< June 29	July 1 >

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

The result was A1 by Tiptoety. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Northern (EP)[edit]

Could have been deleted on the shot, but the album is from an artist that has voted to be deleted per failure of WP:MUSIC. In addition, it does fail WP:CRYSTAL as well. JForget 23:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete album of non-notable artist. -IcĕwedgЁ (ťalķ) 23:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - EP of a nn artist --T-rex 00:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poor article that makes no attempt to indicate notability, and the artist's article has already failed to do so either. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:IAR (maybe A1). Artist ain't notable, so neither is the album. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 19:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cole Coonce[edit]

Spam of non-notable author and their non-notable book Andy Dingley (talk) 23:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One red flag (quite literally) is the fact the magazines he worked for, the awards he received, and the people he interviewed are redlinks for the most part. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 02:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. spammy poss. vanity about a non-notable individual. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete,I would have suggested keeping as assuming the description in the article is true, the person appears to have received the coverage reqiored in WP:N, however the only independent source citied appears unreliable and as such fails the criteria. An admin or anyone relevant may change my vote to a keep should any additional reliable sources be added which back up the notability claim, the only obstacle to keeping for me is the only source being unreliable. BigHairRef | Talk 06:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 19:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infinity Over Zero[edit]

Spam of non-notable author and their non-notable book Andy Dingley (talk) 23:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like an advertisement. HatlessAtless (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the wikipedia is not intended as an advertisement site for nn books and their authors. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Yay! vanimaybespamcruftisement Thin boy 00 @824, i.e. 18:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ADVERT. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, as I noted on the author's AfD, I'd support this article as reasonably meeting the criteria but for the fact of no supporting sources. NOrmally this wouldn't make me suggest deletion but given the lack of them for the author it appears that the same WP:V test is failed. As per the author's Afd, Opinion may be noted as Keep if any reliable sources are found. BigHairRef | Talk 07:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kidney Car[edit]

A plot summery of a non-notable episode of a marginally notable tv show, with no references and very little out of universe content --T-rex 23:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. No third party sources. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find anything to add which could make this pass Plutonium27 (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's really no more to be added to a plot summary. Perhaps this information within this article can be added with other episodes, or perhaps under a season article... if there is such a thing. In lieu of such options, and due to notability issues I support deletion and hope I make this closeable as deleted with my addition of deletion support. Beam 19:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was I'm going to delete this, following the consensus that seems to have developed. I note, however, that I tend to agree w/DGG's comments below, and would probably have said "Keep" for the same reason as he.. - Philippe 19:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JVC GZ-MG135[edit]

Non-notable. Products of this type are too numerous to have separate WP articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evidently notable. The number of such products is not a reason to delete. The content might be merged if there is overlap with other similar articles but that would not be deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two articles in the popular press is no justification of notability. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two such sources are usually considered prima facie evidence of notability. Note that notability does not mean importance; it merely means worthy of notice and the sources are evidence that others have noticed the topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But two source cannot be construed to be significant coverage. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

from the cited reviews, "a fair-to-middling performance across all areas, while excelling at none."
If just one of these reviews told me that it had little legs and would walk around shooting my footage for me, then that would be notable. As it is, it's just yet more of the same old same old. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite to make it look less like an advertisement. JIP | Talk 16:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's a single brand of camcorder. Colonel Warden, why does that link show notability? It isn't any kind of loaded question, I just dont understand why. Ironho lds 14:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link I provided shows notability as there are two substantial reviews by the periodicals Stuff and Good Gear Guide. Your apparent opinion is that camcorders are not important enough to be included in Wikipedia. This is irrelevant since we go by the opinion of independent journalists, authors and scholars who demonstrate by their work that the subject is worthy of notice. This is the objective test of notability per WP:N. By using this guideline we avoid subjective arguments about whether camcorders are more or less worthy of notice than types of car, beetle, cheese or whatever. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we apply the criteria of WP:N in its strictest sense we could add thousands of electronic consumer items. Consumer items on the whole have less notability than say, villages or academic theorems. Exception are the likes of the Walkman, the iPod etc. Having said that there are plenty of articles on individual models of cellphones and digital cameras. Where do we draw the line? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is a threshold. Once an item is past that threshold, it meets our standards for inclusion. Debating the relative notability of items beyond this threshold is pointless here since it is not a reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability should be put in context with all the other articles in WP. A camcorder is not notable for inclusion if we say, have not got all the core or basic topics covered. On the other hand if we include this model of camcorder we should include all others that are as notable. Given the current stage of WP I feel that we should not be including this type of consumer product. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless something can be found about this particular model that makes it particularly noteworthy. From WP:N: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." In my judgement, two product reviews is not enough to be "significant coverage". --Smiller933 (talk) 19:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You want things to be not just notable but "particularly notable".? How many sources are required for this and why is this extraordinary requirement needed for camcorders? Colonel Warden (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twisting my words around isn't going to win my support. I don't consider two product reviews to be "significant coverage". This is true whether we are talking about camcorders or something else. Changed to Delete. --Smiller933 (talk) 01:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Products are inherently non-notable, they become notable when and only when they have been the subject of multiple reliable third-party sources. These sources need to be media about the real-world significance of the product not just a review or press-release. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 23:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Inherently non-notable? Where did you get that from? Or do you mean not inherently notable, which means something completely different? And what is wrong with reviews for establishing notability? They are written by independent journalists and published based on editorial judgement - you can't lump them in with press releases. We accept reviews for books, bands etc. so why not for camcorders? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just another camcorder. Needs to show something special about it beyond other camcorders before it might become notable. WP isn't a product catalogue. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I can't see anything in our guidelines about subjects needing to be "special" - only that they should be notable based on the existence of independent reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Independent sources confer verifiability, not notability. No-one disputes that this thing exists and is verifiable, it just isn't interesting or notable. It's one product in a world full of similar ones, a bit better than last week's model, not quite as good as next week's. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Personally, I dont think that the general notability criterion makes much sense, since it bears no necessary relation in either direction to any concept of importance or suitability for an encyclopedia, but it remains the policy. If 2 RSs talk specifically about a particular model of any product in a substantial way, it's notable until we change the policy. A product catalog is something that lists every model & variation, --not all models or trivial variations of everything get reviewed. DGG (talk) 12:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've been carefully avoiding using the word keep or delete here because I'm in agreement with DGG that there are cases where current policy and guidelines (which would point to a keep) produce undesirable results. I think Wikipedia would be a better encyclopedia with an article on JVC camcorders covering the whole range, because that would allow for different models to be placed in context, but I'm sure that most of the sources would be about specific models such as the reviews cited here. Any article on the whole range based on these sources could be slapped down as original research because the sources don't explicitly talk about the range, so we are left with the situation where we can have articles on some models but not others based on the rather arbitrary criterion of whether they have been reviewed by easily accessible publications, and we don't have any real way of putting them in context. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why you couldn't create a page for the whole range of JVC camcorders using references that each discuss only a single model. As long as you aren't synthesizing any information, I don't see how this violates WP:OR. For example, you couldn't say "Model Y is a slightly improved version of Model X, with many similarities including the same flux capacitor", unless you found sources that stated that. That said, it's not uncommon for a product review to compare a product to its predecessor(s). One example of a similar page is HP LaserJet - perhaps not the best example since that page could use a lot more footnotes. --Smiller933 (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see our editing policy. Then general idea of the Wiki is that we let such articles coalesce from imperfect fragments. It is not our policy to expect immaculate accounts of a wide topic to spring forth fully formed. Deletion does not assist in such cases because it destroys the details as they appear. If you are not prepared to do the hard work of reshaping all this material then please do not expect more from other editors. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Why does this article exist? If those advocating could please explain to me why it's useful or informative to have it, then I might be more inclined to support it. As it is, it's just not useful to me. What am I missing here? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWikipedia is not a JVC catalog. The article reads like it was written from the owner's manual, complete with "what comes in the box." Should there be a Wikipedia article for every product which was ever offered for sale by any company which had two product reviews? I think not. A short product review falls short of a demonstration of notability. It would be more appropriate to have a list of JVC camcorders with the features of each model, the date introduced, separated by the mode of recording (tape, hard drive, etc.) I cannot find such an article. There are no refs to show that it was a significant development in the history of camcorders, or a landmark product for the manufacturer. Edison (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Few third party reviews...none included in article. Reads like a specs sheet. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 22:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of classic Scooby-Doo episodes[edit]

NPOV (title and content) duplication of better written, pre-existing articles (List of Scooby-Doo, Where Are You! episodes andThe Scooby-Doo Show). Author was apparently attempting, for whatever reason, to create a consolidated episode guide (all of the individual Scooby series articles, incidentally, where split from just such a guide years ago), and admits personal POV biases in creating article. FuriousFreddy (talk) 23:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)\[reply]

Delete It looks like the article's creator copied and pasted material from the 2 existing Scooby Doo pages. The DVD relesae info is almost identical. Artene50 (talk) 23:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Here's the proof that all episodes of Scooby-Doo are classics!! I suspect that this article was created out of frustration. Some articles are on the watchlist of persons who revert any attempted edit to their version of the Gospel, and I wouldn't be surprised if there's some asshole out there who is zealously protecting the gospel according to Scooby-Doo. No reason that this information can't be merged to an existing table. Mandsford (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inherently NPOV. Merge not needed, the appropriate merge articles already exist. Seems Scooby-Doo people are just protecting their articles from one editor designating his favourite episodes as "classic"Yobmod (talk) 14:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - redundent to List of Scooby-Doo, Where Are You! episodes. possibly redirect. no content to merge --T-rex 23:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Topic already well-covered elsewhere. L0b0t (talk) 23:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List of Scooby Doo episodes is covered elsewhere, and without reliable third party sources, determining certain ones classic is unencyclopedic. Vickser (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Already covered elsewhere and "classic" concept violates WP:NPOV. 23skidoo (talk) 00:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons painfully obvious. JuJube (talk) 04:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, already covered. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 09:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, this list fails neutral point of view editorial policy and duplicates information which is already held elsewhere on Wikipedia in a better fashion. RFerreira (talk) 19:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the information already exists in other articles. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 20:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge Merge if any cited info will be deleted. Delete all the rest. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 19:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duplex Records[edit]

Procedural nomination (I have no opinion). This was nominated for CSD under criterion A7. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 06:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep A few notable bands seem to be linked to this label. Lugnuts (talk) 08:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. This article, and the articles of many of the bands, rely on primary sources for their references (situation is the same on the Norwegian wikipedia so no sources add from the articles there). One article that does cite sources is Hurra Torpedo, a band that seems to be notable (it was missing from the label article but linked on some of the related articles, so I have added it). However only one notable band is not enough, and the label does not seem to meet the WP:N or WP:CORP notability guidelines due to lack of coverage in reliable sources so unless more references are added to establish notability of the label and/or other bands associated with the label, it should be deleted. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 21:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:CORP. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero third party sources...or any sources for that matter. Fails notabilty. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 23:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Gurjar kshatriya kadiya samaj[edit]

Non notable with no reliabe sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 20:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 20:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable organization concerning a Gujarati subcommunity, also much of the article is OR. The only sources that describe the organization are its own websites. Reliable sources are lacking. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be non-notable. PhilKnight (talk) 21:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Manmohan Waris. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Husn Da Jadu[edit]

Might be better to merge this with other album releases. StaticGull Talk 17:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - album does not have independent notability/coverage per WP:MUSIC#ALBUMS to have its own page, merge to artist.--Finalnight (talk) 21:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Why the relist? Nobody has asked for deletion, even the nominator. If this is merged it needs to be kept as a redirect for GFDL purposes. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Ahem...Merge... Is this thing on? Merge. Archive this and be done with it. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - As not to lose this information it should be merged asap. It would be silly to delete when merging is a viable and sense filled option. Beam 19:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted — Werdna • talk 02:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Norsez[edit]

The article's creator mainly has uploaded the images and worked on the article. Might be a db-band situation. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 20:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not provide any sources to establish notability according to WP:MUSIC criteria.--Finalnight (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of coverage in reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 21:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - He seems to be huge around the world, see [1], but I can't find much in the way of many good sources in the first few pages. I'd lean to keep for now. Bearian (talk) 23:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I realize not everything may be in English but I'm not getting much --T-rex 23:46, 30 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. Kurykh 00:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hillel Academy of Ottawa[edit]

Mostly consists of vandalism, it also doesn't seem notable enough. StaticGull Talk 17:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

took out the vandalism -- good catch. someone should report the vandals. Notably especially given Jesse Levine having gone there.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this page should stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.27.8 (talk) 06:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also say this article should stay. It's notable if for no other reason than that at least 400 people go to this elementary school. It's just as notable as any other elementary school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.93.190 (talk) 03:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 21:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC) JForget 22:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - virtually no good cites out there, see [2]. Bearian (talk) 23:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:School says elementary schools aren't notable barring particular significance and coverage in reliable sources to accompany it. With a boat load of precedent, nothing exceptional and no good sources, delete's the way to go. Vickser (talk) 00:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 19:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky Road (label)[edit]

No sources about label, all about the same rapper. Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 22:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:CORP. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Shihad. A strict !vote count would indicate delete, but I note that the nominator also said redirect and Beam says delete if the information is in the main band article. That indicates that 3 of the 4 editors who commented would be happy with a merge/redirect, and only two with a delete (as the information is not yet in the band page, I assume Beam does not want a delete at this time.) Merging certainly follows policy, so merge it is. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Knight (musician)[edit]

Articles on musicians require them to be known for something other than a single artist/band, which this musician does not fulfill. Delete and redirect to the band page. Ironho lds 22:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete Not notable. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Delete it as long as the information is within a sub section in the band article. Beam 19:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 19:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iomega Zipcam[edit]

Product only appeared as a prototype at a trade show in 1999. Was not covered in the press, fails notability. Rasadam (talk) 22:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Iomega 70.55.86.34 (talk) 04:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it never made it to being a product and garnered so little attention there appears to be no reliable sources writing about it -- Whpq (talk) 16:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable prototype. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. First, I see nothing that says she requested deletion; only accuracy. That's a fair request. I'd be inclined to tend towards deletion if she requested it. Until then, notability appears to be satisfied.. - Philippe 19:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Noland[edit]

BLP – apparently requested to have Wikipedia article on herself removed, and her notability is based merely on her doing her job. Bwrs (talk) 22:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Although this article is in Category:Biography articles of living people who have requested removal, the comment on the talk page only says that she requested that the article be factually correct. No opinion (yet) on notability. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was placed in that category by an administrator. Bwrs (nom.) (talk) 23:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page has been subject to past edit storms that added lots of obsessive-fan type information. Understandably, Ms. Noland (according to an editor who spoke to her, see talk page) was less than thrilled. My question: is nuking the page just inviting someone to come along and create yet another stalky-fanboy version? (One wonders if semi-protection of some sort would be easier.) A²Kafir (and...?) 16:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The only reason to delete this article would be if she wasn't sufficiently notable. The fact that she requested over a year ago to have it deleted is not relevant to this debate. We don't delete articles upon request. KnightLago (talk) 16:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that LPs in general are entitled to some privacy. If a subject is marginally or semi-notable, we should consider "that ethical decisions where good people disagree should be placed in the hands of the people who live with the consequences. No one could have more at stake in this request than these articles’ subjects. We ask notable people not to edit their own articles; we insist that they don’t own the content and we stand by other site policies. On a human level – setting any personal antipathies aside – it’s fair that we extend one courtesy in return: although Wikipedia is not paper, some living people who began their careers in the era of paper publishing...prefer to lead relatively private lives"; thus, "if the person isn't notable enough for an entry in any other encyclopedia--including specialty encyclopedias--then Wikipedia should extend a courtesy deletion upon receiving a request from the article's subject" (Durova, 2008). As far as I know, the subject of this particular article is notable only because she does her job. Now if she was a national news anchor, or if she were a public official of some sort, that would be different. Bwrs (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The test for inclusion remains whether or not they are notable. There are a lot of people who are notable just for doing their jobs. While I only see two sources in her article, the first one, the bio, makes her sounds pretty notable. Stints on CBS Radio Network, CNN, and anchoring a morning show in Detroit are noteworthy. KnightLago (talk) 14:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to meet minimal notability requirements. She seems to only have requested accuracy, not deletion. Furthermore, how do we know it is her requesting the deletion? — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Edgar Allan Poe#Literary influence. - Philippe 19:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar Allan Poe's literary influence[edit]

This article was started before we had a handle on the main article on Edgar Allan Poe. Now that we've trimmed the fat on that article and brought it up to featured quality, this page on his literary influence is redundant. What is most important is already covered within the Poe article and the remainder is not verifiable. --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Edgar Allan Poe#Literary influence. Reyk _YO! 00:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect not delete, so the history remains viewable -Hunting dog (talk) 07:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. This seems a reasonable spin-off. At minimum, the more detailed information about Poe's influence in France should be kept or merged somewhere, and this probably ought to remain a separate article for reasons of undue weight. At least as far as the sections that interest me are concerned, I don't see a verifiability problem, and this seems better referenced than many articles. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I should also note that a good portion of the information also appears in relevant articles such as C. Auguste Dupin and The Murders in the Rue Morgue (i.e. in relation to detective fiction). In fact, much of the sourced material in the literary influence article had to be culled from sourced information in other articles. I would definitely support a merge vote. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Edgar Allan Poe. Actually, it probably doesn't even need the merge at this point, just a redirect. — Gwalla | Talk 15:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Keeps history and would be most appropriate. Merge any info needed. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Awaiting completion of time, but nominator is welcome to Be Bold and do it himself/herself. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - in my view "Edgar Allan Poe's literary influence" is an awkward title; I would expect most users to search for "Edgar Allan Poe" instead. I see no need for merging (see nomination). Kind regards, Ryttaren (talk) 08:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, this article has its place in Wikipedia as EAP has influenced literary works worldwide and conforms with WP:SUMMARY. The information is valid, it is simply a matter of finding its place in Wikipedia. If we incorporate it into EAP, no prob. If it remains its own separate article, I have no problem with it

This is true, and it is the reason why we forked it to begin with. Now, however, we have a fairly substantial discussion of Poe's influence in the article itself - and it's all sourced, unlike the information here. It seems to me that the need for a forked article is no longer there. I think at this point even a merge is pointless; a redirect should suffice. --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge & redirect to Basistha Temple. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 20:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basistha Ashram[edit]

Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. — Ism schism (talk) 12:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. — Ism schism (talk) 12:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Basistha Temple. Not an A-list site, but probably worth a line or two somewhere. Shows up a lot as the "Vasistha Ashram". - Richfife (talk) 16:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ridirect and Merge with Basistha Temple per Richfife. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Yoga Institute, Santacruz, Mumbai[edit]

Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. — Ism schism (talk) 12:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Ism schism (talk) 12:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have not been able to find any notability for the article. Also, I have not found any reliable sources since nominating the article. As such, I still feel the subject should recieve a delete vote. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After a brief search for sources or even a mention of The Yoga Institute in Mumbai I could not find one other than the Institutes own website. That leads me to conclude that it is not notable enough for inclusion as a stand alone article. If the article can not be a subsection in any other Yoga articles or related articles than I support deletion. Beam 19:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete due to verfiability and notability concerns. Davewild (talk) 21:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JCB The Musical[edit]

As the article author admits on the talk page, reliable sources for this article are, to all intents and purposes, non-existent which would fail WP:V. Although it's possible that such a musical might be produced, it seems to be more likely to be non-notable (failing WP:N) at best, and a hoax at worst. Not beign able to find sources seems a dubious reason for keeping the article, however I'm putting this forward for a consensus view. CultureDrone (talk) 13:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the author of the article I can't vote for it. All I would say is that it would be a shame to delete an interesting article simply because the subject matter came and went before the age of the internet. JCB The Musical is noted in a respected published book, which I would say carries more weight that hits on Google. As to whether it is notable or not, well, all I will say about that is that JCB The Musical is not much less notable than And the World Goes 'Round.Judith Scott-Kerr (talk) 17:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC) — Judith Scott-Kerr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment - I've contacted the Swansea Grand (I'll drop the phone number in here if anyone wants to double check) - they have no record that this production ever took place. CultureDrone (talk) 11:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. The only thing a Google search turns up is three results: the article itself, a reference from another to the article, and a pointer to this very AFD. Nothing else exists about. This would corroborate what CultureDrone found - basically, there's nothing that says this thing ever existed. In short, pics or it didn't happen. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Without !voting either way for now, it should be noted that valid references are not limited to that which can be Googled. Fortunately, the book mentioned is available in many public and college libraries, and can be reasonably checked. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 23:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - which is why I went to the horses mouth (so to speak) and checked with the people who were supposed to have staged the production (see above) CultureDrone (talk) 16:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Judith, if you wanted to seek more confirmation you could try contacting the JCB company, who might well remember such a production - though as it's a family firm and the musical doesn't show the chairman in a good light, they may have preferred to forget it. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and bury Oh, those scallywags. What a Card! Plutonium27 (talk) 19:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The first source provided by BQZip is a publicly editable encyclopedia - using it would be somewhat akin to citing Wikipedia as a source for another Wikipedia article. Nousernamesleft (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Li Maye[edit]

Delete nn author Mayalld (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete could be speedy, no assertion of notability. And with no refs, there's nothing for us to check...when you search Google, this article is the first entry and the only one about this person, the rest are about a medical researcher with the same name. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 23:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.
Comment. I removed a speedy from the article, but I am not sure that notability has been proven. The first point I want to make is that the author writes in Chinese, and therefore one should search for the author's name as written in Chinese characters. When you search for the author's Chinese pen name, 李马也, you get several ghits. An article in the Baidu Encyclopedia at http://baike.baidu.com/view/1234308.htm confirms the information in the article, but may not be independent of the author. Similarly, http://www.dushu.com/author/%E6%9D%8E%E9%A9%AC%E4%B9%9F/ is an entry for the author, but may also not be independent. I cannot find independent coverage in reliable sources, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. --Eastmain (talk) 01:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 19:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dong Qin[edit]

Delete nn character in nn book Mayalld (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not clear on the notability of the author, but the character clearly is not. JuJube (talk) 04:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete; default to keep. - Philippe 19:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday Village[edit]

Article lacks important information and is vague, no sources, no citations of notability. - Diligent Terrier (and friends)21:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DICT Ros0709 (talk) 22:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems an obviously notable concept. [3] --neon white talk 22:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Evidence seems to support that it's a stub. Nfitz (talk) 03:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The page has potential for addition of more content. --Bhadani (talk) 14:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to wikitionary & redirect accordingly. No need to delete the info. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 22:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ganga Sarasvati[edit]

Delete nn character in nn book Mayalld (talk) 21:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable character. Shovon (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Book series ha no claim of notability, author has no claim of notability, and likewise this character will have a very hard time to establish any kind of notability. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above. --Bhadani (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 19:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Live and Revitalized[edit]

Article suffers under WP:Crystal Album is not yet released and perhaps should only come back if/when it is released. --VS ^talk 11:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 20:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:CRYSTAL. The only reference doesn't even mention the album. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - does not fail WP:CRYSTAL, but has no references to be found --T-rex 04:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 22:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of resorts[edit]

per WP:NOT#INFO - Diligent Terrier (and friends)20:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Textbook example of the indiscriminate list. This is what categories are for. Mandsford (talk) 21:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No limiting criteria to define the list's scope. (As an aside, the link to the AfD in the article is a redlink; fixable?) Townlake (talk) 22:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- reply - just purged the page, and now the link works for me. - DiligentTerrier (and friends)22:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Me too - thank you! Townlake (talk) 22:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom --T-rex 23:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a snowball. Edit the article to add the word "delete" to end of the list, so that the administrator can say, "I did this only as a last resort." Mandsford (talk) 15:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus; default to keep. - Philippe 19:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Planes of Existence (talker)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Contested prod ("A long extinct site that never had more than 300 users"). The article is fully unreferenced, and there's no evidence it was ever notable. The article is just a basic, personal account of the events and "controversies" surrounding the site. -- lucasbfr ^talk 20:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Personal essay. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passed first nomination, important talker in discussing the history of talkers. Article has existed for several years with no problems. Furthermore, the prod statement is false. It had over 15,000 users. It had 300 users online at the same time. There is a big difference. It is completely well referenced by the looks of it, with over 20 references. Makes pretty big claims to notability, which have been backed up over the past 3 years. More notable than the other 11 talker articles combined. It had previously been established that text-based settings, such as talkers and MUDs, cannot have the same kinds of references as other topics, hence the same rules cannot be applied for their verifiability. This passes common sense guidelines for verifiability. It existed, it had that many users, it was that popular, it was that important. That much is obvious. It isn't possible to have references of the kind that were suggested it to have, as no talker or mud article would ever have such references. Dyinghappy (talk) 01:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but none of that is a particularly accurate gauge of popularity and, more importantly, it isn't referenced so it is impossible to verify the information. Unfortunately, we can't just take your word for it. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of the informal sourcing provided by the links. This is the sort of material that Wikipedia has long specialised in. DGG (talk) 12:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I might agree if the article was at least a bit sourced, the Opening, Decrease in popularity, Important users, and especially Controversy sections desperately need to be sourced, per WP:BLP for a part. The references at the bottom of the article are all dead, and no secondary sources are used at all. In this state, I think the article is unsalvageable (or else I'd stubbify it, but I couldn't find any relevant reliable source). -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge reliably sourced parts with Talker per previous noms. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 20:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Political society[edit]

Contested prod. Wholly inadequate and unencyclopedic article, unreferenced and so badly written as to be irredeemable.

