric Glider (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks reliable sources to verify information thus the content could be original research and may not abide by WP:NPOV. The subject fails WP:NOTE and as such, is eligible for deletion. Seraphim♥Whipp 11:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the more I search using Yahoo, the more I'm convinced that it's a hoax. The bulk of the hits refer to the Houma Bayou Bucks indoor football team. Searching "Bayou bucks"+DVD turns up anything related to the Wikipedia article only on Wikipedia sites and mirrors. B.Wind (talk) 02:22, 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 both ("The shark" already deleted at the time of closing). Daniel (talk) 10:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All Action Wrestling[edit]

I doubt the notability of this, editors appear to have possible COI. AWA Superstars of Wrestling affiliation MAY be a claim, but I am not sure.

Also this also applies to Arvy Hobbs and its weird duplicate The shark. ViperSnake151 00:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to fail WP:CORP and WP:BIO where applicable- I can't find any reliable secondary sources on the internet talking about them. Try searching for "AWA Australia wrestling" and see where it gets you; not far. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To ViperSnake151 & Mendaliv- I am currently new to wikipedia as a user and am not sure how to contact neither of you, so i have posted here instead. AWA Affiliation with All Action Wrestling is real, we are even noticed on their website as the only Australian territory and this also applies to our website witch is monitered by the AWA from time to time; You can check on these at www.awastars.com & www.awaaustralia.com. As for the diplicate of The shark on my own article, even I was not aware of this. If you could help me get rid of that, that would be excelent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Killah AAW (talk • contribs) 04:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply- I have no doubt that it's a real organization/group that may well have a real affiliation as suggested above. The problem is that All Action Wrestling lacks the necessary secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:CORP (see WP:PSTS for more information on what constitutes secondary sources). Maybe I'm just not looking hard enough, but I don't see anything on the 'net that meets those criteria. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I should point out that editing articles regarding a subject in which you have a personal stake (such as yourself or a company you work for) is considered a conflict of interest and strongly discouraged. If you work for this company, you shouldn't touch these articles with a ten-foot pole. — Gwalla | Talk 18:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The shark could be a candidate for Speedy Deletion as a duplicate page. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Moondyne 01:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All Action Wrestling and Arvy Hobbs. Non-notable and no independent reviews or media reports on either, therefore unverifiable. Author has a conflict of interest - refer WP:BIO. Clearly this is self-promotion. When the organisation grows and receives independent media coverage it may then become encyclopaedic. Right now it isn't. Moondyne 01:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the conflict of interest is not a good start, but notability and sources are also a problem. So a deletion as this point may be best, and userfy so that the article may be salvaged at a later date if notability arises. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A move to a user subpage, so attribution can be retained when deleting the mainspace redirect, is probably ideal. — Gwalla | Talk 16:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:N is not satisfied as there does not appear to be enough secondary sources on this organisation. No objection to userfying it if the article creator wishes it. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)}.

Reply - So how much media coverage do we exactly need? Do we need to be on a global scale and be known through out the world because if so that is rediculous. Ive found many indy promotions across the world who are recocgnized on wikipedia on the article of List of independent wrestling promotions and even All Action Wrestling was deleted from that in the Australian section. If you need media coverage we are recocgnised in local papers of our home teritory but I have no idea how you would get your hands on them. And some other websites that we are recocgnized on would be www.wrestling.net.au and even other wrestling promotion websites such as www.pwaelite.com. Also, if I were not to create the article on All Action Wrestling then who would? The only person who could create an article on a certain company would have to be a member of the company themselves wouldnt they? Otherwise, that would meen you'se have been letting 'smart-marks' create articles on company's that they have absolutely nothing to do with. How else could it be included in the article of how AAW started and its early day's as a company? Please explain these things to me as I do not understand. Killah 9-0-G (talk) 11:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Verifiability tells you pretty much everything you need to know. — Gwalla | Talk 17:50, 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. Dweller (talk) 13:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mikey Gray[edit]