1. It consists mostly of disjointed fragments, not complete sentences

2. It contains dense phrases such as "fetishized postmodern discourse" and "ambiguous use of the idea of civil society by academics" which appear to have been lifted out of context from a scholarly text and convey nothing at all to the reader - if indeed they ever did mean anything anyway

3. It consists almost entirely of unexplained assertions, again without any context.

There was originally a reference to a Polish language publication which is not readily available for English speaking wikipedia editors to check. Now there are no references at all. Therefore the article fails WP:VER andy (talk) 20:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update - some references have now been added but they're either so general as to be useless (e.g. all of Locke's Two Treatises of Government) or simply misleading (e.g. a confusing statement about Poland is linked to Civil society, which contains no reference to Poland) andy (talk) 08:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This essay is pure OR. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It looks like this was written in Polish and ran through a translator. It's also entirely OR. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete D-grade OR. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it is a translation from a Polish original, then I don't want to take the risk that it may be a derivative of a copyrighted work. Bwrs (talk) 23:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a badly written piece of original research. If it is notable (as there are plenty of ghits), it will have to be rewritten with a more appropriate tone. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 00:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep as concept important to social and political sciences, political philosophy. it is not perfect and needs improvements but not deletion. definitly it is not OR, according to given original resources that should be studied before deletion.--Discourseur (talk) 10:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The concept seems notable. If the entry can be rewritten to include better refs and for readability, it would be a "keep".--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, "if". It doesn't need re-writing, it needs deleting and writing from scratch. andy (talk) 22:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wikitionary. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it looks more that reasonable and also notable. Tocqueville uses idea of political society and political association as well so it is good source. Article definitely needs improvements and I can do some later - now going on holidays. --seventy3 12:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seventy3 (talk • contribs)
- I'd withdraw the AfD if significant improvements were made to the article but not on the basis of promises of future improvements by a newbie editor who has so far only made one minor edit to an article. Sorry. When you come back maybe you can write a new version from scratch. andy (talk) 16:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naughty America Day[edit]

490 Google hits, many of which appear to be duplicates of the same press release from a publisher of adult entertainment. Fails WP:N. tgies (talk) 20:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd figure that one of the "leading adult entertainment companies in the world" would have a fucking webpage. This isn't the place for it. Hopefully, by July 3, the administrator can hold this one for naught. Mandsford (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as worthless spam. 66.43.117.5 (talk) 21:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mandsford --T-rex 23:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable Ged UK (talk) 06:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was by a pure vote count, this is probably a "no consensus", but since the band appears to fairly solidly meet our notability requirements, I'm going to call it a KEEP. - Philippe 20:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Prairie Cartel[edit]

Non-notable stub about a band/organization. Yamakiri ^T_C § 06-30-2008 • 20:50:47

The band meets Criteria 1 and 6 on the Notability for bands page; their music was independently published in GTAIV, and they have members that were once part of notable bands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobo with a Shogtun (talk • contribs) 20:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As nominator. Yamakiri ^T_C § 07-1-2008 • 00:37:17
Weak Keep They have a review[4] in the Chicago Reader, and I found a small article about one of the band's members in Spin Magazine [5]. The GTA thing is also a decent reference. That said, the album is "self released" and while Chicago Reader has 100k+ readers, it's still a local publication about a local band. I'm erring on the side of keep for now, but I may change that after hearing a bit more from people more experienced in WP:Music than I.Vickser (talk) 00:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I am concerned about the band's notability. However, the mention of the music in GTA4 might make theme somewhat notable. Marlith (Talk) 04:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep mentioned in GTA4 + local publication meets notability requirements...but just barely. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solid Keep this meets notability via GTA 4 combined with local newspaper and the band members themselves indivudally seem to have notability as well that when combined as a band and added to GTA 4, and the Reader means we should keep this article. Beam 19:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. i'll be happy to userfy if someone wants to work on a merge. - Philippe 20:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seawolf debate[edit]

University debating team. Are they notable? Even if you say "keep", please say whether we need the complete history of the team's achievements. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With this title, I'd've expected something about the design of the Seawolf class SSN, or the Virginia vs Seawolf decision... 70.55.86.34 (talk) 04:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a notable subject. No debate! -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to University of Alaska Anchorage , perhaps in the "student life" section. Seems to be verifiable and deserves inclusion in the appropriate article, but no evidence of sufficient independent references to justify a standalone article. Edison (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Edison couldn't have said it better. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to to Kerli Kõiv. PhilKnight (talk) 15:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Walking on Air (Kerli Song)[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC as a song that hasn't charted or been performed by many different artists LegoTech·(t)·(c) 03:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - confirmed single by a notable artist. can be well sourced. --T-rex 20:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect guidelines state that unless a song has charted or had significant coverage etc, it should be merged to an artist or album article. (WP:MUSIC). --neon white talk 22:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Kerli Kõiv. Independent secondary sources are needed to justify a standalone article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect. Editor contributions will remain undeleted and available in the redirect's page history. See debate directly above this one for precedence. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Love is Dead (Kerli Song)[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC as a song that hasn't charted or been performed by many different artists LegoTech·(t)·(c) 03:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (by redirecting) into Kerli Kõiv - notability concerns. PhilKnight (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of The Clique series characters. As there is already an entry there, no need to merge.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Massie Block[edit]

Unnotable fictional character. Fails WP:FICT and WP:N in having no significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources. Failed PROD with prod removed for no stated reason. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unnotable? See this! Kubek15^{(Sign!) (Contribs) (UBX)} 16:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google results do not equal notability. Significant coverage in reliable, third party sources establish notability of the character, not fansites, YouTube Videos, and sales pages for the books.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ No real world coverage in indepedent reliable sources. Please also see Wikipedia:Search engine test for the limitations of a Google search. --Phirazo 19:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought, merge and redirect to List of The Clique series characters. This can be collapsed into a list entry fairly well. --Phirazo 03:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hut 8.5 19:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. Also, it is hard to "fail" the heavily disputed and still under consideration fictional guideline. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Google test is near useless here, due to the amount of false positives and useless sources, and traffic statisitics mean nothing. WP:N is undisputed, and this article certainly fails that. --Phirazo 17:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Google test demonstrates verifiability (just because we have to fish through the sheepheads to get to the walleyes and perch does not mean the walleyes and perch are not there, too) and the traffic statistics demonstrate an element of notability, i.e. real world interest. WP:N is heavily disputed (see its talk page and edit history, not to mention Wikipedia:Notability/Historical/Non-notability or this category) and it passes it anyway. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The actual Notability guideline requires reliable secondary sources. I don't see why that is so controversial. Most of the controversy seems to be about inclusionism vs deletionism. Articles don't get a free pass due to traffic. See WP:BIGNUMBER. --Phirazo 12:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Secondary sources would be reviews and interviews that mention the character. Articles that are legitimate search terms do not get deleted. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - "Articles that are legitimate search terms do not get deleted." What? Where did you get that idea? What is a "legitimate search term" anyway? --Phirazo 00:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I got that idea from common sense and logic. A legitimate search term is something that people who come to Wikipedia are likely to search for by typing in the search area. When large numbers of editors work on an article and the article gets lots of traffic, it is likely something that many editors and readers beyond the number that will likely comment in a five day AfD think legitimate. Moreover a legitimate search term is one that can be redirected at worst. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete or~~ redirect to List of The Clique series characters. Nothing significant here that can't (and isn't) already mentioned there. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: nominated versus current version. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is not RS - and throwing in two wiki links does not establish notability. Does show there is a place to transwiki this stuff if anyone wants it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Titular characters are at least notable enough for merges and redirects without deletion. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to List of The Clique series characters in the absence of substantial coverage specific to this character. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (by redirecting) to List of The Clique series characters - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 15:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as copyvio. - Philippe 20:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bet Herut (documentary)[edit]

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Doesn't appear to comply with any of the principles listed in WP:MOVIE.--PhilKnight (talk) 00:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the very welcoming stub - Beit Herut. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --- as a word-for-word reprint of the review of the film from the Jewish Channel, this seems a copyright violation. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a copyvio LegoTech·(t)·(c) 19:52, 30 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. Sandstein 06:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Song of Destiny[edit]

Delete nn and unreferenced series of chinese novels Mayalld (talk) 10:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Bláthnaid 21:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is completely unverifiable and has no reliable sources. Notability has not been established. It looks like LiJiankun (or Limaye) is the author of his own article here Artene50 (talk) 09:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hut 8.5 19:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is the only source that shows up for both this and the author. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 19:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It should be noted that I had to go back 15 edits to 6/26 to find where the editor removed the AfD tag from the article. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 19:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find the title in this news article, but not with the author's name-- so it's probably in reference to another work. It does look like self-promotion from the auther. But not being able to read Chinese, I hesitate to vote either way on this one. This should probably be listed at a Chinese project to get informed input. Dekkappai (talk) 21:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree that this appears to be self-promotion. There is a Baidu Encyclopedia article about the author here, but it may have been written by the author. I would like someone familiar with Chinese fantasy literature to comment. --Eastmain (talk) 01:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:CRYSTAL applies here. - Philippe 20:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Religion's fifteenth studio album[edit]

The album doesn't even have a title yet. WP:CRYSTAL issues galore. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - no title, no track listing, no album cover, and no release date --T-rex 20:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TPH's law. Album that hasn't even been recorded yet and doesn't have a name has zero probability of notability.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:CRYSTAL and TPH's Law. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Untitled future album. Lugnuts (talk) 07:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing to say, just keep. Korn's article about about their upcoming album also exists and their new album hasn't been recorded yet, but does that mean it has to be deleted as well? Alex (talk) 14:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whoever made the decision to delete this is an idiot. There is actually no reason to delete this article. RaNcIdPuNkS (talk) 14:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See articles like Korn's ninth studio album, Cannibal Corpse's eleventh studio album, Social Distortion's seventh studio album, Rancid's seventh studio album and Rise Against's fifth studio album 64.136.26.231 (talk) 14:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"what about x" is not a good reason to keep Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No cover, no release date, and they're not even recording it yet. Yeah, this is WP:CRYSTAL all the way. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I disagree that the article should be kept because of other, similar articles; in all but one of those cases, the album is at least being recorded. In this case, the article seems to be nothing more than concluding that, since the band still exists, a new album will be recorded at some point. Not exactly informative. --ThunderPX (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, Jay Bentley, their bassist, said in an interview last month that the band is going to start recording a new album earlier next year, I know that much. Alex (talk) 19:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, they're not even recording yet. That's still WP:CRYSTAL. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails the everything test. The album doesn't have a title and recording hasn't even started. RFerreira (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Joe Girardi. PhilKnight (talk) 15:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Joe Girardi Show[edit]

Non-notable show TV show, spammy. ukexpat (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 19:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't just about every manager have a show like this? And most players too? —Wknight94 (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Exactly how does this not live up to the notability guidelines? A simple google search reveals sufficient numbers of significant,independent, third party dicussions of the subject. Wikiproject:Television does not even discuss whether shows are notable only whether individual episodes are notable. Can you provide a specific guideline being violated so that we know what your reasoning is? Kinston eagle (talk) 19:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How about WP:N for one. The Ghits do not look to me like significant coverage in reliable sources. – ukexpat (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I did find one source that gives some notability, but that was about it. Just 2 gnews hits, both passing mentions, and nothing else showing notability in the first several pages of non-wiki ghits. I'd really like to see more than just this one source before I go over to the notable camp.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: I could also support merge to Joe Girardi.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- This article doesn't appear to me to meet notability requirements. Reyk _YO! 20:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge An obvious merge to Joe Girardi. As others have pointed out, nearly every coach or manager has a weekly TV show. In nearly every case, these feature a moderator tossing up soft questions, include some highlights, and aren't of much interest beyond the local level. If this were on one of the New York superstations, that might be notable, but this is on the Yankee Entertainment System network. Mandsford (talk) 21:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Joe Girardi. AndyJones (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Joe Girardi - per most of the above --T-rex 03:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Joe Girardi. I noticed that this article was created by a new user. The article should be merged without deleting it. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Philippe 20:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generation Jones[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This is an article with one primary contributor who has inserted dozens of sources which all reference books or radio and television appearances by the same person. This article therefore appears to be well sourced, but in reality it is being used to promote one person's usage of this term and isn't necessarily notable, despite how often Mr. Pontell has used it in the media. There are no other third party sources which confirm the usage of this term other than Mr. Pontell, which indicates that this article fails NPOV. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- well researched by Cumulus Clouds. Some of the sources don't even mention the term. Reyk _YO! 20:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I believe this entry should be deleted or, at most, folded into an unsupported alternative view of the "Post-World War II baby boom" entry since there is absolutely no data to support its separation from said entry. Any effort to support the central argument that "protests over civil rights and the Vietnam war and the emergence of rock music" did not directly shape those born from the years 1954-1965 would be purely subjective, and is, in this 1964-born writer's opinion, completely ludicrous. Additionally, those US males born in 1954 would have been subject to the Vietnam War draft lottery had it continued past 1972, and those born in 1955 would still have been subject to the US military draft. Men born in those years were extremely concerned about the possibility of becoming drafted. Those facts are in themselves enough to disprove the central argument of the entry. The entry smacks of self-promotion in the coining of a term for monetary and/or status gain alone. vermouth22 (talk) Jul. 02, 21:26:52 UTC —Preceding comment was added at 21:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is this user's only edit. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The above description of this article is blatantly innacurate. If you google "Generation Jones", you'll find hundreds of thousands of references to it (I just did, with 251,000 results). I just went through a bunch of them, and hardly any of them are of Pontell using the term. At least 90% of these references are third parties using the term Generation Jones. Among the third parties which I just found using this term are the magazines USNews and World Report and Newsweek, the newspapers The New York Times and The Washington Post (four seperate articles in The WP), and the TV networks NBC and CBS. These are just a small fraction of the thousands of media outlets that regularly use this term...all third parties, completely unconnected to Pontell (and the Wikipedia article is obviously the result of multiple contributors). Given the large, and increasing, interest and usage of this term, it should clearly not be deleted, but rather expanded.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by CurrentHistoryMatters (talk • contribs) 22:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is the result of two editors, of which you are one and other is User:21st century Susan, whose only contributions are to that article. This is usually a dead giveaway for sockpuppetry or a conflict of interest, so I would caution any other editors against taking the "large interest" argument into account. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yet another blatantly incorrect piece of info from you, cumulus clouds...I just looked again at this article, and it clearly is the result of multiple editors. And where do you come off making accuasations of sockpuppetry? It seems to me that the bigger question here is what is your personal agenda against this? You seem to have little interest in the truth, and in what is right for Wikipedia, and instead seem focused on unwarranted attacks for personal reasons. Those of us who care about the Generation Jones movement (and there are many of us across the U.S.) are used to baseless attacks from those who have an agenda against this. There is a large Baby Boomer industry,for example, and as the Generation Jones movement gets increasingly widespread, it undermines those who have put out a shingle as a "Boomer expert". One who writes a book which claims expertise about Boomers, and uses the old (and increasingly obsolete) 1946-1964 definition of Boomers, is understandably not happy as that book becomes irrelevant. Is that what is beyond these baseless claims from you, cumulus clouds? Your behavior here does seem very suspicious. You claim to have done extensive research on this, and then say that "There are no other third party sources which confirm the usage of this term other than Mr. Pontell". If you actually had done even a small amount of research, you'd know that thousands of third party sources use the term Generation Jones. You ignore the comments of me and others who point out that what's relevant here is that Generation Jones is clearly notable, regardless of how it got that way. Frankly, the fact that you even nominated this article for deletion is quite telling in its own right: you may disagree with this concept or some aspects of it, but to suggest that this topic doesn't even warrent an article in Wikipedia is ridiculous. You haven't advanced any basis whatsoever for why this article should be deleted. You warn other editors "against taking the "large interest" argument into account" because of your conclusion that only a couple people have written this article. Even if this conclusion was correct (which it isn't), what does that have to do with the "large interest"?! You would have us ignore the 250,000 hits on Google for this term because you think only a couple people wrote this article. So the way we should determine whether a term is notable and should have an article on Wikipedia should not be based on widespread usage by major media, high-level politicians, etc., but instead should be based on how many people wrote a Wikipedia article?! I don't know what your agenda is, but it clearly isn't to improve Wikipedia with this disingenuous attempt to pretend that this term isn't notable.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by CurrentHistoryMatters (talk • contribs)

Keep. The large number of sources mentioning the term prove that it is notable, at least as a media concept, whether or not such a generation actually 'exists'. The fact that many or most of the references relate to a single person, Jonathan Pontell, does not make the subject non-notable. It may well be that all those mentions in the media (as well as this article itself) are the results of a highly successful self-promotion campaign by Mr. Pontell; but even so, that they exist means that the 'Generation Jones' concept has become notable and deserves our coverage. We should not be concerned with how a pop culture term becomes notable; only whether it is or isn't, and this term, as far as I can tell, clearly is.

As an aside, I personally have not heard of this term before encountering this article. However, having read it, I find it fully meets our inclusion criteria (WP:NOTE, WP:RS). I see nothing in the nomination that can be considered a valid reason for deletion. Terraxos (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep— The references look good (quite a few are of third party sources) and the article is notable as stated above (WP:NOTE, WP:RS, etc) Leonard^(Bloom) 22:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-Not all the references are pertinent, but enough of them are to mean something. The page needs to be cleaned up and pertinent references kept, most references need to be scraped.PB666 ^yap 01:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This has been mentioned, even linking to the article I think, in mainstream sources. I think it's something of a neologism, but it's become a notable one.Beliefnet blog that links to this article MSNBC The Telegraph--T. Anthony (talk) 03:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, but once again, all those articles only quote Jon Pontell. The number of times its mentioned in popular culture is irrelevant, since usage is not useful encyclopedic information. At the end of the day, this is an article aiding a PR campaign being waged by one guy to sell more copies of his book. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is mostly irrelevant. We go on notability and sourcing. If one guy has managed to make a word or theory that became both it's worth mentioning. See Mosaic Generation, Time Cube, and a few others. At most what you're saying means this should be merged to Jon Pontell.--T. Anthony (talk) 08:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition I've found articles with it that don't seem to mention Pontell.Times Online: 2004 and The Telegraph--T. Anthony (talk) 20:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The editor(s) should strive to get rid of many of the references and work finding at least one other reference independently using the terminology. But it is still a keep.PB666 ^yap 15:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

cumulus clouds, I sincerely wonder whether your insistence on repeating blatantly incorrect information over and over is deliberate dishonesty, or comes from genuine ignorance. You've written several times over the last couple days that media references to this term are all connected to Pontell. If you spent a few minutes googling the term, you'd find that the vast majority of these third party references don't mention Pontell at all, they just use the term Generation Jones generically to describe this age group. You'd also find that many credible people and organizations (from Prime Ministers to Fortune 500 Companies) use the term, again with no reference to Pontell. Or you could look at blogs and groups and see many lengthy and enthusiastic discussions about Generation Jones, again unconnected to Pontell. But instead you choose to ignore these truths, and keep repeating your false claim over and over. Is it that you think if you repeat a falsehood enough times that you can make it true in an Orwellian way? Is it that you enjoy being malicious and abusing the spirit of Wikipedia? I took a look at your other activities here, and see that you frequently get into confrontations with people, obsess over whether people are sockpuppets, etc. Even when there is sockpuppetry in an article, that doesn't change the notability of a topic! You are the kind of person who hurts the good name of Wikipedia, and should be ashamed of yourself nominating topics like this for deletion with no basis whatsoever. Wikipedia is such an important resource for us all, and it is so undermined by this kind of behavior.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by CurrentHistoryMatters (talk • contribs) 17:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yea right. In my experience newly registered users who create single articles about unique or fringe subjects and then spend the rest of their time here editing that article or defending against deletion probably have some real world investment in retaining the information here. I frequently engage in these discussions because self-promotion on Wikipedia is something that I think harms the fundamental nature of this encyclopedia. I've also found that sockpuppets or COIs typically run me into the ground for destroying Wikipedia or being deliberately false or malicious. Given that your reaction meets the typical MO for a COI, I'd say I was right on the money here. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seem to be plenty of mentions in reliable sources to establish notability. AndyJones (talk) 16:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many third party reliable and independent sources have used and discussed the term, independently of appearances or speeches or writings of Pontell. Also the claim that the article is "the result of two editors" is false, per the history [6].A Google News search "generation jones" -boomj[7] (with press releases from a social networking site BOOMJ excluded) shows 238 possible refs which could be used to improve the article. (Some are coincidental juxtapositions of the words, but many are clearly about Pontell's coinage.) But see CNN [8] for an example of the substantial coverage of this 53,000,000 strong (U.S.) demographic group. See also Telegraph.co.uk [9] and Timesonline.co.uk [10] which said the term's "electoral influence" gives it "staying power" to demonstrate its coverage in other English speaking countries. Clearly Pontell's coinage is not as commonly used as generation X (29,600 cites[11])or Baby Boomer (55,500 cites[12]) but the term has enough use in the mainstream news media, with in depth discussion rather than passing mention, to justify an article. The fact that the articles credit the coiner of the term with coining the term in no way takes away the notability due to the coverage. As for the false claim of the article having one or two editors, that would be a good reason for others to edit it. If it is too positive, then add criticism of the term from the sources. Edison (talk) 18:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous 5 keeps. I concur that one person here is likely a sockpuppet, but this isn't the place for such accusations. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to either Baby Boomer or Generation X. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 20:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Utah English[edit]

AfDs for this article:

A previous discussion on this topic ended in no consensus. Since that time the article has been tagged for numerous problems and concerns and no improvement has been forthcoming. The only scholarly reference to "Utah English" as a dialect of English seems to be a research project undertaken at BYU - which, while qualifying as a reliable source, is but one source and probably is a bit too primary to establish that this term is either notable or even accepted as a real phenomenon. Plus, it is the only source, and this article does not have multiple reliable sources per notability guidelines. Shereth 18:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite the BYU study, the whole thing feels like someone hyping the local color. - Richfife (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, a dialect is not the same thing as an accent (A dialect has special words and grammar, an accent only refers to idiosyncratic pronunciation). This article seems to cover an accent, which isn't particularly notable by itself. - Richfife (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete (default to keep), a merge or redirect can be proposed/discussed outside of an AfD. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 19:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

England national rugby union team - Results 2000-present[edit]

Is simply a duplicate of parts of the article List of England national rugby union team matches (1970–present), but without the table colours corrisponding to certain cups.

It was created by this user in March, and was last edited on 1 May.

The name is also wrong as it should be a "List of...". - tholly ^--Turnip-- 17:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While this is definitely redundant, it may be worth keeping, because the article List of England national rugby union team matches (1970–present) is 108kb long and should probably be split into several different lists. Consequently, it may be worth keeping this article, and simply renaming it to List of England national rugby union team matches (1970–present), then summarising the results in the main list to remove any redunadancy. - Shudde ^talk 06:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We could do, but it is now probably out of date, and the colours have been removed, so we would have to recreate it. Also, if the page is split up, it might be worth keeping games since 2000 on the main page - for quicker reference. Until someone does split up the article the page is redundant though. I will put a splitting up tag on the article as it is now 110kb long. - tholly ^--Turnip-- 15:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly needs a split but how the split is carried out should be discussed on the talk page first rather than arbitrarily keeping these articles simply because they have been created. Smile a While (talk) 02:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, if any non-overlapping content, into List of England national rugby union team matches (1970–present) and then redirect. I notice that a merge discussion has been set up and that is always a better way forward for such overlapping pages than an AFD listing. Smile a While (talk) 02:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is no content unique to that page, but if so, that can be merged. Then a redirect would work. - tholly ^--Turnip-- 15:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of England national rugby union team matches (1970–present) - a separate article doesn't appear to be required at this stage. PhilKnight (talk) 15:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete (default to keep), a merge or redirect can be proposed/discussed outside of an AfD.

England national rugby union team - Results 1990 - 1999[edit]

Is simply a duplicate of parts of the article List of England national rugby union team matches (1970–present), but without the table colours corresponding to certain cups.

It was created by this user in March, and was last edited on 1 May.

The name is also wrong as it should be a "List of...". - tholly ^--Turnip-- 17:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, if any non-overlapping content, into List of England national rugby union team matches (1970–present) and then redirect. I notice that a merge discussion has been set up and that is always a better way forward for such overlapping pages than an AFD listing. Smile a While (talk) 02:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is no content unique to that page, but if so, that can be merged. Then a redirect would work. - tholly ^--Turnip-- 15:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with a merge of any non duplication but having looked there is no obvious examples. I've moved the suggested merge page to List of England national rugby union team matches (1930–present) to better reflect the content of the page. BigHairRef | Talk 06:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of England national rugby union team matches (1970–present) - a separate article doesn't appear to be required at this stage. PhilKnight (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generation Einstein[edit]

This is the re-creation of a page that was previously prod-deleted. The text is almost identical to previous version, which was an advertisement for a book about this non-notable protologism. The only source for this article is that same book and the only author is the same author of the previously deleted version, whose only edits are to this page or a draft version in their userspace. I believe this user may have a conflict of interest, but because this page is their only contribution, there is not sufficient material to post at COIN. All google results for this term point back at this same book, so again it appears that Wikipedia is being used as a platform to promote and sell more copies of the same. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete non-notable protologism. As an aside, if this is to judge by:" creative and multidisciplinary thinking of Albert Einstein than with the rational, logical and linear thinking of Isaac Newton" the book is of little value. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be essentially advertising, as the only use of this term is in this (non-notable) book. Terraxos (talk) 22:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essentially unused and unknown.DGG (talk) 12:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essentially advertising. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Somewhat procedural, as this has been sitting since June without discussion. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frank cappuccino[edit]

The subject's importance isn't listed, only peacock terms are used. StaticGull Talk 15:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Cappuccino does have a a long history as a boxing official. However, this article is unsourced, appears to be a copy-and-paste from somewhere, and as it stands now is a piece of crap. I would work on it myself — if I weren't headed out for vacation right now. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The article needs work, and to be moved to Frank Cappucino, but it's only a few weeks old, so I would suggest that it is better to mark it as needing clean-up and references for now, and come back to an AfD if no improvement follows. Bondegezou (talk) 16:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Gnome[edit]

There aren't any sources confirming it's notability, and the subject doesn't seem to distinguish itself from similar (unnotable) films. StaticGull Talk 15:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacking references and sufficient notability assertion. --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 15:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails wp:movie, only trivial coverage and none from reliable third party sources. D0762 (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sounds hilarious; however its clearly not a notable film. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Film is available in Canada and the US on DVD, and includes at least one star of note (Julie Strain). That's enough for notability. And yes, I am confessing to actually having purchased a copy of the DVD for the title alone. (And I bought my copy at a major retailer). 23skidoo (talk) 00:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Query have you watched it? Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 16:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per criteria CSD G4 --JForget 22:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Britney Spears' 6th Studio Album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Britney Spears' 6th Studio Album

Appears to fail WP:CRYSTAL - are any of these sources reliable, or on point? ukexpat (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IMPORTANT NOTE To the closing admin: per evidence of signature here and here, as well as the fact that Eric1989 (talk · contribs) has made no edits prior to or after this debate, there exists a possibility that he and ikkomuitnederland (talk · contribs) are the same editor. Please be cautious of possible vote fraud. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no, the sources are blogs and Youtube, except for Usmagazine.com, which says only that she "is currently at work on an upcoming album", and people.com which can only quote "a Spears family source". JohnCD (talk) 17:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Regardless of whether the sources are accurate, there is not enough information out there about this. Fails WP:CRYSTAL. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 17:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until there's more information than US Magazine provides--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While every active musician is likely to release another album at some point in time, it is NOT Wikipedia's responsibility to keep Britney Spears fans updated on the latest gossip and speculations. This article fails several of Wikipedia's core polices (most notably WP:V and WP:RS) and, with the unreliable and scarce information currently available, the article is unlikely to grow beyond an uninformative stub in the foreseeable future. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources ARE reliable! There is a confirmation from the producer on the release date. You can't get more confirmation. And this album is also very notable because there are very few other artists that have released 6 studio albums. Ikkomuitnederland (talk • contribs) 20:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - they do not appear to be reliable sources per WP:RS. – ukexpat (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Comment Just to clarify something Ikkomuitnederland, when editors here speak of reliable sources they are referring to the official Wikipedia policy that deals with WP:Reliable sources. I urge you to please read the first two paragraphs that give the general overview of what would qualify a source as reliable. The policy states the following:

As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication.

When an article states Person X said that person Y is in the studio and stops there without going on to say that this has been explicitly confirmed by someone else, that means that there hasn't been a great deal of fact checking. Publications that publish such material are less inclined to be correct than they are to be the first to report on celebrity news or gossip. Therefore, the term reliable source has a different meaning to Wikipedians than it does to a celebrity gossip magazine: to us, a reliable source means a pulication that meets the criteria set out in WP:RS and for celebrity gossip magazines it means absolutely anyone close to the Britney. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - So...Jim Beanz, Danja, Darkchild, the LA Times and Guy Sigsworth are all not reliable sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ikkomuitnederland (talk • contribs)

Comment No. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I registered myself especially for this because I just need to say one thing: You need to keep this because the fact that people keep making a page about this shows that there is a public interest in this album, and why shouldn't this album have a page just because it isn't released yet? Michelle Williams latest album had its own page a year before it was released! And the producer, Darkchild, confirmed the release date! Eric1989 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC) — Eric1989 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment- just because there is fan interest does not mean that the subject matter is appropriate per WP policies and guidelines. (for example, see WP:MUSIC and WP:CRYSTAL). – ukexpat (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC). Oh and take a look at WP:SPA too. – ukexpat (talk) 18:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- But then why did her previous album 'Blackout' had its own page since mid 2006 while it wasn't released till October 2007? And that wasn't even confirmed by someone close to her, only by producers which is exactly the same now.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ikkomuitnederland (talk • contribs)

Comment: Not that it matters but that one should have been deleted back in 2006, and had I been around at the time, I would have taken it to Afd. – ukexpat (talk) 19:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the reason one source is a blog because Danja confirmed the ablum via Myspace and you can only go there if you're a friend of him on myspace. Anyway, this page will get you to Danja's myspace where he confirmed it: http://www.breatheheavy.com/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1213761123&archive=&start_from=&ucat=&

Ps: Can't we just let this page exist but put a header on the page that this is all 'rumoured' (Allthough I don't agree, because the sources are people who are directly involved with the album) information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ikkomuitnederland (talk • contribs)

Absolutely not! You want to put a disclaimer in an encyclopedia that says This is a rumour? Maybe you don't fully understand what an encyclopedia is. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment If it's all rumoured it has no place being on wikipedia MrMarmite (talk)

And again, Jive Records did not confirm 'Blackout' until October 4th 2007 but it had its own page since 2006! And Madonna's album Hard Candy had its own page for months and at one point even saying that it would be a greatest hits compilation!!!! That turned out to be very accurate! ikkomuitnederland (talk • contribs) 18:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a self-published source, MySpace is never ever considered a reliable source. Being or not being someone's friend is inconsequential. I ask you again to please read WP:RS. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just wait for the album to be released, or at the very least named. This is an encyclopaedia not a fan site.MrMarmite (talk) 19:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Then I say that this page also get deleted because the album has no name: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminem%27s_fifth_studio_album —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikkomuitnederland (talk • contribs) 19:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you...now all the information and sources have been deleted and now it does look un-true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikkomuitnederland (talk • contribs) 19:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have rolled back the almost blanking of the page as it was clearly inappropriate while the Afd process continues. – ukexpat (talk) 19:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Just another piece of crystal.
Kww (talk) 19:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page has previously been deleted on more than one occasion. See: [13]. Further, having a page such as this is wholly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The ones creating these pages are referencing Britney fan pages, Youtube and the like, and, instead, should be writing on their own personal little blogs about what Britney will or will not be doing according to rumour and speculation, and SHOULD NOT be cluttering Wikipedia with such nonsense. Please review Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is NOT, if you are uncertain as to what should and what should not be included in Wikipedia. 71.141.114.187 (talk) 19:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - as recreation of deleted content. 1st deletion 2nd deletion until it has a title, a tracklisting, and a tentative release date future albums are not notable --T-rex 20:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note previous AfD --T-rex 20:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually we have already deleted this five times --T-rex 20:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good call! I added the link to the previous discussion in the speedy tag on the article main page. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 30 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 23:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snomping[edit]

Neologism. Contested PROD. Little more than a set of dictionary definitions; could perhaps grow to an encyclopedia article if use of the term takes off, but at present the only source supplied is Wordpress.com - a blog site. Few Ghits, and they mostly seem to be blogs and the like. Per WP:NEO#Articles on neologisms, it should not have an article, for lack of reliable sources. "Neologisms that are in wide use — but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources — are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. They may be in time, but not yet." JohnCD (talk) 17:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- dicdef, neologism, low number of GHits seems to indicate term has not crossed into general use yet.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when (if) it ever becomes a word, it can have an entry at Wiktionary, but for now it is simply a neologism that doesn't need anything from us. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 20:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's already been speedied for the same reason and nothing has changed. andy (talk) 20:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete (but not speedy). There is now context that says snomping is a neologism. What there aren't are reliable sources or indication that the term is notable (and/or in widespread use). The article fails notaiblity and verifiability at this time. —C.Fred (talk) 22:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - EC'd trying to prod on the initial tags, and then EC'd trying to prod on the prod. Wasn't expecting a contested prod... There doesn't appear to be any reliable sources that discuss this term. Not even 30 unique hits for Snomping from Google...and not all relate to this definition. You'd think such a hot online term would have more results. --Onorem♠Dil 22:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable neologism and no references. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 20:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tuesday & The Titans[edit]

This band is not signed to a label and has no album releases except for a self-released E.P. Fails standards of WP:BAND. Speedy deletion request removed by an anonymous editor, so am nominating this article for AfD. ArglebargleIV (talk) 17:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely fails Notability (music). JohnCD (talk) 17:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems to fail WP:BAND with only 32 gHits.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Certainly appears to fail WP:BAND as there are no third party reports, they have not charted and they do not have a major label as yet. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 20:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Episode Seven: You're no fun any more. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blancmange (Monty Python)[edit]

There are no reliable sources that are substantively about this fictional item. Fails Wikipedia articles are not plot summaries, fails WP:FICT, fails notability guidelines Otto4711 (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep probably. The real test for all those links is whether it's notable as a Python sketch. Seeing 20 news links for it [14] and the iconic status of the pudding art, I suspect so. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Architects Sketch (2nd nomination). Was properly spun out of blancmange (food) two years ago. JJB 17:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The notability of Monty Python as a whole is not inherited by every sketch from the show. A number of other sketch articles have been deleted, including Blackmail, Albatross, Court Scene with Cardinal Richelieu, Charades, Dennis Moore, Erotic film, Conquistador Coffee Campaign, Johann Gambolputty, Mr Hilter and the Minehead by-election, Silly Job Interview, Medical Love Song and Restaurant Abuse/Cannibalism. The news hits (variation on WP:GOOGLE) appear to be passing mentions of the sketch rather than substantive coverage. The AFD to which you linked relied heavily on the non-inherited notability of Monty Python and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and IMHO the closing admin should have discounted almost every keep !vote in favor of the policy and guideline-based arguments for deletion. Otto4711 (talk) 18:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I suspect there are many, many people out there who had no idea what a blancmange was before being exposed to this skit...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what? The standard for Wikipedia is not "had people heard of it before?" The standard is whether there are independent reliable sources that substantively cover the subject. Otto4711 (talk) 18:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I appreciated the existence of the article when I went to look up information about blancmanges in general. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 00:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, there is an indisputable "reliable source", the Monty Python episodes themselves. Media objects stand as their own best source, and there is no difference between seeing an apisode and writing down what happened, and reading a book and writing down what you read. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 00:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If all that can be said about a sketch from a TV show is what can be written about it by watching it and "writing down what happened," then the article fails WP:NOT#PLOT: Wikipedia articles are not simply plot summaries. There need to be independent reliable sources on a topic to qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia. Otto4711 (talk) 01:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge; insufficient non-trivial secondary coverage for its own article. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with another article. Not notable enough on it's own to be a separate article, but as it's noted on Wimbledon Championships, should have some mentioning somewhere to do with other Monty Python skits. ^_^ ^_^ (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep - canonically, a very important playlet that deviates from the usual short sketch format within the Python body of work. jamesgibbon 15:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 15:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage by reliable sources. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 19:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Standerbacking[edit]

Contested PROD. I wanted to tag this for speedy deletion, but I couldn't find any that would apply. This is a neologism with nothing, and I mean literally nothing on Google. I really hate to waste time on a full AFD discussion. Would it be appropriate to tag this under G1? J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 16:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 16:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Probably not G1, but definitely Wikipedia:DICT. Livitup (talk) 17:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary D0762 (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Hut 8.5 19:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this neologism is very non-notable if it even exists. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 23:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Im not really sure where to reply to the pending deletion notice as there are no 'reply' buttons anywhere - such a complicated un-userfriendly interface but thats another story..

So please dont delete this fledging article, others will be adding more meat to the bone as it were.

Where would we be if all new things were summarily deleted!

pom —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pomalllka (talk • contribs) on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Standerbacking at 21:13, June 30, 2008 . Moved from talk page by J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 23:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not only is wikipidia not a dictionary it would appear by the lack of google hits that this is a totally made up word (as is hinted at in the article itself. Dpmuk (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete junk. JuJube (talk) 04:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Veazey[edit]

Doesn't seem to be a notable writer. Won an award that doesn't seem to be notable, and nothing else. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Googling produces little other than his blog - no third party coverage of any importance. --Ka renjc 17:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 08:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He is a sportswriter for the largest newspaper in the state of Mississippi. Seems notable enough for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.7.250.195 (talk) 17:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just working somewhere doesn't make one famous and this page reads like the subject wrote it himself.Atlantabravz (talk) 23:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 19:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cardinal Truth[edit]

Fails to establish notability per wp:band D0762 (talk) 16:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any evidence of this band, and its album Back for More, actually existing. See this Google search for example. Delete as a WP:HOAX. There certainly is no evidence that the band meets WP:MUSIC notability standards. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- this band either doesn't exist at all or is extremely non-notable.Reyk _YO! 20:37, 30 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 relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aathivaasiyum Athisayapesiyum[edit]

Contested prod. Article is about a future film, fails WP:NFF. TN‑X-Man 16:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - needs to make it farther than pre production to be notable --T-rex 16:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NFF Films which have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced shooting should not have their own articles. JohnCD (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the lack of evidence that production has begun; there is no certainty to have a full-fledged film article if a project just lingers in development. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The notability guidelines for future films stipulate that a stand-alone article for a film should not be created until a project enters production. This is because many factors such as budget issues, scripting issues, and casting issues can interfere with the project. The article can be recreated when principal photography is confirmed to have begun. Steve ^{T • C} 13:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 19:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Pawahari Balkrishn Yatiji[edit]

Non notable religious leader with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 16:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 16:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, two years without any sources at all? No assertion of notability. 209.243.55.22 (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced material couched as hearsay rather than fact. Googling brings a handful of results, nearly all Wiki or mirrors. --Ka renjc 17:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Might even be a speedy candidate for lack of notability. Shovon (talk) 22:10, 30 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. Whilst there is clearly no consensus to delete, those opining keep largely failed to give reasons based on policy & guidelines why it should be kept. A merge of course, is an editorial matter and can be discussed/carried out in the usual manner. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corndogorama[edit]

Rather spammy write up of a local festival in Atlanta. Created by an SPA. Is it notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm going to go with Keep on this one. I cut the article back to a stub (waaayyy too many shoutouts). Hopefully it can be salvaged from here. - Richfife (talk) 16:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to keep my original article. How do I do that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrbutler06 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's for personal use, it's still in the history here. If the AFD results in a delete (which I personally doubt, but you never know), that link will go dead. - Richfife (talk) 03:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has an article on it at their accessatlanta.com site. Article could do with a clean-up, I'll go poke at it a bit. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 13:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm inclined to say this isn't notable. The accessatlanta article doesn't establish any real notability to the subject other than its some random and minor possible tourist attraction. I don't suppose I should start making articles for the town band that plays down by the waterfront every summer just because it was featured in a news article.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 14:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it appears that the music festival has garnered repeat coverage from local Atlanta press over the years. -- Whpq (talk) 16:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - "world famous all over Atlanta" syndrome; pretty light on substantive coverage by anybody other than the local iteration of Creative Loafing, and I'm not sure I'd qualify that as a reliable source. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Atlanta metropolitan area has a population of a little over 5 million, so I'm inclined to equate notable in Atlanta to notable in general. - Richfife (talk) 19:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - response - I've got more kin in Greater Atlanta, but we're working on a worldwide perspective here. How many music festivals in Guangzhou-Foshan (metro population 13.5 million) have articles here?
    - My response is: Not nearly enough. Absence of a Wikipedia article doesn't imply that there shouldn't be one. - Richfife (talk) 20:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a 12 year festival --T-rex 03:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Culture of Atlanta, Georgia. It is a notable festival held in Atlanta. Few things about the festival should be mentioned in the article Culture of Atlanta, Georgia. However, it is not notable in general. Therefore, I don't think a separate article is needed. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Culture of Atlanta, Georgia - not convinced that a separate article is required. PhilKnight (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm cool with that as well. - Richfife (talk) 16:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep due to lack of convincing arguments for deletion. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus to delete leaning towards Keep. The improvements made by Nsk92 have persuaded some that the article meets the notability guideline but others remain unconvinced. Davewild (talk) 19:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Walker (checkers player)[edit]

I'm not sure this was ever notable even though I created it. The museum Walker created might be notable, although it was destroyed[15], but it's not clear to me now why I thought he was.--T. Anthony (talk) 15:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Due to improvements I'm now officially neutral. It might be worth keeping even, but I'm thinking it's not yet vital to withdraw. However I suggest that those who voted "speedy" look at the article's current state.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G7 TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 15:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to keep. New cites establish notability, even though the prose could be improve. However, passes WP:N and WP:V. Meets WP:BIO : A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published Plenty of secondary sources. TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 18:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

' Delete' per nom Keep The article has been expanded over the last several days, with sufficient information to show notability and, more importantly, sources for verification. User:Nsk92's improvements have persuaded me that Walker is notable enough. Mandsford (talk) 03:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC) It's worth noting that T. Anthony, the nominator, had created the article and has reconsidered it. There have been subsequent edits, with a difference of opinion as to whether a federal money laundering charge should or should not be included along with his checkers achievements. He doesn't strike me as being famous or infamous, though there may someday be something written about checkers players who "made the jump" over to organized crime. Look for Crown Me in bookstores in 2010. Mandsford (talk) 15:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC) [reply]
~~Speedy~~ Delete, as there's no little evidence of notability outside of the checkers museum, and being convicted of money laundering, neither of which confers especial notability on the man himself ~~and never has been~~. I tend to agree with Jkp212 here, though the improvements by Nsk92 have improved what's there currently. I would support a page move and rewrite to an article about the Checkers Hall of Fame, with mention of Walker, but not a stand-alone article about Walker himself. S. Dean Jameson 15:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete not notable --Jkp212 (talk) 15:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but not speedy. The crime is nonnotable; the ministership is in a very marginally notable denomination, "International Christian Church" (see International Church of Christ); state champion in a notable game is nonnotable (otherwise I'd be notable). However, the hall of fame is notable (e.g., hosted a US-UK championship in 1995 [16], was in Ripley's BION) and should have its own article; but there's no point in voting rename with this content. JJB 16:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep okay call me crazy on this one, but for some reason the "Founder of the International Checkers Hall of Fame" just seems to be strangely, uniquely, and verifiably notable. It certainly is worthy of further discussion and should not be a speedy (unless the information is fabricated in some way or otherwise harmful).--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this isn't a speedy.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A self-given title does not make a person inherently notable. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable. Sunderland06 (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Look at this-[17]]. The guy is a living treasure. Founder of a museum voted one of the "most boring" in America. Legitimate state checker champion turned religious leader turned money launderer for drug dealers. The museum catches fire and his family is living in a trailer in the ex-museums driveway while he sips orange juice in federally subsidized housing. I say KEEP and give me a week to flush out the article. This guy is a Grade B L. Ron Hubbard.John celona (talk) 23:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asking to preserve an article because you think it'll be fun to smear someone is an exercise in very poor judgment. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I said the museum might be notable. An article on it can still be created if this is deleted. Said article would pretty much have to mention him.--T. Anthony (talk) 02:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Badly written; no assertion of notability. However, I did fine reliable sources such as this one that indicate that this person may be notable. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 23:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice against re-creation. There may be some hidden notability here, as hinted above, but I'm just not seeing it yet. If multiple non-trivial publications can be located about this subject then by all means, please try again. RFerreira (talk) 19:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Yes, it is a poorly written stab, but the subject is definitely notable and the story is just too precious, as John celona rightly noted. In addition to the sources he cited, GoogleNews returns 84 hits "Charles Walker" checkers[18]. Quite a few of them provide detailed and in-depth coverage of the subject, such as [19][20][21][22][23][24], etc. GoogleBooks returns 21 hits for the same search[25]. No doubt about notability here; the article needs clean-up and to have references added, of course, but that is not a reason for deletion. Nsk92 (talk) 23:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have added some info and references to the article. I'll add some more. Nsk92 (talk) 00:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything noteworthy there is about the checkers museum. You should definitely create an article on that, and certainly can mention Walker there. However, there is just not enough Biographical info about this man. --Jkp212 (talk) 15:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. First, even in the articles about the Hall of Fame there is a great deal of specific biographical coverage of Walker himself. For example, the LA Times article[26]discussed his childhood (that he started building his fortune by selling newspapers at the age of 7), his private life (his dog, his bedroom, his philosophy, etc). Similarly, for example, the Atlanta Journal Constitution article[27] again has quite a bit of personal biographical info about him, including discussion about his childhood, his father-in-law, his business career, his philosophy, etc. There is quite a bit of biographical info like that in other references also, a lot more than we usually require for BLP articles. Second, quite a bit of coverage relates to Walker and his activities outside of the Hall of Fame. For example, there are newspaper articles about his personal checkers victories and his Guinness world record, such as [28][29]. There is also quite a bit of coverage of his other activities on promoting checkers, e.g. his role in organizing the Man vs Machine World Championships in the 1990s. E.g. this book[30] has quite a bit of stuff regarding his role in these AI matches, as well as his character, temperament, etc, see pages 107, 115-117, 167, 179, 187-191, 197-198, 202-203, 205, 224-225, 227-228, 251, 274, 377, 412, 431. Then, of course, there is significant news-coverage, both local and national, of his arrest, trial and conviction. Again, the arrest was not Hall of Fame related and, as the sources mention, it ultimately resulted from an investigation into his insurance business.