Prod was removed with no explanation, the deletion rationale being, "Does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia per WP:Athlete as the subject has not played in a fully professional league, i.e. either the Premier League or the Football League". Possibly a hoax as there are no ghits for "Mikey Gray" + Gainsborough[32] or "Mikey Gray" +Worksop[33]. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Regardless of it being a hoax, he still doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE criteria. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 00:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

player listed in several match day programmes!
player was or is listed on Worksop Town website www.worksoptown.tripod.com , however site suggests information data could be wrong.
player is very much real and not a hoax. Have seen the man himself play for Gainsborough.
player still operates in his local sunday league
player was with a professional club as a youngster —Preceding unsigned comment added by

Footballgy (talk • contribs) 01:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the WP:ATHLETE criteria, the player has competed at one of the highest amateur level of football, aswell as being listed as a youth player for a professional club.

Delete. Played only at the low levels of the English football system; I don't see this as meeting the notability hurdle of WP:ATHLETE. —C.Fred (talk) 01:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 01:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 01:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports.[9] " Something that the player has done! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Footballgy (talk • contribs) 01:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- AttentionThis player is missing a season. Look up for participation in the Polish league before considering deletion. I seem to remember there was an M Gray listed for Ruch Chorzow in 2006/2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.171.35 (talk) 03:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Apparently not. Corvus cornix_talk 18:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE requirements ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete fails notability at WP:ATHLETE by a long-shot. --Jimbo^[online] 12:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax. Corvus cornix_talk 23:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"HOAX" Please care to look at the above comments! He is even listed on Worksop Town!!!!aswell in matchday programmes. Please do not comment "HOAX" when it is clearly obvious you have not looked any furthher than this page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Footballgy (talk • contribs) 14:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Cool. Provide references. I can only find one reference to '"Mikey Gray" worksop', and that's at bebo.com, not exactly a hotbed of football reliability. Corvus cornix_talk 15:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even assuming the player exists, he does not meet notability requirements anyway....... ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

www.worksoptown.tripod.com player listed as Mike Gray! information varies a little, but 100% positive is the same player. He did have a short stint in Poland, but its gonna have to take time to have a look. Maybe an idea to delete profile until a complete picture of the entire career can be put forward —Preceding unsigned comment added by Footballgy (talk • contribs) 18:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean http://www.worksoptownfc.co.uk? There nothing at http://www.worksoptown.tripod.com --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether there was anything there or not, tripod sites are not reliable sources. Corvus cornix_talk 18:56, 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 Speedily deleted NOT:HOWTO is not a speedy criteria but spam certainly is and this falls well within that realm. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 03:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Business systems development[edit]

OK. This user has repeatedly removed the speedy tag placed on this article. However, he also removed any (direct) advertising material, so I'm bringing this article to AfD instead. This article is pure original research and advertising. TN‑X-Man 00:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - Article started as spam, and the wording still is like-advertisement or written as a guide (WP:NOTGUIDE). I've also got a hunch that it's some sort of copyvio, but apparently not of anything Google indexes. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Delete - Article quite clearly violates WP:NOTGUIDE#GUIDE Halifax Nomad (talk) 00:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually, the article isn't eligible for Speedy Deletion by WP:NOTGUIDE alone (see WP:CSD#Non-criteria). --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Thanks. Maybe I'm misintrepreting this, but the first listed criteria of WP:CSD#Non-criteria is WP:NOT, which contains WP:NOTGUIDE if you scroll down.~~ Halifax Nomad (talk) 01:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just re-read WP:CSD#Non-criteria. Somehow I misintrepreted those as reasons to speedy-delete rather than reasons not to speedy-delete. Fixed my mistake. Halifax Nomad (talk) 03:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to that section (WP:CSD#Non-criteria), WP:NOT is considered a non-criteria for speedy deletion-- that is to say, on its own, it is not sufficient to merit speedy deletion. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unencyclopedic article. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research, personal essay. JIP | Talk 04:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOTGUIDE#GUIDE is enough reason. NoDepositNoReturn (talk) 07:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD G1 as patent nonsense. Are you a business owner who has spent years trying to work out the secret of business? As far as I am concerned, any article so full of vague generalities is "(c)ontent that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever." To the extent that any meaning can be extracted from this bit of logorrhea, it's yet another suggestion that you can Make Money Fast in any business by adding to your administrative overhead. There seem to be a lot of people selling plans that amount to this, and as such there is a likely commercial agenda at work here too. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:25, 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. Cenarium ^Talk 00:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Donnica Moore[edit]