There is more than enough here to satisfy WP:BIO, as its key requirement is:"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Clearly, that is the case here. Whether or not any one of us thinks that he is actually worthy of the coverage he received is irrelevant. The important thing is that he did received this coverage and hence is notable. Nsk92 (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributions are great, but they are much more appropriately placed in an article about the Hall of Fame. The biographical stuff, even in the sources you cited, is marginal at best. The content is best placed in an article about the truly notable thing here, the checkers hall of fame. --Jkp212 (talk) 19:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Deletion rubs me the wrong way. There is no need to delete this article. Keep it. Albion moonlight (talk) 10:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you actually have any reasoning for keeping the article, other than that deletion "rubs [you] the wrong way"? This doesn't seem to be a valid "keep" rationale. S. Dean Jameson 15:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 19:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Jean Wilson[edit]

Anonymously contested prod. Currently fails to satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER (Only one named role (a nurse in a recreated scene in a medical reality show), otherwise minor parts in minor productions). Maybe later. - Richfife (talk) 16:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This doesn't seem to pass notability sniff test at the moment. --21:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kipof (talk • contribs)
Delete - no significant roles and no coverage in reliable sources. Coincidentally, has bit parts in common with Angie Gregory in two movies, and have been created by the same editor. Could this be an agency pushing their client bios on Wikipedia? -- Whpq (talk) 16:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Gnome[edit]

There aren't any sources confirming it's notability, and the subject doesn't seem to distinguish itself from similar (unnotable) films. StaticGull Talk 15:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacking references and sufficient notability assertion. --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 15:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails wp:movie, only trivial coverage and none from reliable third party sources. D0762 (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sounds hilarious; however its clearly not a notable film. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Film is available in Canada and the US on DVD, and includes at least one star of note (Julie Strain). That's enough for notability. And yes, I am confessing to actually having purchased a copy of the DVD for the title alone. (And I bought my copy at a major retailer). 23skidoo (talk) 00:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Query have you watched it? Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 16:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, consensus is that the list can be made without original research. However there is agreement that inclusion criteria must be agreed upon and implemented with references. Davewild (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of democratic socialist parties and organizations[edit]

Completly OR list. No criteria for inclusion, no references at all. Seemingly random collection of disparate political parties. Soman (talk) 15:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, notable, and such OR and poor referencing as may be is not a deletion argument. Any discussion of randomness or disparateness would also be proper on talk page rather than here. Looks like a fine example of an underdeveloped but necessary article. While the inclusion criteria are less well-defined than other groups, nothing in WP:LIST#Listed items suggests that deletion is more proper than discussion. JJB 16:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Added "speedy" after seeing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democratic socialism. JJB 16:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment, so what criteria would you like to have for inclusion? I haven't posted this afd just cause the list was in low quality, but because an non-OR inclusion criteria is impossible to construct, since the very term 'democratic socialist' is inherently ambiguos. --Soman (talk) 16:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  The usual criteria would be, er, (expanding on what its lead says) "democratic socialist" or something very similar in party name, or called that by a reliable source, or multiple significant members are called that. If it doesn't meet either of those tests, then talk-page consensus. If the term really is inherently ambiguous, then please step up to the plate and disambiguate and then put each party in the correct d.s. subcategory. If not all s.d.'s are d.s.'s, we have List of social democratic parties, and anything on both pages can be unobjectionably deleted here if it doesn't meet the criteria just named. If all d.s.'s are s.d.'s (which can be disproved by one counterexample), then there might have been argument for merge rather than delete. This is a situation solved by simple logic, my friend, AfD is not the place for resolving ambiguity. JJB 16:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment* -- your criterion would not exclude any leftist party and would include every former Communist Party of the former Eastern Bloc. As another editor notes, very few parties advertise themselves as non-democratic. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - I think we have to come back to whats the point of the list in the first place. We do have Democratic Socialist Party, which is a listing of parties called 'Democratic Socialist Party'. Having a listing of parties which identify themselves/or are identified by others as 'democratic socialist' is just as meaningful as having a List of liberal democratic parties, List of conservative democratic parties, etc.. With the exception of National Socialists, I believe all socialist parties identify themselves as democrats. --Soman (talk) 16:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Socialist Party lead seems to contradict your suggested rule that all socialist parties are democratic except one. I believe hard-and-fast rules about messy self-designations are not useful. It appears that d.s. and s.d. are frequent memes with relatively clearly bordered meanings, while your proposals l.d. and c.d. are cases of two words appended together without having independent synergistic meanings. But I'm not here to argue. The point is that you have a lot of content there and it's not to be deleted by AfD when it requires a lot of picking through. Tag it for "cleanup", or (better) start the work yourself. If cleaning up were as simple as making keep/delete calls, I'd be doing it on this article too. JJB 17:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
    - My point is exactly that 'democratic socialist' is just two words appended together, like 'liberal democrat', i dispute the notion that there is a distinct ideology called 'democratic socialism'. However, at wikipedia there is a quite active work to portray that so would not be case. A core reason for my afds and cfds today is that i'm getting tired of seeing 'democratic socialism and social democracy' in infoboxes of political parties. --Soman (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: Two closely related categories -- Category:Democratic socialism and Category:Democratic socialists -- have also been proposed for deletion at WP:CFD. Cgingold (talk) 18:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete impossible to maintain in a fashion that is not either OR or POV. No objective basis (for instance we have the statement: "Party of Communists of the Republic of Moldova - despite being a 'communist' party, the PCRM has followed a very social democratic political agenda since formed the government of Moldova" --- this may or may not be the case but its clearly OR). Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep The possible inclusion of some wrongly included material is no reason whatsoever to delete an article; it is reason to improve the article. If included articles state facts showing they belong in this article, then they belong here--until or if the facts in the included articles are changed. Hmains (talk) 03:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Democratic socialism is both a major current of socialism, as well as distinct from social democracy. This list was forked off from Democratic socialism a couple of years ago. It could be folded back in, but has been working better as a separate article. I see no reason specific concerns over OR or POV, such as that cited by Bigdaddy1981, cannot be addressed by improving the article, rather than deleting it. Almost all of the organizations listed have articles of their own (of varying quality), in which additional information and references should be found, added or requested. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 05:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are sources that can be used for the criteriaDGG (talk) 12:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. However, thought should be put into deciding exactly what those criteria should be. After a real attempt has been made, perhaps users may decide this material should be siphoned off elsewhere. Q·L·1968 ☿ 14:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC) PS: Happy Canada Day, everyone.[reply]
Delete. Sorry but I can't understand the definition of a "Democratic socialist Party". a list with parties participatng in the Socialist International makes more sense. Soman has right, this is OR and "Democratic socialist party" is a definition covering from socialdemocatic parties, exsocialdemocraic parties to excommunist parties, etc. in an unclear way. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment even worse, it includes parties that it then describes as 'neo-liberal' and non-socialist. It makes no sense and I cannot think of any sources that would be of any use in overcoming these problems. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With respect, there is absolutely no substance to the claim that this list is OR. The problem is the opposite: it is no research. Heaps of users just happened by and tacked on the names of various parties at the bottom of the democratic socialism article. I suspect the same thing has been happening since it forked off to become its own list. Q·L·1968 ☿ 18:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment users arbitrarily adding parties that they *consider* to be democratic and socialist *is* OR, it is just low-quality OR. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suspect the same thing has really been happening since even before it was forked off to become its own article :). However, there are many NPOV and non-OR ways to determine if organizations belong in this list. Do they describe themselves as democratic socialist? More importantly, do third parties describe them as democratic socialist? Information of this sort is already available in many of the articles listed, and references therein. If there are unclear or unreferenced cases, take them to the talk page. Let's improve the article instead of deleting it. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 05:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The discussion below indicates that any coverage is too trivial to establish notability. --jonny-m t 04:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EleBBS[edit]

Non-notable software; no claims made for notability. Blowdart | ^talk 15:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom --T-rex 16:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, fails wp:note —Preceding unsigned comment added by D0762 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - EleBBS is indeed notable, and one of the most popular BBS packages in use. Pcmicro (talk) 04:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remarks So I'm looking at the references you added; but they don't prove anything; a listing of software used on various FidoNet nodes does not prove notability. They are just "in passing" mentions. Can you provide statistics to prove it's "one of the most popular"? Regards; --Blowdart | ^talk 04:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - EleBBS is one of the few BBS packages still in development, which in itself should make it notable enough to keep. By the way, the claim about "one of the most popular" was about RemoteAccess BBS, not EleBBS.--Jay (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remarks But without proof of that statement it's not proving notability; see my problem here? --Blowdart | ^talk 14:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remarks What statement do you want proof on? Please clarify? So basically you want to delete a whole article because you disagree with part of a statement without having proof either way? WTF? Why not ask for a refinement instead? --Jay (talk) 14:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remarks All of it. You cannot simple state that (a) it's one of the few BBS packages still in development without proving it; and (b) that therefore it is notable (I'd say it's not - I have my own open source project on Information Cards; it's the only project of it's type - does that make it notable? I'd say not; it makes it niche instead). Have a read of WP:Note. I'd like to see full blown references explaining why it's special. --Blowdart | ^talk 21:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remarks BBSNews.org, Synchronet, Renegade BBS News, and Santronics are authorities on the current state of BBS software. Currently, according to these resources, Renegade, Synchronet, bbs100, MBSE, and Winserver are the only full BBS packages actively being developed. Updates for EleBBS and EleWEB are made via an email lists which you are welcome to join at EleBBS and EleWEB mailinglist. --Jay (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK but it's about provability. And encyclopaedic provability. You'd need to show that those web sites are authorities, by dint of history, 3rd party reviews and so on; simply stating they are isn't enough to my mind. --Blowdart | ^talk 05:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this back and forth is rough from what I can tell. The "prove" its a authority it probably needed, but that's alot of sources there to say the least (usually two needed), and if you don't know if they are authorities or not, that's (imo) not enough to warrant deletion, you could have just talked this through on each other's talk page. As far as I can tell, those ARE third party/independent links ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably true; but the article was rather weirdly ignored; and no references (other than "in passing" ones) existed when the AFD was originally started. Hmm, how do I withdraw an AFD? --Blowdart | ^talk 06:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EDITEDNominator's can withdraw nominations for deletion. Wikipedia should have a section of articles that require massive modifications to be better for topics that are notable, just don't have a well written wiki on it. (I think I saw it mentioned somewhere on someone's user page). If there is one, maybe move the article there instead? (And they really ought to publicize the place to put articles requiring massive modification, so people don't nominate articles for deletion simply because the article is poorly written, not because it isn't notable) ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 20:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Edit) As per Wikipedia Guidelines for AfD: <quote>Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.</quote> ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 20:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep EleBBS is a notable software. Reliable sources are present. The article has some flaws, but it can be improved. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked the 'reliable sources'? The "Beam me up Scottie" book is about basketball. The encyclopedia doesn't have an entry for this subject [31]. PhilKnight (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The citations need to be changed, new ones apparently were brought up on the AfD discussion.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 21:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PhilKnight, I am not talking about the sources in the article. I am talking about the sources presented in this AfD discussion. I agree with Noian. The citations should be changed. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should it be tagged with ((rescue))? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 16:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no substantial coverage demonstrated nor assertion of any noteworthy significance. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Torres[edit]

Nominator: Assistant coaches are normally not notable per Wikipedia Notability Essay. Article gives no sources and no other assertion of notability that I can see. Few pages link to the article, and it has been tagged since May 2008.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Possibly no viable claims of notability per ((A7)); otherwise just delete as failing WP:BIO. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As the nominator, I don't think it qualifies as a "speedy" and would be more comfortable with a discussion on the topic. Perhaps the article will be improved and it will be learned that the subject has acquired notability through other means (maybe becoming a head coach, or he played professionally... etc.)--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Did some more research, this is a two-year college school, which is outside the bounds of the Wikipedia College Football Project notability guidelines. Sure, he still could be notable for other things...--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think this one meets the Speedy criteria, as it seems ot assert notability - the coach worked with a current NFL defensive lineman, for example. It's thin, but it's an assertion. That said, I don't think the subject is notable enough for an article, though that would obviously change if he became a head coach for a notable team. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 17:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Brooke Kinsella. PhilKnight (talk) 15:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Kinsella[edit]

Non-notable stabbing victim. Only notable as brother of EastEnders actor. Delete or merge into Brooke Kinsella Quentin X (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per WP:BIO1E - only notable for his one thing, his death, but since we have a redirect target and it does is verifiable to reliable news sources, it's worth putting a mention of him into the article about his sister.--Les boys (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect a terrible tragedy but not needing its own article. Has already been added to his sister's article. 86.137.117.134 (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - per nom and WP:BIO1E. robwingfield ^«T•C» 06:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - very sad, but just another of a many teenage street murders this year. Only notability is via the victim's sister, and is already dealt with there. I would also note that the editor who created this page seems to have a "history" of making other apparently racially-motivated edits. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ Redirect to Brooke Kinsella. Agree with Nick Cooper on all points. Enigma ^message 18:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Changing to Redirect, as there isn't really much to merge. Enigma ^message 20:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that it's now covered in Brooke Kinsella. Enigma ^message 18:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brooke Kinsella. Rudget (logs) 19:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or create page dedicated to the murder itself and redirect - the poor guy's death has inspired 500 young kids to march in protest yesterday, see front cover of today's Daily Mirror here. This is extremely important, to get 500 kids to react in this way, to say "enough is enough", is very notable indeed. I would not only argue that Ben Kinsella deserves his own article, but I would also suggest that the reaction to his death deserves its own article too: perhaps in the same vein that there is an article on the Murder of Kriss Donald or the Murder of Anthony Walker. Perhaps if we make this article Murder of Ben Kinsella, and redirect Ben Kinsella to the new Murder page, rather than to his grieving sister, this would be a better option all round. Tris2000 (talk) 17:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. At there moment there isn't actually much to compare this with either the Murder of Kriss Donald or the Murder of Anthony Walker in terms of the "wider story" in both cases, and unlike either one it does not appear to be racially-motivated, despite the efforts of some people to label it as such based on nothing more than the alleged demographics of the protagonists. So far there seems nothing in the circumstances of Kinsella's death to mark it out from similar deaths in recent months, only the reaction to it. Whether that makes it notable in its own right is the question. We do not have a page for Jimmy Mizen's death, despite a similar community response to it. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep OR Merge and redirect. Subject is notable enough to have a paragraph written in Brooke Kinsella, but might not warrant its own article. Article is poorly written, might not contain enough information, but is generally notable enough to at least have a paragraph written as the article states his death was featured in media and he was an actor appearing in a TV series. ~A H1^(TCU) 17:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. According to IMDB, he two role in single episodes of two series. The wording of the page in question that one was, "staring [sic] in the British series The Bill" is vastly over-stating the case. Nick Cooper (talk) 06:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Brooke Kinsella. Not sufficiently notable in his own right to warrant an article. WWGB (talk) 04:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - per above. Gran² 07:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects are nonsense. keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by :84.134.57.219 (talk) 13:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— 84.134.57.219 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 13:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or merge with Brooke Kinsella the kid desperately tried to kick-start a campaign to tackle knife crime in the UK which has now been continued by his sister. The article is definitely notable but just requires more verification ——RyanLupin • (talk) 23:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Are you suggesting Ben Kinsella "desperately tried to kick-start a campaign to tackle knife crime in the UK"? If so, I'd like to see the source. WWGB (talk) 01:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I think it could possibly mean this. However, lots of kids write to the government about knife crime so the fact that Ben did just makes it a sad coincidence. (Quentin X (talk) 01:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  - Or rename to Murder of Ben Kinsella, similar to Murder of James Bulger, Murder of Robert McCartney, Murder of Danielle Jones etc ——RyanLupin • (talk) 09:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Brooke Kinsella. Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 16:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Databarracks[edit]

Notability not established, this doesn't seem to be an exceptional company in any way. Ged UK (talk) 15:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: G7, as the author has requested deltion on the article talk page. Livitup (talk) 16:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- G7 does not apply, there are other substantive contributors. No prejudice to this AFD. –xenocidic (talk) 16:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete - Oops... I was looking at the article talk page history, not the article history. Doh. Still seems like a delete to me since there's virtually no content, the content there looks rather spammy, and looking at the edit history, I don't think it's going to go anywhere. Livitup (talk) 16:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the other contributors trimmed content, so I think a G7 could reasonably be used. Otherwise, delete per nom. PhilKnight (talk) 16:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A number of edits by Marasmusine added content, specifically this section with criticism, but the original author removed it without providing an edit summary. –xenocidic (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've readded the "critical reception" section; I guess User:Databarracks objected to the unfavourable comments. The PC Pro review was hurredly found but represents one item of independent, reliable, significant coverage. I'm sure anyone interested enough can find further sources to satisfy WP:Notability guidelines, but I'm pretty indifferent. Marasmusine (talk) 16:59, 30 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. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Runyon Avenue[edit]

Its a pretty Non-noteable local road, page is unreferenced, just seems to exist to explain a few obscure lyrics and the origin of the name of Runyon Ave. Records which isn't even linked on the page. KelleyCook (talk) 15:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 15:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: If called out frequently in highly notable songs, then it is probably worthy of a page. While very spartan, it is at least tagged as a stub. It needs some cleanup though. Livitup (talk) 16:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 20:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Albert park tunnels heritage values[edit]

User:Angel of music seems unwilling to accept that there is a difference between an article and a student essay. This article is a rearguard action to try and preserve stuff removed from the Albert Park tunnels article. It is simply a POV student essay. There are a few facts but Wrights Hill Fortress, Cracroft Caverns, North Head, and Stony Batter are already well covered here. Certainly there is nothing that needs to be merged back to Albert Park tunnels. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 14:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and unPOV it, include summary on main article TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 15:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note - currently the article is very POV --T-rex 16:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Albert Park tunnels are worthy of an article, but no need for two articles, and effort required to convert from essay to article is better spent on the main one.-gadfium 20:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Values are subjective and therefore this material at this title will always be POV. There is nothing here that can't be treated encyclopedically at Albert Park tunnels. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concurrently, all text under the header "Heritage values" should be deleted as unsourced POV. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR and not needed given that there's also an article on the tunnels. Nick Dowling (talk) 22:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't seem necessary given the main page. --Helenalex (talk) 03:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV essay adds nothing significant to the Albert Park tunnels article. There were lots of bomb shelters in WW2. Edison (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Copyvio. Much of the text has come directly from this journal. Gwinva (talk) 05:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per gadfium and Cumulus Clouds Goldfinger820 (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Copyvio — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete nancy ^(talk) 16:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother 2 ReWorked[edit]

Big Brother 2 ReWorked isn't a television show. From the following link, http://bb2reworked.proboards67.com/index.cgi, it's a online game where people recreate and "rework" BB2 as a roleplaying experience. As an obscure online game, it fails notability and referencing standards. I would have speedied this, but couln't think where this exactly fit in a speediable category. ArglebargleIV (talk) 13:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But, BB2 Reworked isn't an "obscure online game". you will find hundreds of online games. i've participated in quite a few myself and know the numerous people that put hard work into having a fun, creative, online experience. Also, BB2 Reworked violates no copyright infringment and is for the enjoyment of others.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mister Chen (talk • contribs) 15:04, 30 June 2008
- Comment : Copyright infringement isn't being alleged, and nobody doubts that the people involved are putting work into it. The issue is whether it is notable (i.e., not obscure) and referenced enough for an encyclopedia article. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 15:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as... I'm not sure what really! LOL! There are no references, no assertion of notability and, if I was being particularly cruel, I'd be inclined to say that it fell under WP:SPEEDY#G1 (Patent nonsense and gibberish, an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content) as it took me a long time to figure out what exactly the author was on about! In fact, I still don't really know! -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 14:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At the same time, i just created the page a few hours ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mister Chen (talk • contribs) 14:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. No sources and none to be found. This is an encyclopedia and not the place for play by play online game commentary. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a play by play. BB2 ReWorked has concluded and is merely a cronicalization of the series itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mister Chen (talk • contribs) 15:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 15:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Gtstricky said it all for me. Livitup (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Gtstricky --T-rex 16:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Chinese Flag[edit]

Clear promotion of a flag design only a couple of days old (only source is a press release). Would be speediable, except that a flag is not an "entity". This article either completely misses the point of Wikipedia, or deliberately abuses it. JPD (talk) 13:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems to be something made up... —Giggy 14:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and this. Does not meet the google test, which is an early sign on non-notability or "something made up one day at school". --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 14:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - interesting concept, but not a notable one --T-rex 16:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - made up possible school project. The sources have no links to reliable sources. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 17:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until that Australian China merger takes place. I don't know of any nation that endorses a parody of its national emblems in the name of improved foreign relations. Mandsford (talk) 18:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think its just meant to be a commemorative flag like the English Australian Flag. 121.216.232.15 (talk) 02:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as worthless spam. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does sound interesting as pointed out, but isn't notable. Sunderland06 (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This wouldn't be the first commemorative flag proposed in Australia (www.australianaflags.com.au). I have seen reports of Nigel Morris' activities as an Australian nationalist for several years. He once publically proposed an ensign style flag for the ACT. When it comes to national symbols he is a source worth quoting. 121.216.232.15 (talk) 01:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what you think of Nigel Morris in general. The question is - is this flag actually used by anyone, has it been reported by third party sources, or is it simply something that Nigel Morris has proposed? As the article says - the design was announced on 29 June, so it is clearly not something that belongs on Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't here for you and he [32] to promote this design, but to report things which have already received their own publicity. (Note that even John Vaughan's flags which you refer to do not have articles - this own is even less deserving of an article.) JPD (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This heritage flag is used by the Australian Flag Society. That's something. Steaknife (talk) 03:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This flag was aparantly designed a few days ago and hasn't been adopted by anyone. A Google news search of "Austalian Chinese Flag" returns no hits [33], so it doesn't seem to have even attracted any media attention. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just a novelty flag, no third-party references to indicate that it's used by anyone or taken seriously anywhere. And I have to ask if the .jpeg artefacts are a part of the design or whether they're just incidental? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep!! Wikipedia would be mad to take this down. Chinese Australians will be glad Mr Morris took the time out to design them this flag. 134.148.5.119 (talk) 10:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I Like It" and "People took a lot of time to make this" are not good reasons to keep an article. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does it mean anything that the Australian Flag Society uses it? 134.148.5.118 (talk) 02:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to see why it would mean anything, but it definitely doesn't mean anything unless someone other than the AFS has reported it. This simply isn't the place to announce that someone has started to promomte or even use a flag. JPD (talk) 02:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of reliable 3rd party sources on an item like this make it outside of notability guidelines Satu Suro 14:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ non-notable. Moondyne 02:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There does not appear to be any such entity as the "Australian Flag Society". There is a Flag Society of Australia (inc)[34] whose contacts list does not include the "vexillographer and Chief Herald ... Nigel Morris.". I suspect this to be a hoax and can be speedy deleted. Moondyne 03:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The "Flag Society of Australia" is a vexillological society dedicated to the study of flags in general. The "Australian Flag Society" was formed by Nigel Morris as a breakaway group from ANFA, and advocates the retention of the national flag. Their website [35] is no longer online. I have good reason to believe that all the users saying "keep" here are associated with Morris and his society. The flag is a political stunt, somehow related to the issue of the official status of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags. That isn't quite the same as a hoax, but I do wonder whether the speedy deletion criteria should include this sort of advertising. JPD (talk) 07:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have good reason to think that most of the people who are saying delete are jealous they didn't think of it first.