This page was previously speedily deleted. The subject appears to be a non-notable doctor who merely has her own web page and has appeared on a few TV shows. Probably also violates non-commercialisation, and no advertising policies. —G716 <^T·_C> 00:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NY Times engagement from 1988 Walgreens website Press Release Speaker Bio ... and that's just the first page of Google hits. There's plenty there to construct a decent article. Jclemens (talk) 04:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not everybody whose wedding is announced in the NYT meets Wikipedia's notability criteria, and the other links provided by Jclemens are commercial. As a physician, subject is not notable -- no evidence of employment at prestigious hospital, no evidence of research or teaching, no evidence of service to the community or to the profession. Just a normal run of the mill doc, who makes some cash on the side from speaking fees. Regards—G716 <^T·_C> 04:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She's been on TV, appears to be a professional speaker, and is covered on websites, including authoring 28 articles for WebMD. That's a substantially different picture than the nomination painted. It's not at all clear to me, after reading but one page of Google hits, that she is likely to fail WP:BIO. Sure, I didn't find her authoring major papers or curing substantive diseases, nor did I expect to. Rather, she may be a notable physician the same way Carl Sagan was a notable astronomer. That is, maybe WP:ENTERTAINER is the right standard to apply. Could you clarify why you believe the commercial links I cited fail WP:RS, though? Jclemens (talk) 04:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She appears to have edited a book in press from DK--not a vanity press: ISBN 0756642779. She appears alongside clearly notable Princeton Alumni, on CNN, to command speaking fees in line with clearly notable persons, and to have received a Women in Government Presidential Leadership Award. That's just a few more pages of google, and skipping over the vast majority of the media appearances. In what way can she possibly be non-notable? Jclemens (talk) 05:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'll never convince me that Dr Moore is of the same caliber and standing as Carl Sagan, but that's just my opinion which counts for squat. I agree that applying a different standard may work, but even then I'm sure that she's notable. There's nothing wrong with the links you cite - they just don't convince me that she is sufficiently notable for an encyclopedia. I'll be interested to read others' opinions. Regards—G716 <^T·_C> 05:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nor would I try to convince you she was in Sagan's league--merely that her notability is due to her media appearances and popular commentary, rather than domain-specific contributions. I, too, would like to hear other people's inputs--I'm rather surprised this nom has attracted so few commentators. Jclemens (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep WP:HARMLESS, the television appearances and popularity, as well as relationship with celebrities, makes her 'notable' to some extent. If she becomes more notable, this will serve as a better basis for an article than a blank page, and it can always be deleted later if not. NoDepositNoReturn (talk) 07:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability only of the self-perpetuating kind. JFW | T@lk 16:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject fails WP:BIO. She has not contributed in any notable way to her field. TV appearances and google hits do not make her a notable doctor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Austin46 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC) Sorry! forgot to signAustin46 (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shall we delete Dr. Phil then, too? Again, I maintain that the right standard is WP:ENTERTAINER. I checked the ACOG website--she's not a board certified gynecologist (and, to be fair, hasn't claimed to be one). Jclemens (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think she fails the criteria for WP:ENTERTAINER too. I just read it again. No-one could really claim she has a "large fan base or a significant "cult" following", nor has she "made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment" (unless you count teaching a celebrity to "breastfeed" - but I think breastfeeding's been around a while, so it's not exactly innovative. Oh wait - I haven't watched the video - was she teaching Tyra Banks to feed from someone else's breast... ? Now that might be innovative. I'm sorry - please don't take that as sarcasm, the image just came into my head. Anyway being realistic, I don't think this is someone who is truly notable in any field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Austin46 