It's the future Australian National Flag, after China invades.

Mr Morris' body may pass away, but his Australian Chinese Flag will by no means pass away.134.148.5.120 (talk) 05:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Thanks, I should have looked a bit harder. Delete anyway. Moondyne 07:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"It's the future Australian National Flag, after China invades."...That defines WP:CRYSTAL. Please read that. We don't predict the future here at Wikipedia. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 13:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! I believe that 134.148 was making a joke. However, "Please read that. We don't predict the future here at Wikipedia." was even better! That's dry humor at its very best! Mandsford (talk) 15:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was going for. But really, it's true. We don't. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete made up & per above. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete due to verifiability and notability problems. Davewild (talk) 18:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Northgate, College, Mr Kiddy[edit]

Unreferenced - fails WP:VER; fails notability per WP:SCH andy (talk) 13:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Normally I'd say redirect/merge to Finham Park School, but the title of this article isn't a likely search term as it stands.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless something encyclopaedic arrives, in which case, merge to Finham Park School -- Ratarsed (talk) 14:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, of course. Can't this sort of stuff be deleted without bringing it to AfD? Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, no. Speedy deletion for lack of notability doesn't apply to schools despite clear agreement on what counts as notability. Try it and you'll just get told to try prod or afd. andy (talk) 14:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing as the prod was removed (although no reason was given), then there's little chance of the WP:SNOW being used? -- Ratarsed (talk) 14:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Five days isn't long to wait. JohnCD (talk) 16:39, 30 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 Deleted by User:Cobaltbluetony --JForget 23:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rande Vick[edit]

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. I found no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources about him, the only thing google gives is that he provides services as a singer and a teacher. PROD declined earlier. Delete Amalthea (talk) 12:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 13:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 14:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:17, 30 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) 18:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Olivares[edit]

Well, he asserts notability, so it can't be speedied. His film career is amazing ... he was a body double in Lavaboy and Shark Girl, and he starred in a high school drama camp version of High School Musical. Fails Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers Kww (talk) 12:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this page being considered deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgjunior2008 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:ENTERTAINER. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 14:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry man this just isn't good enough to be in wikipedia yet --Kipof (talk) 21:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insufficiently notable at this point in his career. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete b/c failing WP:ATHLETE --JForget 23:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rhys Williams (footballer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Nominated due to contested prod. Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-pro league. Article was previously deleted and overturned due to him having under-21 caps, however consensus is that youth caps do not meet notability either. --Jimbo^[online] 12:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE and U21 caps do not confer notability. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (copied from his first AfD, where it went unanswered) This unofficial but very detailed West Australian soccer site [36] has the 15-year-old Williams playing in Round 22 of the Football West State League Premier Division for ECU Joondalup on 11.9.2004. It confirms this is the same person as the Middlesbrough Williams [37] on 7.2.2007. This is a second-level league in Australia, below the A-League. As it appears he did play first-team football in this league, perhaps someone more knowledgeable than myself could confirm whether or not it is a professional league. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Having a look at the history of the club on their website, it says they played in a reserves league from 1992 until 1995 when they entered a semi-pro league. --Jimbo^[online] 12:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Having had another look at the wasoccer site, it says pretty clearly here that the Premier Div is semi-pro, so Williams does fail WP:ATHLETE. In which case...
Delete per above. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above, and also fails WP:FOOTYN Nfitz (talk) 03:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Angelo (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With a thank you to Struway2 and Jimbo for investigating. Vickser (talk) 04:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 16:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noise, Noise and More Noise[edit]

Contested PROD: debut EP by band whose article has been CSD A7 speedied; completely unsourced; no details other than a tracklist. Stormie (talk) 12:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obviously. Albums whose bands aren't notable certainly aren't notable. tomasz. 12:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, album by non-notable band. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable album from a non notable band. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 13:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because the artists' article was speedily deleted in accordance with criterion WP:CSD#A7. Surely this can't be notable, either. --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 15:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - album by a nn band --T-rex 16:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable. Perfect example of why it's just silly that WP:CSD#A7 covers bands but not albums. — Satori Son 21:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Word. tomasz. 09:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable album that was created by a speedy-deleted band. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 23:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing visible asserts notability (Although I wish people would be careful with CSD A7, especially on new bands - even an assertion of notability is enough to defeat that.) Andy Dingley (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Stormie (talk) 00:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Band aren't notable enough to have an article, so neither is this EP. - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 16:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was (speedy) kept. This is silly - we don't AfD articles for being poorly written. If the article sucks, tell people to improve it on the talk page. If they don't, do it yourself. If you need advice, ask a WikiProject. Non admin. —Giggy 14:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic socialism[edit]

This might seem as an odd AFD posting, as the article is seemingly well written and somewhat referenced. However, I had in December 2007 asked at the talk page that the actual definition of the concept be clarified, a posting that received no response from the main authors of the article. To state that 'Democratic socialism' constitutes a separate political tendency is an OR or Original Synthesis construction, and I'm troubled how the existence of the Democratic socialism article is used to label very disparate political movements as 'democratic socialist' in several articles on wikipedia. Notably the key sections of the article are unreferenced or referenced by fringe views. Some examples:

"Directly contrasting this is what some theorists call State socialism or state capitalism in which a non-democratic state controls the means of production instead of the workers (as in, for example, the Soviet Union during and after Stalin's era). Some authors see democratic socialism as sharing many political ideas with social democracy, while others see them as radically opposed. Nevertheless, democratic socialists often share political parties with social democrats, such as the British Labour Party in the 1980s. Democratic socialism is the second-strongest current of socialism in terms of political success in free elections, immediately following social democracy" is completly unreferenced.
The 'Common ideas' section is unreferenced.
The 'Definition' section included contradictory definitions of the term.
The history section is largely unreferenced. On what basis various political figures have been labelled 'Democratic socialist' is unclear or OR. What is really the essence of the sentence "In Latin America there has been a dramatic rise in support for democratic socialism since the 1998 election of Hugo Chavez as president of Venezuela."?
In conclusion, I don't dispute that the term 'democratic socialism' is widely used in political life. Often it is used as a direct euphemism of Social democracy. Moreover the term can be used by any socialist movement that feels a need to highlight its democratic credentials. Much of the passages of this article could be included in the Socialism and Social democracy articles instead. Soman (talk) 11:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep We don't delete articles for being badly written. Some of it is verifiable, so we can't delete per that either. If you see NPOV or unverifiabl sections, remove them, we don't need to delete the whole bloody article--Serviam (talk) 14:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely keep Most of the same problems listed above adhere to many other ideological labels, such as anarchism, liberalism, republicanism and others. Ideological labels tend to almost invariably with time drift all over the map in terms of what they are used to describe, and as such contradictory definitions are to expected, rather than be a source of surprise. It is *wrong* to clarify that which is inherently muddy, as that will present a false picture. That said, (but of course) the article can be improved. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 14:21, 30 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.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Soft redirect to wiktionary entry. As there is minimal content and the wiktionary entry already exists I'll just leave as the redirect - Peripitus (Talk) 11:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ballpark estimate[edit]

No encyclopaedic information beyond sparse dictionary definition. Recommend transwiki'ing to en.wiktionary. See similar case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guesstimate Knepflerle (talk) 11:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary, this is just the basic defenition of the term with no references. RedThunder 11:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, it's already there. AnturiaethwrTalk 13:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to extant entry. JJB 16:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment Since it already exists at WK, I have been bold and went ahead and put the 'wi' template on there. Please feel free to revert if anyone feels I've overstepped anything LegoTech·(t)·(c) 20:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as soft redirect'. -- saberwyn 23:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as redirect, perhaps to Approximation. -Keith (Hypergeek14)^Talk 21:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia 5320[edit]

Completely unreferenced information about a future product, so it's just crystal balling. There's no notability established and zero references. The article consists of a spec sheet, which leaves it reading like marketing material. Mikeblas (talk) 09:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can see your reasoning under WP:CRYSTAL, however a quick Google search provides Nokia's announcement, pictures of the phone, and announcements on various industry sites and blogs. As this is only a few months from general release (opposed to being a concept), I would think it rates as much of an article as any released phone. I agree the article needs the attention of someone with knowledge of the area but I don't agree it's a a reason to delete. -Raerth (talk) 17:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a Nokia catalog, to publish specifications for every product they contemplate offering for sale. Lacks sources to show notability. If and when the company offers it for sale, consider adding it to List of Nokia products rather than creating a stub spec sheet article. Edison (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while I agree there is the manufacturer's announcement, in addition to various pictures of the phone, announcements on industry sites, and blogs, they don't constitute significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ripley's Believe It or Not! (2009 film)[edit]

Explicitly fails future film notability guidelines. Furthermore, it is not scheduled to film until December at the earliest, and the original director left the project as recently as a week ago, which substantially increases the possibility of it never being made. No prejudice towards article re-creation when shooting can be reliably sourced to have already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced future film that is not in production yet, sounds a lot like WP:CRYSTAL. I suggest creating the article over again when the production of the film has begun. RedThunder 11:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because this was an intended project that never took off. Per the notability guidelines for future films, a stand-alone article is not yet warranted. Perhaps a single sentence of Carrey's past attachment to this project could be mentioned at the actor's article, but there is no indication that it is in production or near it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The notability guidelines for future films stipulate that a stand-alone article for a film should not be created until a project enters production. This is because many factors such as budget issues, scripting issues, and casting issues can interfere with the project. This project is a prime example of this. Should it be brought back to life at some point in the future, the article can be recreated when principal photography is confirmed to have begun. Steve ^{T • C} 07:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this film died when Burton chose to make Sweeney Todd. Alientraveller (talk) 11:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ATF-Cleaner[edit]

Article makes no assertion of notability. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 08:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We probably do need an article on Atribune, but not on individual programs such as this. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article does not cite any other sources. Carlos Johnson (talk) 14:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It cites two sources currently, and it is enough for what is currently needed (although that may change as more is added into the article/stub). Do we really need redundant sources for a article to not be deleted? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 03:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep :: I have just revitalized this piece of work and I don't believe it deserves to go down the drain. Though Atribune might need an article, using the same concept on others would be disastrous.

Using that concept of thinking, would be to say Bill Gates only needs an article and Windows can be shot down the drain. I know Windows should have an article due to the WikiCommunity and the notability is above reason but, no matter how small an article may be it should still give information.

I just gave an extra reference yesterday, and I highly bet I could find more. I don't want to see this article deleted.

EDIT :: I would feel better about this if we got to create an article named Atribune, and we merged all his tools into it.

--Techpro5238 (talk) 17:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge ::: Atribune probably needs a article, and it may be merged into it, but to say that a software information page should be deleted simply because it is a software page and "we don't needs articles on individual programs" is flawed logic, as stated by the windows example above. If we were following the "we don't need individual programs" logic, lots of articles would be nominated and deleted, such as Firefox (browser/program, which would be merged into Mozilla inc.). The article does not cite any sources, but it's only so big at the current stage (which is to say that it's really really small). I doubt there aren't any sources, but if you are so annoyed by it, why not add them in/work on the article (more like stub), instead of nominating for deletion? All articles have to start from somewhere. note: creator of page (more like stub, just added it in for others to work on) ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that we don't need pages for software - we do... but we only need pages for notable software, which this product doesn't appear to be. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 08:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This software is indeed notable. ATF-Cleaner has been used, and is still in use as a major cleanup tool in the malware removal process. When there is malware in the temporary directories of a computer, ATF-Cleaner fixes it up. Many people are inquisitive nowadays and they want to find out about the tools analysts use. Without this article, your denying them information they would want. --Techpro5238 (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:I definitely read about ATF-Cleaner from some notable site since otherwise I wouldn't have gotten it as I am able to delete such things without it (although ATF-Cleaner saves me time cause I'm lazy) It is mentioned often (enough anyway since different problems require different software) on Afterdawn forums and other notable tech forums when people have malware/other issues as a tool to use. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you heard about it on a notable site, feel free to add a reference, although bear in mind that citing a forum is very rarely an example of a reliable source.-- JediLofty ^User_Talk 09:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll add in some sources too. Really, the sections about the cleaner are included in the screenshot and IMHO that should be enough for the user. If we really do need more references, though there is nothing to reference, I will find more.--Techpro5238 (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll be re-adding sources to compensate the ones you removed Jedilofty under ((cite web)) format ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 23:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Kinda hard to filter out the download sites, but, would this count (maybe only include the panel part? I don't know....seems notable if it was in a panel) [38] I'll try to find others, but really, nothing else needs to be cited currently so it'll just be cites purely for the reason of cites if that makes sense. Also techpro says he/she'll work on the article later ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 16:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are there any reliable sources for this product? The only links I've seen so far that mention it are either blogs or download sites. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 16:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The one I added to the article was a review and a download site, but it had a somewhat original review and was contributive(sp/word?) to the article. But in many ways, there wouldn't be lots of sites other than download sites to have it, as well, it is a software. I mean, deluge has only 2 sources, both official, and its a software so. As for being on download sites, some of the larger, more notable ones would only put on useful software, and for being actually used, you could browse through all of the tech support forums for viruses/stuff (ex google ATF Cleaner, PC mag), but I really doubt that's reliable/we are supposed to cite lots of small pages. I see it'll be really hard to prove notability of this article actually, so I don't care if it's deleted or not. It's on Cnet, Afterdawn, MG, lots of sites, but I doubt any of those follow "reliable".....is there a article on the general software type? Might merge there.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 19:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced user guide based on own research for non-notable software product. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not supported by citations from any reliable independent secondary sources; reads like a "how-to" manual in places (see WP:NOT), an advert in others. B.Wind (talk) 04:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was - Keep (no consensus) ~~Ryttaren (talk) 08:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)~~--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generation Z[edit]

Previous Noms

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generation Z

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generation Z (2nd nomination)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generation Z (3rd nomination)

Delete. Okay, I know this article has been on AfD three times now, but it needs another go on here really. Firstly, it does not cite any sources. It is also a neologism. Plus it really, really isn't notable. It is two lines long, so a rewrite really isn't in order, it makes more sense to delete. Also, the whole point of these Generation things (e.g. Generation X, Baby Boomer Generation etc) is that each Generation was predicted, and then when it reached adulthood, it was shown to have certain characteristics (like Generation Y is meant to be tech savvy due to the internet and games consoles). But we shouldn't make an article based solely on this tiny prediction (WP:CRYSTAL). And it's definition is poor anyway, "Generation Z is the generation that follows Generation Y, beginning very roughly at the end of Generation Y." What the hell is that? No time frame or anything. Yes, I know that the last two AfDs on this failed, but I looked at the article when it was nominated the last time and it has significantly changed since then, and not in any good way. I therefore propose it is deleted. Deamon138 (talk) 08:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a blindingly shining example of WP:CRYSTAL point 2. JJB 16:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep. I keep coming across articles up for deletion like this, where my initial impression is "sounds like a bullshit topic", but then I do a little research and find that it isn't. This term, not to mention the concept, has received more than a dozen mentions in the press in the last month alone (Google News). Further, everything I read about Generation Y shows that most commentators place its end some time in the last 10 years, making a "post-Y" generation a very real thing, though exactly what to call it has not yet solidified. Wikipedia has several articles on the post-Y generation, in fact (Generation V, Generation Einstein, Google generation, Internet generation, Generation C), each documenting a different name for the post-Y generation being batted around by media commentators. So I view this article and those others with an eye toward eventual merge (but that's a matter for editorial work, not snap judgments) -- and an obvious keep, expand, add sources for now.--Father Goose (talk) 21:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The number of names for a class of people that itself hasn't defined who or what they are is evidence that there is no universally acceptable term for that group. This would indicate each of these terms are neologisms that haven't entered common parlance because they were only used once by an uncreative news anchor. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The absence of a universally acceptable term for something does not preclude our having an article on the something. And the use of the specific term "Generation Z" by The Chicago Tribune, The Guardian, The Herald Sun, CNN, CBS News, and BBC News in just the last few months suggests it is quite a bit more than a neologism used only once by an uncreative news anchor. Reassess your position, as even a little bit of research shows it to be unfounded.--Father Goose (talk) 23:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ERM, most of those articles are pop culture articles, not scholarly verifiable articles. I mean Hannah Montana? Fujifilm? Are you serious? That just shows it's an advertising gimmick to sell products to young children surely, and most advertising gimmick phrases tend to be neologisms. Deamon138 (talk) 23:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, most of those articles only use the term in passing: that is original research. Deamon138 (talk) 23:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's an obvious violation of WP:NEO, which says sources must define a term, not use it. Arguing that usage helps identify notability is also a poor argument, since we must have sources to write an article. Without somebody else discussing a term first, we can't simply insert our own personal interpretation and this is why we have guidelines like WP:NEO and WP:SYN. After reassessing my position, I don't believe I'll be changing my opinion on the matter. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Generation Y. While it seems to me this is a real topic (there have been a few articles discussing it in recent years, as Father Goose's link above shows), there's not really enough to say about it for a separate article. It would be better kept as a subsection of the Generation Y article (saying, basically 'the generation after Generation Y will be Generation Z. Not much is yet known about this generation.') until there is more to say about them. Terraxos (talk) 21:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge - This is mostly unsourced original research with no real evidence demonstrating the usage of this nonnotable protologism. I'm looking forward to the day when people will stop creating new Generation X/Y/Z articles in advance of new generations because we'll have run out of letters by then. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEO says, "Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities." Well Generation Z says that its members have not known a war without the War on Terror (started in 2001 of course), so the earliest Generation Z person to be born must've been born around 1997 at the earliest to only remember 9/11 and Afghanistan that followed etc. So it would seem that such a term could not have been coined until 2001 at the VERY earliest, but more likely much later. This term is therefore a neologism, and it doesn't matter if Google News uses it a dozen times in the last month, as that definition of neologism shows, it can still be one. Besides, it also is still crystal-balling. At most, this generation can have members of 11yrs old at most, but more likely 6/7yrs old. It is a prediction that this generation will have similar characteristics like past ones have done, but what characteristics then? All it says is they have never lived without the WoT. So? All the rest of the generations were hypothesized AFTER they had matured, like mine (gen Y) is known as tech-savvy, because of what has happened with the web. No-one could've known about the insane growth of the internet in 1989, the year I was born, or really even a few years later. Plus Father Goose (above) mentions "Generation V, Generation Einstein, Google generation, Internet generation" as post-generation Y topics. However, surely these are the same as gen Y? They are all tech-savvy, which is what gen Y is as well. The defining characteristic of a post-generation Y can't be that its tech savvy, as that is already the one for Y If this article doesn't get deleted, at the very least it must be merged with Generation Y, along with those quoted by Father Goose. They are effectively different words for the same thing. Deamon138 (talk) 23:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A delete !vote is implicit in the opening deletion rationale. You might want to consider changing this duplicate !vote to a "comment" or appending it to your opening statement above.--Father Goose (talk) 01:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay sorry, sorted now. Deamon138 (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To address the argument you present here itself: here is one reliable source after another defining the term "Generation Z" (not just using it) and ascribing various, generally consistent characteristics to it. This is the kind of subject we write articles about on Wikipedia. I agree -- as I said above -- that the other terms for this same phenomenon (the post-Y generation) should be merged together into one article, though, again, mergers are done through editorial action, not pronouncements handed down by a handful of commentators at an AfD. Which of the articles should be the ((mergeto)) target? I dunno -- maybe Generation Z itself; I haven't researched the other names yet. Nonetheless, this is clearly a notable subject, with a fairly consistent definition used by multiple reliable sources, and we should have an article which describes what those sources have to say about the subject.--Father Goose (talk) 01:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And those sources are just from the first few pages of Google News' listings: there are dozens more that follow. Additionally, here are three books that can be used for source material; again, a limited sampling of what can be found via Google Books.--Father Goose (talk) 02:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay let's look at the sources you quoted:

The first source says only this, "Generation Z (also sometimes referred to as Generation V, for Virtual), is less important to most small businesses, as they are younger and not yet independent consumers." It doesn't define the term firstly. Also, it clearly shows the term isn't notable as it says less important!
The next source, while seeming detailed, is actually flawed beyond compare. Firstly, it talks about them never having known a world without mobile phones, and growing up in a world without technology. However, as I said, that is endemic of Generation Y, not Z. It quotes the former editor of a magazine Total Girl, which I'm not sure is reliable. It also says, "They're Generation Z, born from 1995 onwards, the latest generation made up of today's babies and children. " Well according to our article on Gen Y, 1995 was part of that generation. In fact, this article says it specifically relates to the WoT, which I fail to see relating to '95 seeing how it started in 2001 and all. It doesn't make much sense to predict a new generation from 1995 anyway, as fa as I'm aware, the birth rate in the West isn't discrete, but continuous, so there should be a slow change between generations, unless specifically noted that this newest lot is any different to their predecesors. I mean, what kind of prediction is this, "even though some Gen Z children have not been born yet." How do they know? How do they know that some huge event wo't take place tonight or whenever they said that? Later on it's said, "When the Baby Boomers start to die off, the housing market could well be flooded with sales." No, when they die off, the next generation, who are just as numerous since there were more parents around to have more children, will still be able to get houses. There won't suddenly be a decrease in the population because one generation dies off. Apparently also, economic problems will, "make them a little more measured, reserved and conservative." Erm, but during all past economic problems, (most notably the Wall street crash, people have become more left wing or at least more radical in reaction.
I didn't get the free trial for the third source, but from the lead that I could see, it only mentioned generation Z in the title (neologism again), and from the rest of the title, seemed like it was going to focus on software for young children, so probs no more mentions. Besides, children growing up with computers? Where have I heard that before? Ah yes, generation Y.
Source 4: "they wield incredible consumer power because they tend to influence the bulk of decisions of the adults in their lives." Children have always yielded considerable power. And it mentions technology again (dealt with). And it says they have lots of relatives. That doesn't define them, it says we have big extended families, it isn't necessary to have an article of these families children. The article also says they are born in the 1990s, which differs with other to source 2 which said they were 1995-future.
This is heavy crystal-balling, and doesn't really talk about gen Z much, more talking about the future of advertising. Technology thing again as well. It does say that, "61 percent of children 8-17 have televisions in their rooms", but 17 year olds were born in 1991, and are 7 year olds not part of Generation Z? Another conflict of dates.
Article 6.Your joking right? This is about BABIES and designer clothes! It doesn't make predictions, or tell us what these babies are like, only that they are generation Z, and some parents like to dress them in expensive clothes. How can we have an article on a generation that can have no collective personality, since I don't think there's anyone that will infer a babies future personality at that age.
Again, need a trial for this and I cba. Still it says they begin in 1990 (another conflict with those others you mentioned). And the technology thing again rears it's ugly head. It also is perfect for showing that it is indeed a neologism as, "Generation Z is not yet defined in the dictionary," yet generation Y is, so it must be a neologism.
Okay this one uses 1996 as its start point. It also includes the wonderful comment, "Realistically it's still too early to say how society will shape this generation", backing up my crystal ball claim.
This one again focuses on the technology thing (what's with that, these terms need to be consistent). As for gen Z not knowing what Microsoft or Sony are, the writers of that are stupid. They really really do. (unless of course it's the babies like that other article that make up gen Z, in which case fair enough).
This final one copies a lot from source 7 that you gave. I also like the comment, "This group's preferred method of Internet searching is to start with a Google search, even if that may not be the most efficient or fastest means to the answer." So what do older people who weren't brought up in the age of the internet do? Oh that's right. The most efficient way to find something is google, as shown by it's popularity. Stupid comment really.
okay, the link to google books you provided, showed that only books 3, 7 and 9 are related to the subject, and if that trend continues, then there will be only 63/64 books on this, but probs much less considering that searches get less relevant as you go further away.