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC) Austin46 (talk) 17:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The specific part of entertainer I was referring to was "has ... been featured multiple times in notable ... television", but "prolific" fits her pretty well, too. Between television appearances, print/web media columns, speaking/conference appearances, awards, boards she's been a part of, a forthcoming book she's co-editing... I'm convinced of her notability. I'd never heard of her before this AfD, but that's understandable, because I don't ever watch the kinds of shows she appears on. Further, there's no question in my mind that she's absolutely interested in self-promotion. That being said, based on the plethora of WP:RS that exists on her, I think she's already achieved sufficient notoriety to merit inclusion in Wikipedia as a television personality. Jclemens (talk) 17:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 16:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article expansion/cleanup in progress. I don't seem to be convincing people without actually doing the expansion myself. Deletion is supposed to be a last resort for articles that CANNOT be cleaned up, yet I don't seem to be making progress without showing the article in an acceptable end-state. Jclemens (talk) 19:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How sad that you seem to have decided to turn this woman's self-promotion effort into some sort of personal cause. Unfortunately there still don't seem to be any notable facts in the merely biographical material that you've added... proving where and when she was born, stating that she has a book which isn't published and so doesn't exist yet, telling us she isn't a gynecologist? There's more to improving an article than increasing the word count. It's very very depressing when so much effort is put into something that simply lowers the standards of this encyclopedia. What a pity you couldn't find a worthier channel for your time and energy.Austin46 (talk) 08:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not done yet. I'd consider it a greater tragedy that Wikipedia throw out perfectly notable and sourcable articles just because they suck at the moment. The sheer number of television appearances make her pass WP:ENTERTAINER--I didn't make that up, I just happen to be the only editor advocating that just because she has an M.D., that doesn't mean her notability has to be established as a physician. Consensus isn't voting, so I'm not worried about being the only one fixing it. There are plenty of ghits for her in non-English languages, meaning that her writings are either being translated into such languages, or that her media appearances are reported in non-English secondary sources. Jclemens (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I hope that you can also bring an objective/critical eye to your effort. It doesn't just need expansion, it needs to be cleaned up and cut, too. The first paragraph is full of linkspam (including two links to the Youtube video) and outrageous exaggeration - it claims "viewed by millions on Youtube" when in fact the Youtube count stands at 664,145. It's nonsense like this that no doubt made the article a candidate for deletion in the first place.Austin46 (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I've started to differentiate between what's claimed and what's substantiable. Frankly, it's gotten pretty frustrating to try and find independent sourcing on her professional accomplishments, because when I google any particular accomplishment or notable appearance (e.g., "the view" "donnica moore") I get a bazillion copies of her bio touting that achievement. If you'd like to start deconstructing the opening, feel free. I do plan on getting to it and removing the puffery and linkspam (as you rightly point out is needed) before the AfD closes. Jclemens (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per improvements. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems notable enough - from media appearances, if nothing else. Seems to have the sources necessary to support claims. Kelly ^hi! 06:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's got to be more notable than half the porn "stars" we have articles on. --Simon Speed (talk) 09:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm done modifying the article. If you voted delete above, please review the article as it stands now to see if it meets WP:HEY. There's still room for improvement, of course, but my intent was to make the article unquestionably salvageable by removing problematic parts and adding well-sourced material. Jclemens (talk) 18:06, 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 SPEEDY DELETE as nonsense. JIP | Talk 04:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Love is love[edit]