Looking at all those sources, it seems that the term isn't notable enough, and even if you disregard that and the fact that it's a neologism and all the crystal-balling, I have shown that these sources don't even agree on the date it started, and often get confused between this and generation Y. Deamon138 (talk) 23:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whether or not Generation Z is defined or not, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense for there to be Generation X, Generation Y, and no Generation Z. I tried to strip the article down to a bear minimum that was true. Since it passed the last AfD, it had drifted to the point of lots of original research and was generally crap. The article is intentionally vague! There is little information on Generation Z, so the Wikipedia page can only have the information that is out there. I suggested in the discussion thread that this article be maintained as a stub while we wait for more information on the topic. Generation Z is as yet ill-defined, because it is so young. But it does exist, and it will exist, and its absence will be a glaring hole on Wikipedia, because people from Generation Z are soon going to reach the point where they will recreate the missing article on them. I am in favor of merging the other articles on Generation Z into this article, like Generation V. Kevin143 (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if that's a concern, then where's Generation A, B, C, etc? That answer, of course, is that WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. Just because the letter Z follows Y doesn't mean that it's incredibly important for us to create an article for it as a placeholder in case anything important happens. If it's being kept vague on purpose, why have it at all? The surest way to prevent OR from creeping into an article is to eliminate articles on poorly defined topics. Further to the point about the imminent arrival of information about this subject: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, we don't keep articles on events or subjects that haven't happened yet or are not yet notable. When they become notable, then we create them. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is important that the post Gen Y generation has a presence on Wikipedia... this should be a keep, eventually to be merged with the other articles on this generation. For now, let's keep the article and slowly expand it and add sources. Ingenium (talk) 22:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's only important for such a Generation to have a presence on Wikipedia, if there's any evdience that such a generation is notable. At the moment there is none. Plus, you want to keep this article, expand on it, THEN merge it? That doesn't make any sense. If you want to merge it, you merge it straight away, and improve the article in its new found merged location, you don't wait around till some undetermined time and merge then. Deamon138 (talk) 23:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not much on this at present but I don't think that means it should be deleted. I'd say the time periods for the generations x, y and z are all pretty woolly with no real timescale logic.Alex Marshall (talk) 09:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just thought I'd show why this topic isn't notable yet. I did a Google test. Googling "Generation Z" gives 218,000 results [39]. Sounds enough to be notable right? Wrong. A lot of those are actually things completely unrelated to this topic (e.g. Generation Z cameras or something). It would be reasonable to assume that any page mentioning this topic would also mention it's preceding generation i.e. generation Y. Here's what you get for "generation Y" and "generation Z": 6,420 results [40]. That is a huge decrease. Further evidence for it's non-notability comes when you search for "generation z" and terrorism (i.e. the topic they are apparently associated with. This gives just 7,110 results [41]. It is hardly notable or worthy of a place in Wikipedia, maybe it will be in a few years, but we do not keep placeholders in Wikipedia for neologisms! Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Deamon138 (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article describes a concept which exists (f.x. being used in news reports and yielding thousands of relevant hits on Google), making Wikipedia a better place for information seekers. Kind regards, Ryttaren (talk) 08:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Thousands" of hits isn't notable when it comes to Google hits, try hundreds of thousands of hits. Besides, Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collector of information for "information seekers". Plenty of concepts exist, but we only write about them if they're notable. I'm a bigger inclusionist than most people, but this has to go. Deamon138 (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not using news reports and thousands of relevant Google hits to argue "notability", I'm using them to show that the concept exists. I would like Wikipedia to be as good as possible for information seekers, regardless of it's current status. Please don't take for granted that your views on what "we" write about are universally shared. Kind regards, Ryttaren (talk) 14:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the concept exists, no one is arguing that. The main argument is that it is a neologism. Remember Wikipedia doesn't write about every concept that exists, only those that are notable, and this one isn't. Deamon138 (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a neologism that is at least 10 years old and widely used by professional journalists and other writers. It's well within our standards for being both an established term and established subject in the outside world. A lot of your arguments seem to be against the way all these writers have been using the term; that is not our job here at Wikipedia. Our job is to summarize what these writers have been saying about the subject. Even if they're engaging in crystalballery, it's our job to describe the predictions they've made, as it is factual for us to do so. WP:CRYSTAL only applies to speculation done by individual Wikipedia editors, as that is a form of original research. WP:OR does not apply to what professional writers have said about a given subject. In fact, disputing what they have written using personal arguments happens to be an actual example of OR.--Father Goose (talk) 05:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is no point in deleting the Generation Z article now when it will only have to be recreated in a few years time when the Post-Y generation really starts to define itself. --Candy-Panda (talk) 13:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know that it will have to be recreated in a few years time, Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball. Deamon138 (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per previous two AfDs. Furthermore, this needs to have links to those three AfDs (improper nom to begin with). — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why it needs links to the previous AfDs, (is this some kind of policy I didn't know about, sorry), but if you've seen the last two, then surely you could've linked them? Besides I specifically stated at the start of my nomination that the article has declined in content since then. The fact, therefore, that it survived two previous nominations means nothing. The article has changed, and the previous AfDs were based on significantly better content. Articles can change, and consensus can change. Instead of saying "keep per previous AfDs", provide arguments as to why YOU think it should be kept. Deamon138 (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC) (Also note that someone has deleted Generation Einstein which is a synonym for this article's name)[reply]

Deamon, my apologies; I could have been more clear. The nomination script effed up, no reflection on you. My comment was directed as a warning that something might be messing up. I've been looking around to see how it works, but I haven't found out how. I'll just place links at the top, if that's ok with you? While the article has indeed changed, the basic content is fine and meets minimal notability and reliability standards. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To summarize my logic, a bad article is not a reason to delete. The article needs improvement, but it will grow as Wikipedia grows. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I think this article as well as Generation_C and Internet_generation all refer to the same age group of people and as a result that all 3 articles could be improved by being merged. I feel that having articles on this generation is a good idea but that they should all be in one single article. This issue seems to be less a matter of if the subject is notable or appropriate and more about it's name. I think a merge between all the articles about this generation would be the best choice. I feel that if the articles were merged then the article could be dealt with in a much clearer manner and the idea of cleaning it up to make it encyclopedic would be much more approachable %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 09:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), as per consensus regarding notability in relation to WP:MUSIC requirements. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stay Down (Smoking Popes album)[edit]

Article was previously deleted (twice) but has been recreated. The album has not been released, and the article makes no assertion of why said album is notable. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 08:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing it here instead of CSDing it. The album is actually up for sale on iTunes, its just that the physical release of the album isn't due until August. According to the notability guidelines, "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia.". I will try to get some more sources up on the album; right now I've updated with two sources. Teemu08 (talk) 13:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to nominate it for WP:CSD#G4, but since I actually read it, keep per refs found. I was also about to nominate delete per WP:CRYSTAL, but since its actually selling now, nevermind. Keep TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 15:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - semi-released so WP:CRYSTAL does not apply --T-rex 16:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wasn't worried about WP:CRYSTAL so much as WP:NOTE! -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 08:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's a new album from a notable band. How is that not notable? Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 02:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The album has been released, even if the physical album itself has not. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 02:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moldovan Brazilian[edit]

Another Brazilian ethnicity article with no real content. The only source cited does not support the population claim it is supposed to support, nor is it titled "Moldovans in Brazil" as the citation says. I could find no relevant sources through a Google search. Therefore, I recommend a delete. Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article simply does not establish the importance or notability of the subject. No reliable sources either. Artene50 (talk) 08:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails to establish notability. Punkmorten (talk) 10:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable article, one of may (too many) articles by this user of non-notability. Creating a disruptive environment. (ouch).--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet another made-up ethnicity. JuJube (talk) 04:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article with no claim to notability. If a Brazilian of Moldovian descent were notable, his or her success would not be due to this supposed ethnic background. Brazil, like the US, is a melting pot. There is no Moldovian ghetto here. Also, in Brazilian Portuguese, the noun "brasileiro" is not capitalized.--Wloveral (talk) 12:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect manners[edit]

Unable to assertain any notability for the book per WP:BK. Although I can find a few reviews, they appear to be mainly booksellers, who I don't believe count as independent third party sources, with a few equine related publications. Since the author seems notable, I'd suggest a merge/redirect to the authors article would be preferable to a delete (though the article name should probably be capitalised). CultureDrone (talk) 07:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article was originally prod at the beginning of June, but restored on request from the author CultureDrone (talk) 08:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. If references were provided to explain exactly how the book is notable, I may be inclined to change my mind. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 10:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very misleading article title! The article is actually about a book whose full title is Perfect Manners: How You Should Behave So Your Horse Does Too. All that aside, I agree that there's nothing to show that this book is considered notable even among horse owners. While it rates a mention in an article about horse training (such as Natural horsemanship), no reason that an article is necessary. With its current lack of content, it's advertising; adding more content risks a copyvio. Mention it somewhere, not here. Mandsford (talk) 12:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, and move if kept: the current title is somewhat misleading, in that Perfect Manners is not obviously about a book about horsemanship. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of universities in Indonesia. Sandstein 06:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of universities in East Java[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Davidelit (talk) 07:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of universities in Indonesia if appropriate else keep. Such a list is not indiscriminate, and is an established genre: see List of universities and colleges by country. Ros0709 (talk) 07:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of universities in Indonesia. Neither article is too large. Brusegadi (talk) 08:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - nominator has the correct idea. East Java is not a country, rather it is one of 33 provinces of Indonesia. Do we need a list for each province? I suggest not. --Merbabu (talk) 11:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, but without prejudice toward re-creation if the list was to grow large. At the moment it seems more prudent to have a single list, but in the future perhaps individual articles (hopefully more than just lists) could be created for each province. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per reasoning by CRGreathouse. TerriersFan (talk) 19:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete first preference- as the likelihood of any possible benefit to the main Country list of a bunch of red links is of no benefit to the Indonesian project which is clogged up with lists of red and grey links - Merge seems pointless Satu Suro 12:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment half of the List of universities in Indonesia is about to be deleted/removed due to the listcruft habit of adding red links of names and blue links of locations - pointless items in such lists - to add another bunch of red links is misguided Satu Suro 13:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Page is well organised, while List of universities in Indonesia is an often erroneous dump, with no sorting; however the is very well organised. Ultimately that's what we are looking for. But I wouldn't want to delete List of universities in East Java without merging it into List of universities in Indonesia; though I'm tempted to simply replace List of universities in Indonesia with it's Nfitz (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is English wikipedia- and the WP EN Indonesian project has serious issues with redlinks lists that are never touched after they are created - hence whether organisation appeals is not a point to consider here - to cross link between WP IN and WP EN is a serious error and should not be part of an Afd conversation - there are tiotally different rationales as to the use of WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS between the two projects and even if thge WP IN has an ideal list - if anyone every suggest cross linking or uitilising WP:IN project pages - there are major issues that would have be hammering out SatuSuro 05:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I never said I was going to cross-link the projects - I'm not sure where that's coming from; I'd think that would be a big no-no. Simply the content. The current article is a mess, and it seems a shame to delete List of universities in East Java when it could be used to improve List of universities in Indonesia Nfitz (talk) 22:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A general response to Nfitz’s suggestion to populate EN articles with ID information - if that is indeed his suggestion – would be that this should be rejected as strongly as possible. Such action has been the bane of Indonesia articles on EN for years, and remains a serious and fundamental flaw. Standards of referencing, notability and writing are minimal (non-existent?) over at ID, and by no means should this be (further) encouraged here. The 3 or 4 significant and consistent editors on the Indonesia articles are in no position to remove the existing mess across several 1000 articles, much less deal with new. And it is only 3 or 4 editors that are consistent and have use the standards expected – it is not like the US or Australia articles, for example, where there are many editors to draw upon. I also concur with SatuSuro's point that list of redlinks are never going to be created, let alone reliably referenced. Much less still maintained.--Merbabu (talk) 06:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Replacing any EN articles with the IN versions would set a very bad precedent indeed, and could result in the Indonesia articles resembling a scrapbook with redlinks leading to empty pages (that will never get written anyway), a consequent lack of interest, decline in credibility and ultimately serious damage to the whole Indonesia project. Davidelit (talk) 08:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of universities in Indonesia. What's here is better organised, and it would be a shame to lose it. Nfitz (talk) 22:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 21:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fleur Elsie Harris[edit]

No indication that this artist satisfies WP:BIO, Clarityfiend (talk) 07:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 07:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nominator is correct. A Google search turns up only 8 hits here Four of them are either from Wikipedia or Wikipedia mirror sites like answers.com Subject is simply not notable and fails WP:BIO. Artene50 (talk) 08:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. The article is also wholly unreferenced. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 10:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable: fails WP:BIO#Creative_professionals. freshacconcispeaktome 01:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), unanimous keep, nomination withdrawn. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fleur Lombard[edit]

The first female firefighter to die in the line of duty in peacetime Britain, but Wikipedia is not a memorial. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep she was the first female firefighter to die on duty in the UK. That is a notable fact. WP is not a memorial, which is why we don't list every firefighter who died, just the notable ones. There is enough coverage of this fact in secondary sources. --Step hen 07:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep When she is the first firefighter to die, it makes her more notable than usual sadly. But more importantly, the article is supported by reliable sources from the BBC and the Daily Telegraph. Artene50 (talk) 08:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons given above - being the first female firefighter to die makes her notable. Dpmuk (talk) 10:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons given above. While I agree that Wikipedia should not be a memorial, being the first British female firefighter to die while working does make her notable. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 10:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd have thought the Queen's Gallantry Medal would fit the "person has received a notable award or honor" part of WP:BIO, plus agree with above comments. -Hunting dog (talk) 12:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Uncle. It looks like it's WP:SNOWing, so I withdraw my nomination. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:07, 30 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 guideline. Davewild (talk) 21:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamcast Sound Format[edit]

This is another vanity article for a vaporware file format similar to Sega Saturn Sound Format, which currently has a strong case for deletion. This format is only supported in one Winamp plug-in by one author and plays the music for only one game, Ikaruga. That sounds decidedly not WP:N. The article is devoid of citations and links only to the Web site of the author, which makes it very suspicious that this is a vanity page. Google finds only 359 hits, which are either copies of the Wikipedia article, mirrors of the file or forum discussion, all of which fail WP:V. This article should be deleted. If the facts change at some point in the future, a new article could be created. The muramasa (talk) 06:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Why is this notable? I have no idea, and the article didn't tell me! -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 10:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 11:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn vapor ware --T-rex 16:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – lack of pretty much everything. MuZemike (talk) 17:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable file format that is not widely-used. Very little ghits with no reliable sources. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 22:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOT, ... need I go on? — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), as per consensus. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anye Elite[edit]

Article about a musician who appears to fail WP:MUSIC - article has been tagged by two authors (myself included) on the grounds of notability. However, he also appears to be a prominent on the gay scene and perhaps establishes notability on these grounds. I'm bringing the article here to establish concensus. Ros0709 (talk) 06:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although I am not familiar with the gay black scene of Atlanta, Georgia. My research suggest that Anye Elite satisfies WP:Music criteria number seven. Everyone might be satified if the focus shifted to his community involvement where there are significantly more resources. NotabilityChieftan (talk) 10:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Item 7 states "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city". In the context of WP:MUSIC, the "notable style" or "local scene" must be "musical style" / "music scene". I see no evidence that he is the most notable representative of either of those. He has had some coverage - along with many others - commenting on the "gay scene", but I don't think that's relevant to WP:MUSIC. Ros0709 (talk) 06:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Southern Voice and Clik Magazine are regionally and nationally published. That satisfies the notability requirement. Aleader (talk) 11:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The artist, Anye Elite, has been interviewed and mentioned in a article for the Southern Voice at: http://www.southernvoice.com/2007/2-16/locallife/feature/6530.cfm. The artist has also been interviewed on two local radio stations: WRFG 89.3FM, and WVEE 103.3FM. Radio interviews are not available online which makes deletion for this unfair. I do realize that personal communication is not an acceptable source here, but radio interviews are not personal communication with me. Radio interviews are broadcast. Carlos Johnson (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have copied the above comment from this page's talk page. Ros0709 (talk) 05:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Keep Why not classify him as a community activist since that is where the majority of his coverage lies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.125.102 (talk) 15:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of LGBT related deletions. Pinkkeith (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have cleaned up, formated, blah blah blah, the article plus added some of the material from the corresponding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Just In Case (Anye Elite song) AfD about his single - which doesn't seem to pass the WP:MUSIC#Songs guidelines for its own article. I've also added references throughout. Banje boi 21:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This may not pass for Music but does on Bios combining his music and activism. I'd like to lightly admonish those involved in the beginning stages who probably could have showed a bit more diplomacy ala don't bite the newbies. Having stated that we are also looking at several divides including technical, media and surely cultural. It's little wonder that the events and festivals he's performing at are hard to document, on wikipedia they're non-existent! There's at least 34 Black LGBT pride festivals with thousands who attend each one but they seem to be non-existent on wikipedia. This is just one of the first articles I've seen that even references they exist. Like LGBT media these sources are also not consistently online. This will change over time but editors may want to keep the perspective that race, class, gender and sexuality still play a role in what is printed in mainstream media. Banje boi 21:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure)Oo7565 (talk) 08:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)" no consensus per DRV. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo Ultra 64 Sound Format[edit]

This article should not e part of Wikipedia. Its subject is unencyclopedic by nature. While it is cool that a format exists to play Nintendo 64 music, "cool" does not establish WP:N. Moreover, there are no citations in this article to establish any of its claims, which is a big problem for WP:V. A Google search gave 800 results which were, again, primarily forum and blog posts from non-professionals. it's fairly certain the format exists, given anyone can download and test the files lined. Unfortunately, the links appear to be the same as in several other music article, suggesting vanity. None of the links meet WP:RS. This article should be deleted. If the facts change at some point in the future, a new article could be created. The muramasa (talk) 06:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This subject most definitely is encyclopaedic in nature. As you note, there are a lot of ghits and many of them are blog posts - but there are enough other references in there which appear to establish notability. The blog posts suggest a large user community. Ros0709 (talk) 06:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should review WP:N. There is no substantive content in reliable sources. Wikipedia defines reliable sources as requiring editorial integrity, which forum posts and most blogs which mention this software lack. Also, archives of USF packages and sites hosting the software for download fail as they are not independent of the subject. While the presence of such discussion suggests there are users, the extremely low number and lack of coverage by reliable sources suggests any notoriety which this topic has is negligible at best. The muramasa (talk) 08:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Why is this notable? I have no idea, and the article didn't tell me! -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 10:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Contrary to your other music formats proposed deletions, this is an actual existing format, with plugins, support in various players, and actual rips available to the public. Just for the sake of information, it should be kept, which it's probably the main reason of existence for this article, not vanity. Lack of references in reliable sources, or coverage by professionals is not a reason, by its very nature, USF is an amateur effort, so a future mention in the New York Times is quite improbable. Not that such mention would warrant something to be "notable" or "encyclopedic", otherwise we would have to flag for deletion half of the Wikipedia.

It seems the format is mentioned in a IEEE article if you want a reliable source. Other reasons for the notability of such format are insight on how the Nintendo 64 sound system works, and preservation reasons, as this format warrants the archiving of game soundtracks which lack a proper physical release in stores, apart from allowing listening to those soundtracks without having a physical console or an emulator around, even using portable players, either using transcoding or by the means of future releases of Rockbox. --Lashiec (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That this format exists does not somehow nullify the numerous problems with this article, nor does the presence of rips made by a handful of authors. Thank you for the IEEE source, though it should be used to support the content of the article to establish the credibility of the content, not the existence of the article itself. However, I still do not see how the IEEE article does anything to resolve the numerous problems with meeting WP:N and WP:RS, unless you were to rewrite this entire article to be based on the content of the IEEE source. The muramasa (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 11:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – If this format is legitimate, then it should be included. It would just need some cleanup and expansion. MuZemike (talk) 17:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not maintain articles on every single file format. For example, the AbiWord file format, .abw, does not have its own article. However, he AbiWord article does have a line to mention the format's existence. Perhaps you should consider stripping this down to relevant, verifiable information and adding it into the Nintendo 64 article. The muramasa (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly a viable alternative. MuZemike (talk) 00:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge - the concept is real (see IEEE link above), so the article gives information which could be useful to information seekers. Kind regards, Ryttaren (talk) 08:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it may be real, but is it notable? -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 09:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm sorry, are we editing Google or Wikipedia? The issue at hand is whether an obscure format with a handful of users and limited Google references is notable enough for an encyclopedia, and, assuming it is notable as per WP:N, does it have reliable sources (WP:RS) from which the article draws for its content? The IEEE article is mentioned above, but its content is not used to support or source any information in this article. The muramasa (talk) 10:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion, if an article is useful to more than very few informations seekers, then the article makes Wikipedia a better place and should be kept, WP:N or whatnot. If you feel uncomfortable not adhering to some or other guideline, feel free to use WP:Ignore all rules. Kind regards, Ryttaren (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

E! Pop Survey Awards[edit]

I have a distinct impression that we discussed these at AfD before and decided they were utterly non-notable. (Worse, I think it was I who nominated them! I cannot immediately find the precedent so I am listing them as a new AfD discussion.) — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Speedily delete it as nonsense because none of the prose actually makes sense. Failing that, the final comment "No official award or ceremony is associated with such polls" somewhat contradicts the assertion in the title. No supporting references found; fails WP:N. Also note that the article creator was User:E pop survey, suggesting a WP:COI. Ros0709 (talk) 06:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. There are no references whatsoever. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 10:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all of the above. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, would probably also qualify for A7. Sandstein 06:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Donaldson[edit]

Even though entire article was C&P from IMDB bio of subject and subject's record label website bio, article was declined a speedy in January 08. After removing the copyvio material what are we left with? We have an article about a lady who sang a song in a Singaporean gangster film and is signed to a minor record label. This article is sourced , however, to just 1 primary source (her record label's website) and one source (IMDB) that fails RS as anyone can edit it (please see the Jaydon hoax as to why IMDB is not to be relied upon). Sourcing problems aside, article fails notability requirements here, here, here, and here L0b0t (talk) 05:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, unless other info comes to light that satisfies above criteria.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:22, 30 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. Sandstein 06:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky and Sam[edit]

This couple from General Hospital isn't notable, there are no sources, and both characters (Lucky Spencer and Sam McCall) already have their own articles. A ni Mate 05:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per duplication of existing info and per lack of sourcing.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AniMate above; this could be in Lucky Spencer or Sam McCall, or in General Hospital, if anywhere. Not even Sid and Nancy got its own Wikipedia article until there was a movie about it, and those were technically real people. --Closeapple (talk) 07:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge Put any necessary & referenced info into articles about these characters. Nothing else is worth keeping. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rev. Nørb[edit]

Non-notable artist. Article fails to assert notability per WP:BAND. If outcome is delete, there's a redirect from Reverend Norb to be cleaned up. Royal broil 04:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BAND.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per notability standards, WP:RS (myspace is the only source? give me a break). — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability as a band. Bearian (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sock Obama[edit]