Doesn't seem to meet our criteria for speedy deletion, but it does not seem to be a worthy subject of an encyclopedia article. Sitthisoneout1 (talk) 00:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Uncomforming with (WP:NOR) -- No Original Research, perhaps? I think this must have been a prank. Kind of funny, but it should be removed. Halifax Nomad (talk) 02:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; it does feel like this article should be eligible for speedy deletion, but none of the criteria fit. -FrankTobia (talk) 03:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A1 Insufficient context. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete patent nonsense per the 2nd definition, and no context per 10Lb.Ham JuJube (talk) 03:50, 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 Speedy delete per WP:BLP and WP:SNOW. Nick Dowling (talk) 09:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Kisina[edit]

Notable only for being the half-brother of convicted drug smuggler, Schapelle Corby. If it wasn't for his family connections, none of us would have even bothered to remember his name. His own crimes barely rate a mention. Longhair\^talk 00:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Longhair\^talk 00:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:BLP1E. Should possibly be speedied to prevent further harm to the subject. What purpose does this article (and others like it) serve other than to disparage the subject. His crimes are not of a nature to be notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia and most of the detail regarding the Corby case is half-baked rumour now specifically denied by the police. Not to editorialise too much, but the people we write about here are real people with real feelings and their dignity should be respected, regardless of one's personal feelings towards the subject. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP.5E, it wasn't even an event, he's a historical footnote lacking encyclopedic notability. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 00:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above comments. Appears to be a garden-variety criminal of no particular individual notability. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEEVENT Artene50 (talk) 04:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, precisely the type of person for whom WP:ONEEVENT exists. Optionally redirect to Schapelle Corby#James Kisina's arrest. --Dhartung | Talk 05:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - certainly not notable enough to arrive at an article here.--VS ^talk 07:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - may fail notability standards. Guroadrunner (talk) 07:51, 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. Seraphim♥Whipp 17:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiaty[edit]

I originally tagged this for speed deletion as an advertisement, but the user asked for it to stay and said they planned to add good references. I removed the speedy and let it stay. However, it's remained as-is; an ad for a plant extract with no assertion of notability. Looks like a press release at best, blatant googlerank-spam at worst. Fribbler (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nominator here. Basically like a wikified advertisement/press release with almost every "source" to a single first party address. A lot is hard to understand for anyone unfamiliar with the subject. Rehevkor ✉ 00:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spamvertisement. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 02:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'd even say to just speedy the damn thing, considering the section on Sustainable Harvesting- all it's doing is talking about how great "Bayer Sante Familiale – Division Serdex" is. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-speedy Delete Nothing on Google News regarding this product. Regular Google hits are all sales, advertising "reviews" and/or self-published, nothing on which to base an article per Wikipedia:Verifiability. Speedy deleting this would provide no protection against recreation, which is quite common with advertising articles. There is no deadline. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:10, 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 (non-admin closure), merged to Communications in India. Finalnight (talk) 20:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liberalisation of telecommunications in India[edit]

Orphan article that may contain original research Guroadrunner (talk) 07:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Needs to be tydied up and sources are needed. Weak encyclopedic interest.--Jessika Folkerts (talk)
Merge to existing article Communications in India. --Eastmain (talk) 00:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Eastmain. 67.173.248.52 (talk) 01:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Eastmain. Looking at the article, it appears that most of the info is correct and it does give a good overview of the deregulation of the sector. In addition, the decision to do this has lead to many of the economic success that India is currently experiencing. I don't mind wikifying it on the new page. Cheers --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and tidy/wikify/source. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:35, 25 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. I note User:Brewcrewer's comments - I will drop the creator a line about providing a copy of the article if they would like to keep it. Dweller (talk) 15:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B.D. Kuchera[edit]

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 14:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only "sources" are from imdb, which is neither reliable nor a provider of significant coverage. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Forget sources, the article itself makes no claim to meeting the wp:bio standard. I do feel bad though, lots of time was spent on the article. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable thrd-party sources - all references (apart from IMDB) appear to be self-published or trivial mentions. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:20, 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 Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Morgado[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Google search for article's subject: "Jamie Morgado"
This article does not appear to be notable because it is non-notable an unreferenced. I am listing this on behalf of User:Fireaxe888, who failed to list the original AfD correctly and requested assistance at the help desk.. Above is a Google search link to help you determine notability...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 16:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn bio. Tempshill (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:26, 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, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 07:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crowne Plaza Niagara Falls - Fallsview Hotel[edit]

Non notable, written like an advertisement Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 23:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Brock Plaza Hotel, apparently an article about the same building. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither seem very notableAdmrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 21:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge Brock Plaza Hotel into this article, because Crowne Plaza is the current name. PKT (talk) 01:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the article is improved to such a state that it establishes notability. DigitalC (talk) 07:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like an advertisement. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete see nothing that makes this hotel particularly notable Michellecrisp (talk) 06:54, 24 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.