A brief mention in the news for about one hour out of a 24-hour news cycle does not warrant a wikipedia article for this company. Loonymonkey (talk) 04:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Comment Not to be rude, but I don't see a deletion rationale in the nomination. Further, the sources in the article cover a period of several days, so the nomination is factually imprecise. Townlake (talk) 05:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The rationale seems quite clear, alternately stated by WP:NOT#NEWS. The number of days in the news cycle doesn't fix the fundamental problem, little evidence of long term significance. Notability not established. • Gene93k (talk) 07:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Fair enough. I think there's enough RS here to put something together, but if this more appropriate as a footnote to the Obama campaign, that's cool too. Townlake (talk) 14:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lots of wacky presidential toys and trinkets come out during elections and this (albeit with a big problem the creators didn't notice before announcing it) is no exception. Three of the four refs just repeat the AP copy verbatim, and the product has been pulled. I think we can move along. Nate • (chatter) 09:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification Perhaps splitting hairs, but I only see two that are the AP copy verbatim. What am I overlooking? And while yes, lots of presidential toys come out, the controversy attached to this one differentiates it just a teeny bit, doesn't it? Townlake (talk) 14:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I may have miscounted, but one of them seemed to be almost verbatim. If I was wrong on the count, my apologies. As for the controversy, there had been before, but now there is none. It's not being sold, the people apologized for any offense and no one will ever own this product. Nate • (chatter) 00:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your points are well taken; the fact nobody will ever own the product is particularly compelling. I'm convinced - Delete. Townlake (talk) 05:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim of notability given. SYSS Mouse (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - real and verifiable, but not notable --T-rex 16:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Darn it, merge to Obama 2008. JJB 17:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete – not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Do not merge. Bwrs (talk) 23:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. This is a flash-in-the-pan item which will never even make it to market. If it continues to receive substantial coverage well into the future, we can reconsider the article at that time. RFerreira (talk) 20:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Que D[edit]

Contested prod. The artist in question does not meet WP:MUSIC specs and lacks non-trivial third party pubs. If none are found, please delete. JBsupreme (talk) 22:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-Can be expanded. Not really even that bad of an article. ~~Meldshal42 (talk) 23:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If it can be demonstrated that there are reliable and non-trivial third party publications about this person, I will respectfully withdraw this nomination for deletion. JBsupreme (talk) 23:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC Although the article seems to indicate he was in other notable groups not sources to verify could be found. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 15:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Soxred 93 03:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Various features on notable artists, cousing to J Dilla, has an album wholly produced by him, has allmusic entry Cosprings (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is wonderful that he is cousin to the late "J Dilla", but notability is not inherited. This is also a discussion, not a vote. Can you show any non-trivial third party publications which document this subject? JBsupreme (talk) 16:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Gtstricky appears to fail WP:MUSIC and the remainder of the material is cannot be verified, failing the greater WP:V policy. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 21:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why would any material be unverifiable? It just lists his appearances on albums which do have articles here. He released an album produced by a prominent producer and is featured on many notable albums: he's notable. Just because there's no Newspaper article about him doesn't mean he is notCosprings (talk) 03:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is exactly what it means. The mantra on Wikipedia is "verifiability, not truth". If it can't be verified, we can't have an article about it. JBsupreme (talk) 07:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is nothing that cannot be verified. He has a allmusic entry with one single there. The rest of the info is apparent, just album features and contributions which appear on the back of any copy of the album.Cosprings (talk) 14:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:MUSIC for reasons outlined -- having a link to allmusic is insufficient, just as it would be insufficient for a biographical article about an actor to rely solely upon IMDb or an adult film star to rely solely upon IAFD. RFerreira (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As an album by J Dilla, the article does assert its notability. Cosprings (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is articles for deletion not speedy deletion, in order for the article to be kept it has to do more than just assert notability; significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject is required.--PhilKnight (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Even taking into account the SPA's there is still a clear consensus to keep, as opposed to deleting or merging.(non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Seals (Congressional Candidate)[edit]

Speedy delete under both CSD-A7 and CSD-G11. He was a presidential intern - that is the most notable thing in the article and that is insufficient for inclusion as a standalone article. Let this person pay for airtime on television in order to educate the public about his campaign position rather than use Wikipedia as a soapbox. Keeleysam (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to speedy delete this article, just put the correct speedy tag on the page. There is no need to bring it to AfD. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a speedy clearly asserts importance--that it quite probably isnt enough for a Wikipedia article is a matter to be discussed here. See WP:CSD. DGG (talk) 02:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

He is the elected democratic nominee in a major Congressional race. He has been the subject of numerous newspaper articles. It's not like he is just some nut running for Congress, he won a contested primary. Meditotal —Preceding comment was added at 03:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know afd isn't cleanup, but this article needs to be stubbed, big time. Much of it is small controversy stuff and the rest seems tacked on. Also, some of the sourcing is improper. It is a weak keep for now (as candidates aren't notable automatically but he has had some news coverage). Protonk (talk) 07:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs work, but the subject is indeed a Congressional candidate. As this is a BLP, deletion is a last resort.Kuzmatt9 (talk) 22:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Kuzmatt9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Neutral. However, please WP:AGF. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 06:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Illinois, 2008#10th District. WP:BIO makes it clear that mere candidacy does not equal encyclopedic notability. Yes, there is news coverage such as the Chicago Tribune articles referenced, but as WP:BIO states, "When a person is associated with only one event, such as for a particular relatively unimportant crime or for standing for governmental election, consideration needs to be given to the need to create a standalone article on the person. If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted." (emphasis mine). --Stormie (talk) 12:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jonny-m t 03:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The precedent is wrong if it is to delete major party congressional candidates in the year of their campaigns.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 04:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He hasn't won an election yet and being an intern isn't particularly notable. No redirect, since the current title is pretty bad (and would have to be changed if he is elected). Clarityfiend (talk) 07:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to race (and possibly delete first) per Stormie and WP:BIO1E. Notability is established when the candidate is elected. Insufficient evidence of WP:RS coverage besides running for office. • Gene93k (talk) 07:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability lies in his having won a primary election to become a major party nominee for U.S. Representative. Mark Kirk, the Republican nominee, is beyond the notabiilty debate because he's the incumbent. Between now and November, at least, Seals is notable. Mandsford (talk) 12:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Illinois' 10th congressional district, without deleting first, as another excellent example of what I have called the Kratovil standard (compare talk; I have other examples). Also link from United States House of Representatives elections in Illinois, 2008#10th district. The issue positions are way overweighted, the bio pretty much also. This is not an unbalanced campaign site, but I say you can say anything you want as long as you add equal space in IL-10 article for Mark Kirk. It's a new twist to see accusations of COI on both sides, but the standard I've proposed should still serve as a very happy medium. JJB 17:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment Very happy for some, I guess. Certainly, the Mark Kirk article, which has a very noticeable section about "political actions and positions" can't be deleted, even if someone wanted to do so. I note that the nominator lives in the Chicago area, although I don't know if he's one of Congressman Kirk's constituents. Still, the rationale for deletion ("Let this person pay for airtime on television in order to educate the public about his campaign position rather than use Wikipedia as a soapbox") doesn't go very far if it can't be applied to Mr. Kirk as well. And as a practical matter, it can't. I don't see that any nominee should be muzzled between now and election time. Mandsford (talk) 18:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ it could have been a worthy article, but as it is written now it reads more like a resume or a political ad, and Wikipedia is not the place for that. Therefore, Wikipedia would be better off without the article. If the serious POV issues were addressed I would reconsider.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rather than use AfD to get rid of poorly written articles, there is the cleanup template options which should be used. Or NPOV. Those should be attempted before a delete.Shsilver (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Changed to Keep Okay, improve it!--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The man ran for the United States Congress in 2006, lost a close race, and is running again. Otherstuffexists IS a good argument here, because there are 100% identical cases and we have had articles for years with no problems. Do we delete Mary Jo Kilroy, Jack Davis, Eric Massa, Diane Benson, John Thrasher, Charlie Brown, Jill Martinez, Christine Jennings, Larry Grant, Maj. Tammy Duckworth, John Laesch, etc, etc, etc? Cus if we do, nom them all.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 04:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think consensus has changed, as well it should. Major party candidates who have actually been officially nominated for national office are notable. We accept the notability for members of state assemblies and the like-- those offices are less notable politically than the nomination of one of the major parties (at least in the US political system with only 2 major parties) for congress; they serve as preliminaries to a congressional run. This will only amount to 500 people every 2 years or so--fewer, given that many people run more than once, as is the case here--and is not opening the gates very wide. Even if we dont accept it in general, someone who has already run and gotten a significant amount of the vote is only slightly less notable than the ones who get elected. Second place in a major contest of national importance is notable. DGG (talk) 12:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep. As the nominee of a major political party for a national position (U.S. Rep) in 2008, it obviously meets the notability requirement (which, btw, includes both national and one level down, which would be state legislatures). (also btw - this is one of several articles about Democratic nominees I've seen in the 'delete immediately if not sooner!' list - which makes it difficult to assume 'good faith' is in operation here). Summary: Unless you truly believe the U.S. is some third-rate country which has no impact on anyone or anything important, and therefore the people running it are totally irrelevant and of no interest to anyone at all, this article should be kept. (Although I would rename it 'Dan Seals (Illinois politician)' to be consistent with the rest, and add one or more of the 'rewrite needed' tags.) Flatterworld (talk) 18:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Clarification. From WP:BIO: Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." imo this means that if Joe Blow 'declares' himself an indidependent candidate for some office, whether President or dogcatcher, we don't have to allow an article for him. It's certainly not meant to apply to someone who's won the primary of a major party for a major office, as those have had significiant coverage in reliable sources such as Project Vote Smart, Follow the Money, Open Secrets, as well as the media. Let's keep in mind what the guideline was intended to allow and disallow, and not twist its meaning into only allowing incumbents to have articles. That makes no sense at all.
As for KeeleySam's political affiliations, he claims to live in the Chicago area and he worked on the 'Stevenson High School (Lincolnshire, Illinois)‎' article, which is in Kirk's district. Draw your own conclusions. I'm now returning to my work on every single U.S. Senator and Rep, and every single state Governor, Senator and Rep - and (assuming I'm not continually ambushed with these sorts of 'discussions') all the candidates (sometimes called 'challengers') running against them. I actually believe elections matter, and politics isn't some game (ooh! ooh! I got the other side's candidate deleted! Two points!), or an excuse to take cheap shots at the candidates running in elections. I further suggest that 'KeeleySam' read the article about Lee Atwater - he might learn something about why his game-playing is a really lousy idea. Flatterworld (talk) 18:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect per above. Allowing for the inclusion of all major-party congressional candidates sets a dangerous precedent. No less then half of the candidates will lose, and a vast majority of the "losers" will not achieve the significant-coverage-in-reliable-sources-outside-of-one-event notability standard. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You can always renominate the article later. I don't think that there's any precedent being set here regardless of the outcome of the debate. Mandsford (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So we're gonna have two articles on two candidates and then delete the one that loses. Besides for the ridiculousness of that way of operating, that's not the way this encyclopedia is supposes to work. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, only articles that have long-term notability are included. If someone has potential for notability we wait for the person to become notable and then we make an article. We don't make articles and then delete them if this person was on the losing side of the 1 out of 2 chance of losing an election. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability is not temporary. If the subject is notable now, it is notable 100 years from now--or after the election!--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ha ha. Trust me, except for "inherently notable", "notability" lasts only until the next AfD, and then it turns upon the opinions of a handful of us nobodies. See ya on November 5. Mandsford (talk) 01:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but revise After quick lookup, it seems that original nominator for AfD ([KeeleySam]) is indeed an intern, if not a staffer, on Mark Kirk's campaign. I won't tell you how I found out in the interest of respect for privacy, but if admins want to know, please don't hesitate to contact me. Therefore, I don't believe that this article was nominated "in good faith", and it should be kept. Yes, the article should be revised to maintain NPOV standards, but since Dan Seals candidacy is gaining a lot of notice nationally (Red to Blue, DCCC support, political blogs, large newspapers), I don't believe the article should be deleted, but it certainly needs reworking to conform to Wikipedia's standards. DoubleD17 (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for those who haven't yet noticed An Admin just deleted the Congressional Candidate template for the Officeholder Infobox after NO discussion with anyone actually using it. Among other things, it contained an 'opponent' entry, which was useful as certain Wikipedians kept deleting opponents' names from various incumbents' main articles. Well, can't let any challengers be known about, can we? Welcome to Dirty Tricks, Inc., I guess. So I guess the idea is that even if articles such as 'Dan Seals' exists, they'll make sure they'll be effectively buried. (And yes, I do find it a sleazy, disgusting and an insulting way to celebrate the Fourth of July - especially with family in Iraq fighting for something called 'democracy'.) Flatterworld (talk) 21:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The template was redirected to Infobox Officeholder like most politician infoboxes. Where is the dirty trick in treating the politicians equally? Unless the merge broke functionality in the old box, it appears to be an improvement. Please remember that there are good faith editors out here who don't see things quite your way. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - WRONG ANSWER If it were simply 'redirected' to Officeholder (which, btw, it always was), the fields would still work. They don't. Every single field was deleted. Every single article using that Infobox now shows nothing but the 'personal' information. NOTHING about the office, election date, runningmate, opponent, incumbent, etc. If that's your idea of 'working' or 'good faith' or 'equal treatment', try again. There are plenty of us working in 'good faith', and we don't appreciate people like you suddenly deciding to delete (in effect) all our hard work because you not only don't see things our way, you can't even be bothered to discuss it with us. Acting like that is insulting to the concept of Wikipedia, let alone 'good faith'. All you had to do was look at the translocation list to realize you were having a major impact - but you didn't care, did you? Flatterworld (talk) 00:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Read the 'consensus discussion' yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_Officeholder Flatterworld (talk) 00:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't even like the guy, but meets minimal notability standards. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
INFO. I don't know why this request is still open, but in the meantime I've renamed the article itself to Dan Seals (Illinois politician) to be consistent with similar articles. Flatterworld (talk) 14:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite - significant coverage in reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 16:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close. The last AfD closed less than two weeks ago--if you have issues with the way the close was interpreted, they need to be taken up at deletion review, not in another nomination. --jonny-m t 03:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_Homer_Simpson's_jobs[edit]

AfDs for this article:

I am renominating this, because the previous AFD was filled with WP:ILIKEIT arguments. This list completely focused on in-universe stuff and doesn't contain any out of universe stuff, which is required for an article about a fictional topic. On top of that this list lacks references. All in all I think it is time to move this article to the Simpson's Wiki, where it belongs. Etan (talk) 03:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The last afd closed only 8 days ago--Coasttocoast (talk) 03:44, 30 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 where a new version of this biography is under review here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malik Abongo Obama. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I'll be creating a redirect to Dreams from My Father, but that's a simple editorial decision seperate from the closing of this deletion debate. - brenneman 04:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abongo Obama[edit]

This is yet another distant relative of Barack Obama for whom an article has been created. His only notability is that he is (very rarely) mentioned in articles about Obama and has no inherent notability. As has been demonstrated many times on previously deleted articles such as Malia Obama and Family of Barack Obama, notability is not inherited. All of the prior arguments are as applicable here. Obama's coffee mug is often mentioned in profiles of him, but we don't need to start an article called Coffee mug of Barack Obama. Loonymonkey (talk) 03:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A half brother is hardly a "distant" relative. Both Barack and Abongo/Roy are sons of the same man. On what planet does that make them "distantly" related? By the way, Roy was his name much of his life.--Utahredrock (talk) 16:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Thin boy 00 @188, i.e. 03:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No one click on that last redlink! Thin boy 00 @188, i.e. 03:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Basic Criteria of WP:BIO says "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject." Here is your secondary source material:

ABONGO (ROY) OBAMA: 'Certainly the older brother'

September 9, 2007

BY SCOTT FORNEK Political Editor

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/familytree/545461,BSX-News-wotreex09.stng

Most people would consider the Chicago Sun-Times to be "reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject." Here are two more refernces:

Obama's Church, editorial, Investor's Business Daily January 15, 2008. (Asserts that AO is a "radical muslim", but without attribution.)

Start the scrutiny, editorial by Michael Coren, Toronto Sun, January 26, 2008. Points out that AO is "still" a muslim, but does not make "radical muslim" assertion.

I'd say this citation (along with association to the extremely notable Obama family) is more than sufficient to establish notability. Also, he's getting smeared (or subject to speculation, depending on your point of view) in the right-wing press/blogosphere as being a radical muslim militant, trained in the Soviet Union, etc. I personally highly doubt that any of these charges will hold merit, but references to these speculations are starting to find their way into mainstream news accounts, whether you like it or not. Yellow Rain (talk) 03:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the creator of the article, it is understandable that you would want to keep it. However, the article you cite is from a series called "Obama Family Tree." It is a profile of Barack Obama, and once again, notability is not inherited. As for the accusations, I'm not sure what you're speaking of, but as of yet no reliable sources have been provided which show that they have "found their way into the mainstream news."--Loonymonkey (talk) 03:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest. I've just provided two mainstream references, above. Yellow Rain (talk) 03:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as to "notability is not inherited", unfortunately he's become notable due to speculations of his radical muslim sympathies/affiliations. Again I don't believe these speculations will ultimatly hold water – but they are definitely being made, are relevant to the campaign (whether true or not), and as just established, are being carried and propogated by mainstream sources. Yellow Rain (talk) 03:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no. (Even if true) some random guy in Kenya embracing Islam isn't notable. The only notability comes from the fact that he is a distant relative of Barack Obama. --Loonymonkey (talk) 03:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any student of history will know that Abongo is very far from being "some random guy." He happens to be a random guy that Barack Obama has traveled on numerous occassions to see, first in D.C., later in Kenya. The purposes of Barack Junior's Kenyan trips were not solely to see Abongo (formerly Roy) but as a close Obama family member he was one of the reasons. He was also at Obama's wedding as his brother (I don't know if he was in the wedding party).--Utahredrock (talk) 01:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that just reinforces the point that whatever slight notability he has is entirely due to his association with Barack Obama. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree that this is a keeper. Given the importance of Barack Obama, a separate item for his brother is entirely called for. There's a separate item on Billy Carter, for example, which would not be there but for his brother Jimmy. Billybud989

Not the same thing at all. Billy Carter was frequently in the mainstream news in the 1970s, and a lot is known about him. He was significant enough to enter the pop culture of the time, in comedy routines, etc., and his name was well-known to the man on the street. Yes, if he had not been Jimmy's brother, he wouldn't have been notable - but he made news on his own, including his connection to Libya which was the subject of a Senate investigation. Find independent, non-partisan, mainstream media sites that have written pieces like this about Abongo Obama. The Fornek piece is just an expansion of the family tree they published - it does not demonstrate notability. Tvoz/talk 18:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-- I might support a merge with Barack Obama, because AND only because the fact that this Obama is an Islamic convert and is apparently rather radical might be one of the reasons some people seem to think B. Obama is secretly a White-Hating Muslim Terrorist™. In any case, as already mentioned, this guy just isn't notable enough to support his own article! This might even be a case of no one gives a youknowwhat. L'Aquatique[review] 06:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, family relationship is not ground for notability. --Soman (talk) 22:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral; Barack's ethnicity is paritally black; his father is from Kenya-66 years old by 2008; Barack will turn 47 in August 2008; Sarah Barack's grandmother-fathers side is 86 years old. His fathers side is all from Kenya; fully black. Barack's mom is from Europe; totally white. We have enough citations for this. Abongo is perhaps Barack's uncle.--Freewayguy ^{Msg USC} 16:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The father of Abongo (formerly Roy) and his half-brother Obama Jr. (the senator/candidate) is not 66. He died at the age of 46 in 1982. Regards,--Utahredrock (talk) 01:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Why is he notable? Relative of Barack Obama is not a significant enough reason, particularly not a half-relative, unless the individual has had a close/influencing relationship. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment is wildly innapropriate. To off-handedly refer to a half-brother as a "half-relative" dennigrates the close family tie between Barack Jr. and his "half" brother Roy/Abongo. Almost any objective observer who cares about family would agree that a half-sibling is a very close relative indeed.--Utahredrock (talk) 01:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC) PS--Any reader of Dreams from my Father will see that Abongo/Roy indeed has had a close and influencing relationship with Barack Jr. This is why this article must be kept. Not to mention as a counter to the mis-information campaign that Barack himself shares his brother's religion--a horrible political lie.--Utahredrock (talk) 01:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The above comment is wildly innapropriate... Almost any objective observer who cares about family would agree that a half-sibling is a very close relative indeed."

A half-brother is a half-relative. The term is widely used, included by me (I have two half-sisters), and no slight is intended. What matters here is notability, of which there is none. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think Barack would discuss Abongo/Roy at such length in his memoir if he felt his older brother was so non-notable?--Utahredrock (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, otherwise I wouldn't have said "delete", would I? "Appeared in memoir" is not a good enough reason to have a dedicated Wikipedia article, when the subject can be adequately dealt with in Barack Obama, Sr. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is not enough coverage in sources to make him notable per WP:BIO -- Kipof (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Barack Obama; thats his uncle I believe. Like Barack has a step-grandmother, shes like mid-80s; her skin is pitch black like Sarah.--Freewayguy ^{Msg USC} 21:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama Sr. is his father. Barack Obama Jr. is his brother. He may also have an uncle with that name, though I've never seen that in print.--Utahredrock (talk) 01:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He should be notable because of his actions, not his family member's. Black ngold29 22:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He is very noteable for his life and actions. Please read Dreams from my Father. --Utahredrock (talk) 01:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Would you mind adding these noteable actions to the article? If he played a large role in Barack's life, then that belongs in Barack's article. You say below that he is "interesting", however, that is POV and doesn't make him notable. Black ngold29 03:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've add additional facts along these lines below under a "Note" I added.--Utahredrock (talk) 03:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Obama's older brother is featured in his book Dreams from my Father. It is true we wouldn't care about him if he weren't the brother of the presumptive Democratic nominee for president. Yet he is, and as such he is highly noteable and interesting. All efforts to suppress information on this important man are suspect. Whether they initiate from Obama haters (likely) or lovers is irrelevant. Because of his role in Obama's life he is himself highly noteable. Keep this article and expand it.--Utahredrock (talk) 00:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Obama haters and lovers? It doesn't matter whether we support or don't support Obama, the fact remains that this article simply doesn't meet our notability criteria and frankly I don't see any good reason to invoke WP:IAR here. Please refrain from ad hominem arguments, and you would probably be well advised to watch for angry mastodons. L'Aquatique[happy fourth!] 05:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I'll refrain if you'll refrain . . . I said that it was/is irrelevant what an editor's view on Obama is--which seems to be the same thing you're saying. Is that incorrect? Let me rephrase: It is is not important what an editors view is on Obama, what is relevant is that this important article be saved. It is always wrong to supress facts. That sort of tactic is commonly used in nations of a totalitarian nature. It horrifies me to see so many wikipedians argue for the supression of or at least limitation of facts. The deletion of this article would be an unnecessary supression of facts on a highly noteable individual.--Utahredrock (talk) 01:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete I'm no Obama fan, but this is a no-brainer non-notibility case, If Abongo gets appointed secretary of something then he can get his own article along with accusations of cronism ;) sorry to disappoint your request, Utahrock, but for me Wikipedia rules come before partisan politics Esmehwa (talk) 06:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course wikipedia must be above politics--partisan or not. That is beside the point. Abongo easily passes any objective noteability test. Your tendency to supress facts on Abongo is much more of a concern than whatever your politics might be.--Utahredrock (talk) 16:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - I urge immediate deletion of this article created by Yellow Rain (talk), who has recently created other new, biased, poorly sourced articles (Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Woods Fund of Chicago) related to Barack Obama and added wikilinks in the Barack Obama article to their new articles. These articles are full of false statements (as were edits to the Penny Pritzker article) that are not supported by WP:Reliable sources and are clear WP:BLP violations.

The most appropriate place for a sentence (that strictly adheres to WP:BLP) about Barack Obama's half-brother Abongo Obama would be in the Children section of the Barack Obama, Sr. article -- where Abongo (Roy) is already mentioned.
Newross (talk) 16:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User Yellow Rain is not the issue. The issue is the importance and noteability of this article. Info on his father's article is good, but it's not enough on this brother of Obama. Without facts out that are easier to find, it's far too easy for misguided and conspiracy-minded folks to misrepresent the truth. In this case, the main truth is that Barack Obama is not, nor was he ever a Muslim. He does have muslim ties, including to his brother. This is important and (sorry to say) interesting stuff--especially when dealing with those who may want to mis-use this information.--Utahredrock (talk) 16:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you personally find it interesting that Obama has "Muslim ties" is not relevant to the notability of Abongo. The fact remains that there isn't anything at all notable about him that doesn't involve his connection to Obama. Once again, notability is not inherited. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete There is nothing in this article that demonstrates any notability, certainly not independent notability. I agree with Newross that a mention in Barack Obama Sr. of this half-brother whom Obama Jr did not even know until adulthood, and who has not been shown to have some significance beyond a genetic link, is more than enough. This appears to be a coatrack upon which to suggest an Obama connection to Islam for political purposes. See my response above to the incorrect point about Billy Carter for how Carter differs from Abongo. And the comments from Utahredrock here are bordering on incivility - no one is suppressing anything, and a characterization of this delete action as "suppression" is offensive as well as incorrect. Tvoz/talk 18:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But if there is an "Abongo Beer" released commercially, I'll change my vote to "Keep" :-). LotLE×talk 19:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tvoz, I am sorry you find the fact that you're trying to suppress this article offensive. I certainly agree, it is offensive to suppress good articles. That coatrack argument is an odd one that is illogical. How does having articles about Obama's close family members (step-father, brother, others?) support the false claim that he is not a Christian? Please don't attack me, by calling me uncivil, another user has already pushed me on that score. Strongly arguing a case is not uncivil, nor is stating that an argument is illogical. Calling an argument illogical is far different than calling a person illogical. Personal attacks or revealing personal information on editors is.--Utahredrock (talk) 02:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You just did it again: "Tvoz, I am sorry you find the fact that you're trying to suppress this article offensive." No one is trying to suppress anything, and it is offensive, and bordering on uncivil, to suggest that I am. Do you understand? Editors are evaluating the subject, and the article, and determining if they think it meets notability and other standards. You haven't demonstrated objective notability - just repeated that you think it's interesting. And please don't use this AfD to air your personal grievances against other editors ("another user has already pushed me on that score"). Tvoz/talk 06:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand that it's offensive when you call me uncivil. I am very careful to stay on topic and not be personal. It is my opinion that deleting an article is akin to suppressing information. Whether or not that is true, I don't know. Notability is itself highly subjective so it's virtually impossible for me or you or anyone to "objectively" determine it. I am not restating, again, why I think Roy/Abongo is important enough for inclusion. I have no personal grievances against you, you've demonstrated in the past fine editing skills. Your talk page arguments, however, rarely make sense to me--and I don't think it's a personal attack to say that. I should be able to attack your arguments, without attacking you. I always strive for that. I don't know you and have no desire to attack you personally. I don't appreciate being called uncivil, when I am merely aggressively advocating for this page.--Utahredrock (talk) 01:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Dreams From My Father. There doesn't seem to be a suggestion that this article will ever be more than comments from a single source (one that already has an article). Within a summary of that book, what Obama comments on his half-siblings could be helpful, but Delete as a separate article. LotLE×talk 18:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if in fact the half-siblings play as important a role in the book as is being alleged - I notice that there is no mention in the Dreams article of them at all. If adding them doesn't give them undue weight in that article, I don't object - but if they play a very small role in the book then they likely have properly not been included in that article. A mention in BO Sr still seems to me the proper place for Abongo, with the evidence in hand. Tvoz/talk 19:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with a mention in Obama Sr.'s article. LotLE×talk 19:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Many people have pointed out that the subject has very little or no "indepenent notability", and I would agree. However, notability is often a property that arises as more than the sum of the individual factors for which a subject is notable. Comparable examples might include Roger Clinton, Jr. and Gustav Schwarzenegger; who both of whom almost certainly would not deserve articles on their own, were it not for their relation to highly famous persons — and yet their status as blood relatives (alone) would not attest to their notablity their notability, but rather a combination of these factors. Yellow Rain (talk) 23:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Barack Obama. Articles on other presidential candidates mention siblings. On the other hand, I'm not sure how Maya Soetoro-Ng can exist if this one doesn't. Nfitz (talk) 23:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support a merge/delete for Maya as well - her independent notability has not been demonstrated either. It is the case, however, that Obama was raised with her, so has had a lifelong relationship with her, unlike Abongo. But that doesn't equate with notability either. Tvoz/talk 23:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The cases for Abongo Obama and Maya Soetoro-Ng are completely unrelated, keep in mind (as a general observation, not a response to Tvoz specifically). Being a sibling of someone notable doesn't automatically make someone notable, but one sibling being non-notable equally doesn't automatically make another sibling non-notable. Any question of Soetoro-Ng's notability can (and will) be handled through appropriate procedures at her article (it survived AfD before, when it had less material). LotLE×talk 00:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point - I didn't mean to suggest that they should be handled together, just that the existence of one should not be used as a reason to retain the other, and to indicate my thinking on that one as well. But yes, they are separate matters.. Tvoz/talk 00:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, then redirect to the Barack Sr. article. Abongo isn't notable in himself. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The trend on this page seems to be toward delete. If this article is deleted, I predict that somebody will come along shortly and try to recreate it because of the importance of this man in Barack Obama's life. I don't know if the comments in favor of deleting are politically motivated or not.

There is a suggestion that somehow this article on Abongo (formerly Roy) Obama advances the false claim that Obama himself is not Christian. Deleting this article, in my humble--and very civil--opinion, is tantamount to suppressing information on close members of Obama's family.

A half-brother is a close relative. It is true Barack Obama Jr. did not meet him until he was in his twenties, but he went out of his way to meet him, understand him, and get to know him. He traveled to D.C. on one occasion when he was a community organizer in Chicago and likely (speculation) didn't have a lot of money for such weekend trips. Barack Jr. visited him, along with other relatives, in Kenya, and Abonogo was at Barrack's wedding as a close family member. There is one half brother that at least by the mid-1990s Barack Obama still barely knew, but that was not Abongo.

I've never understood why people try to delete articles that seem like such obvious keepers. If it's a coatrack as one user asserts, it's a coatrack (also known in the wiki world as stub) article, that will be worthy of adding to as more sources become available.

Deleting this article is the wrong approach.--Utahredrock (talk) 03:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what coatrack means. Tvoz/talk 06:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tvoz, in the link you provided I found a coatrack definition: "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related bias subject. The nominal subject is used as an empty coatrack, which ends up being mostly obscured by the "coats"."

This fulfills what I thought you were saying, however, I am clearly not communicating my understanding effectively. You seem to keep saying that by discussing Obama's relatives we just provide a place for the "Obama is not a Christian" crowd to hang their coats. This appears to be faulty thinking to me. I view such articles as beacons of truth on Obama's exteneded family (esp. key players) to hang the truth. (For newer parties to this discussion, I believe that of course Obama is a Christian.)

Your statements often and repeatedly confuse me. It appears you've accused me repeatedly now of intentionally (or not) creating places where anti-Obama activists can air their laundry. My political views are not relevant here, but I do want articles that provde beacons of truth RE candidates so readers can make up their minds and help them break through the clutter of partisan mis-truths. If wiki editors deny the obvious places to do this it seems to me that they are supressing information. Whatever the motives are beyond my concern. My concern is to have a place for well-sourced facts to inform interested parties on facts, not myths. I somehow thought that that is the purpose of an encyclopedia. Maybe not?--Utahredrock (talk) 07:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (Of course) This is biased wikipedia, and we don't want any information about the family of the (potential) next president of the United States. His family is irrelevant of course, because they are tied to radical islam. And wikipedia doesn't want anything to get in the way of its beloved Obama. So delete it as you did in the past (yes he was deleted before). Deleting relevant knowledge. The family of the President of the United States is relevant. Wiki deletes it anyway. That is the way of Goebbels. That is the way of the liberally left-biased Wikipedia. But we already know that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.108.5 (talk) 22:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being the brother of a famous politician does not satisfy our notability requirements. S. Dean Jameson 18:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above reason. mauler90 (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is not inherited. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral and revisit next January. Very little of what is written about him in reliable sources would have been written but for his relationship with Barack. This means most of what is written about him is "inherited" and wikinotability is generally not inherited. On the other hand, he is getting some press in his own right, albeit very little so far. It's also quite likely that like Billy Carter before him, this person will become a public figure in his own right. I don't see a lot of harm to keeping this article, but not deleting it may set bad precedent for future inherited-notability cases where it is not likely that the subject's public-figure status is likely to go up in the near future. If the closing admin does not delete the article, please point out that at least one neutral editor would have voted "delete/merge" had this person's public-figure status not been ascending. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Curious about what press you see him as getting now in his own right - anything that passes WP:RS? I haven't seen any, nor is there any in the article. Tvoz/talk 21:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't remember, but I do remember it was marginal at best. Because this person's "star is rising" I'm trying to give the article every benefit of the doubt. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He's notable now,[42] and is only going to get more notable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "source" you cite is not reliable in any way. S. Dean Jameson 21:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - a lot of arguments are misplaced. Coatracking, lack of sourcing, poor quality, etc., can all be fixed if the article has some encyclopedic content and it's notable / verifiable. People misunderstand the phrase "notability is not inherited" - it often is in the real world. The phrase means that we as Wikipedians don't assume notability from a family relationship. However, if events out in the real world cause someone to become notable out of a family tie we do not close our eyes to that (e.g. Billy Carter, Nicole Ritchie, Raul Castro, Jenna Bush, and others who would not have become notable but for their relatives). At this point, the bottom line is that there is very little coverage of this person in reliable 3rd party sources - Obama's own memoir isn't exactly 3rd party, the conservative hit pieces aren't reliable, and the "fact check" style inquiries aren't all that relevant. So on standard notability grounds this person may not yet meet the test of notability. Whether he does later remains to be seen.Wikidemo (talk) 22:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would agree with that - see my comment above about Billy Carter. But the bottom line as you describe it is exactly the point here - there has been no independent notability demonstrated from reliable sources, which is what almost all of the folks here who have spoken in favor of deletion of this article have said. Tvoz/talk 22:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't Dreams from my Father independent? It's not a book by Abongo, it's by Barack and published by a reputable publisher. Of course there are others too, the Sun Times, etc. If Malik is Abongo, as I suspect, there are even more independent sources.--Utahredrock (talk) 23:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no claim to be notable. Fails WP:BIO --T-rex 23:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not inherited, having an accounting degree not notable, having your name on a book is notable if the book is about you not just one paragraph. -AMAPO (talk) 02:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other Comments[edit]

Check out this article http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/06/from-the-fact-c.html ABC is reputable, not sure where an ABC blog ranks. I had never heard of Malik. Not sure if this mostly pro-delete crowd is much concerned, but it seemed related enough to this discussion to mention. --Utahredrock (talk) 06:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article from 2004 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6333496 makes Malik and Abongo sound like they must be the same man. It also says Obama was 43 in the mid 1980s . . . . so much for the mainstream media getting this stuff right, but it was written even before Barak was a U.S. senator.--Utahredrock (talk) 07:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A number of news articles in the past 1-2 weeks prominently mentioned Malik Obama. As mentioned above, it seems it must be Abongo/Roy. If pro-deletion wikipediaites succeed in removing this article we may never know how all of these people fit together (though I am sure some enterprising journalist will put the pieces together). We all know the mainstream media wastes time on non-noteable people, I am just not convinced either Abongo or Malik fit that category.--Utahredrock (talk) 07:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like at least one other person is as concerned about this deletion movement as I am. And this is from a previous go around where Roy's article was successfully deleted.

See: http://www.songwave.com/articles/abongo-obama.htm

I don't know that I agree with all that that author says, but I do agree that it raises interesting questions about what is kept and what is deleted on Wikipedia. This is especially odd since I don't see that there is anything worth covering up here.--Utahredrock (talk) 02:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen references that this has been debated before. Is this true? If so, how many times? Where are those debate records? Was it done under the name Roy Obama?--Utahredrock (talk) 03:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another Wikipedian directed me to this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_February_24 --Utahredrock (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good to know if this article has been deleted more than once prior to this early July 2008 discussion.

Note: The current AfD page does not reference the Feb. 24, 2008 deletion.--Utahredrock (talk) 16:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Author James B. Stewart wrote a brilliant book on the Clintons called Blood Sport.

In it he is highly critical of Hillary Clinton for being the leading advocate of sweeping Whitewater under the rug. As we all know, that was a strategic blunder that nearly cost Bill Clinton the presidency.

It is wrong to cover things up and the cover-ups are almost always worse than the facts.

Abongo Obama is a minor character in the news this year. But he is in the news (especially if Malik and Abongo are one in the same).

Notability is subjective but it would be easy to find countless numbers of less notable people with articles on Wikipedia.

If you’ve voted to delete, please reconsider. The truth usually comes out in the end and hiding it rarely helps.

Barack Jr. has an important relationship with his brother, however limited it might be.

Political extremists and conspiracy minded folks are using Abongo and others to twist the facts about Barack Obama. If the facts are easier to find, they will be harder to twist.--Utahredrock (talk) 03:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More on the topic of notability--I agree that there has to be a standard on what to include and what to leave out on Wikipedia. My dog for example, as much as I love him, does not deserve a Wikipedia article. The primary argument here, and on any deletion argument I've seen, revolves around notability. Whether or not something is notable is highly subjective. In addition, using that as the primary reason for deletion is a red herring.

Here is the definition of red herring as found at http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

Topic A is under discussion. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A). Topic A is abandoned.

If you have voted for delete, please re-read the actual article which I updated this morning. Abongo is an important man in the life of Barack Obama. Barack makes this clear in his memoir. That alone makes him worthy of an article on Wikipedia.

I don't know that notability is actually irrelevant, but it is at best suspect as the primary reason for deletion.--Utahredrock (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Passing Wikipedia's own notability test A reading of Wikipedia:Notability makes this article a no-brainer for keeping. Barack wrote extensively on his brother in his memoir. Numerous other sources have written about him, though not at as much length as Barack himself. While Dreams from my Father could be called an autobiography, it is Barack's not Obama/Roy's autobiography. If it were the latter it looks like it might fail the Wikipolicy on acceptable sources.

The overwhelming deletion movement on this page is very confusing.--Utahredrock (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that ABC News (see here) says that Roy Obama of Dreams of My Father and Malik Obama are identical.

In Obama's book Dreams of My Father, interestingly enough, he writes about meeting Malik as an adult: “I checked into the cheapest room I could find and waited. At nine, I heard a knock. When I opened the door, I found a big man standing there with his hands in his pockets, an even-toothed grin breaking across his ebony face. ‘Hey, brother,’ he said. ‘How’s life?’ In the pictures I had of Roy, he was slender[...].----JAKE TAPPER, ABC NEWS SENIOR CORRESPONDENT

— Justmeherenow ( ) 01:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This evaluation should start over[edit]

Since the person B's family knows as Abongo or Roy is known to be the "Malik" Obama of any number of prestigious news reports, eg

— Justmeherenow ( ) 02:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More from Utahredrock: Even I cannot believe I have anything else to say about saving this article, but I do.

I’ve tried to keep the tone civil and on target. I see a difference between arguing passionately for something I believe in and attacking those that disagree. I mean no disrespect to anyone who has weighed in on the deletion side of this debate.

Yet my impassioned language has raised the ire of some and I've dealt with some of the most personal attacks since I started contributing.

One user who voted delete, LotLE, on a related topic did research on me and inserted my real name into that discussion. I thought that that was unacceptable, and at least one other Wikipedian agreed, though LotLE never apologized.

Another user, Tvoz, defended LotLE by pointing out that LotLE just used my first name (a common one she said) and a "random" initial. Yet that random initial is the first letter of my last name.

S. Dean Jameson seemed fed up with me. Who can blame him? Then when I thought I was agreeing with him he told me to “just stop” and pointed out that I wasn’t being persecuted, people just disagreed with me.

Of course he is right, nobody has persecuted me here. But personal information has been revealed. No I haven't been persecuted, but I still feel burnt.

My opinion that deletion has the same effect as suppression drew attack. They're not the same, but the result is similar. If it's deleted, it's also supressed--at least in wiki-land.

To whatever individual or group that makes the final decision on this article be aware that if you delete this, it will almost certainly come up again. Abongo Obama is too prominent based on his own brother’s book and his own brother’s prominence. Vote how you will. (I won’t create it--and didn't create this one--I don’t have the time or energy.)

Abongo’s article was already deleted at least once.

Why it does a service to sweep this article out of existence is beyond me. Tvoz fears that it will be used as a coatrack for Obama haters. With editors like Tvoz on the job, I am sure all mistruths will be promptly removed as they should be.

I asked rhetorically if there was a conspiracy among the deletionists. I don’t believe there is an actual organized group, but I do believe there is a misguided notion that by deleting this article we are doing the right thing. When I asked that question before S. Dean Jameson deleted my comment. S. Dean claimed it was a personal insult to all those that voted to delete. I did not mean it that way.

I do mean for everyone who’s weighed in, and for those who will decide this go around, to seriously consider keeping this article and making Wikipedia a beacon of knowledge and truth—to the best of all of our abilities. --Utahredrock (talk) 03:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as not notable, with no sources independent to prove otherwise. Bearian (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dwight Banks[edit]

notability - no trustworthy citations. Suspect page is generated by subject as three previous versions of the page were speedily deleted for copyvio after being created as simply a mirror of the Dwight Banks homepage. Mfield (talk) 03:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article should not be deleted for the following reasons 1. the citations are trustworthy-please check linked references. Also, the subject is cited on the wikipedia pages for Olly Wilson and John Thow, among others 2. the previous pages which were deleted were generated without the author's understanding of the rules for citing references 159.83.168.253 (talk) 03:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment notability is not inherited, inclusion doesn't guarentee notability, etc. Thin boy 00 @190, i.e. 03:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's nothing on those pages you name to clarify why Dwight Banks might be special. Anyone could have added his name to those pages, they provide no context. Reliable third party sources and references are needed to establish notability. What are these awards he has won? Why does he not turn up at all on Google? Mfield (talk) 03:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete unless independent (noninherited) notability is demonstrated. Thin boy 00 @193, i.e. 03:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you perform a google search Dwight Banks should show up among the first or second listing. He has been awarded several awards for his work from ASCAP and the James Irvine Foundation as well as others. This proof is available in hardcopy form and can be provided if needed.Glyph56 (talk) 06:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure he appears in the first two listings - they are links to his own website. That doesn't count. The ASCAP website contains listings of past major awards recipients yet he does not appear in any of those. Are these awards minor awards? In which case they don't pass notability. Mfield (talk) 14:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Most of the things I see in the google search (note:Google reads "+" as " ") are member profiles or seemingly irrelevant, and notability is not inherited. --Thin boy 00 @822, i.e. 18:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Camden Abu Dis Friendship Association[edit]

Non-notable non-profit organisation. Ecoleetage (talk) 08:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See this Google News archive search for several references. --Eastmain (talk) 19:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 03:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jonny-m t 02:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the best source I could find was this one, which doesn't really go into any detail about the organization. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:ORG. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. I think we can save the trouble of another relist. — _Maggot^Syn 12:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Bertram[edit]

Little known as a director or as a freelance writer. His two films are shorts and his "first feature film" has yet to receive any sort of non-trivial coverage. It is also quite clear that the author of the article (which is quite complacent) is either Mr Bertam himself or someone closely associated to him, raising strong concerns of conflict of interest. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 04:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is poorly written and the citations are incorrently formatted. This doesn't mean it should be deleted, IMO this filmmaker is notable enough to be here per the references. Chimeric Glider (talk) 21:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jonny-m t 02:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've fixed a lot of the references. This guy seems to be notable as an independent filmmaker. TN‑X-Man 16:16, 30 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 23:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Rudewicz[edit]

Reason: Does not meet notability requirements. Contested PROD. ponyo (talk) 02:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable at best, dubious or hoax at worst. Ref link provided does not work. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This should be a candidate for a speedy snow close, in my view. S. Dean Jameson 02:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete without prejudice against recreation with appropriate citations and a backed assertion of notability. Possibly snowball it Thin boy 00 @197, i.e. 03:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 0 non-wiki ghits + 0 gnews hits + 0 gscholar hits = unlikely to be a world famous historian. However, it's a bit soon for a WP:SNOW close.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. It's becoming more and more likely that this shouldn't have been prod-ed, but instead should have beeen db-hoaxed. A snow close would be well in order right now. S. Dean Jameson 14:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability, and fails WP:BIO based on the information from the article. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 22:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Obvious hoax. Close now under WP:SNOW. Reyk _YO! 04:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I searched on Gscholar for Rudewicz with single keywords for his subject and got no relevant hits. I therefore conclude this is WP:HOAX. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:ATHLETE --JForget 23:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Canel[edit]

Player has not sufficiently satisfied WP:ATHLETE. Furthermore, the player fails the notability criteria for football players as determined by WikiProject on Football in that he has not played for a fully professional club yet. GauchoDude (talk) 02:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GauchoDude (talk) 02:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nom is correct about him.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 02:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- the San Fernando Valley Quakes are an amateur team --T-rex 04:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 07:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the subject fails WP:ATHLETE. --Angelo (talk) 08:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom --Jimbo^[online] 12:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a clear fail of WP:athlete and no other claimed notability. Vickser (talk) 17:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 16:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There in no meaningful content to merge to the proposed target, and in particular that article also fails to meet the notability guideline linked below. - brenneman 07:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Myspace Girl[edit]

Somewhat out of tune in regard to the WP:MUSIC requirements. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Although with 200K views a case could be made.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 02:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC

Merge & redirect to Never Going Back to OK per Stormie below.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 00:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - having "myspace" in the title makes searching for sources difficult, but I think this (just barely) makes the threshold for notability --T-rex 04:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please share the reliable, third-party sources you discovered when making this assessment? -- saberwyn 06:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Look for yourself --T-rex 23:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. As far as I know, it was not released as a single and it did not chart. Do not salt in case it gets released. I do realize that there has been buzz about the song, but that's not enough to warrant an article. Fails WP:MUSIC#Songs at this time. Royal broil 05:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With rare exceptions such as Stairway to Heaven, non-singles aren't notable. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 14:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect to Never Going Back to OK, fails to meet WP:MUSIC criteria for songs and thus does not justify a stand-alone article; no reliable sources either. --Stormie (talk) 00:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability, WP:V, WP:RS, etc. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's listed in the album article, where it more appropriately belongs. WWGB (talk) 05:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to album Never Going Back to OK. Fails WP:MUSIC for notability. If any verifiable information can be found then merge to album. Orfen ^T • _C 20:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (nominated at wrong forum). This is a redirect from an alternate capitalization. As such, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, and redirects such as this would normally be kept at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion anyway. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basic Black (CBC Program)[edit]

this page redirects to a page that has the exact same name and therefore does not need a redundant redirect page. I already linked Basic Black (CBC program) page and Basic Black page together. Got to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Black_%28CBC_program%29 . Therefore this redirect page should be deleted. Napierk (talk) 01:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This should be on WP:RfD, where it should be Kept.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 02:25, 30 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 without prejudice to recreation of the content under (presumably under a different name!) once the album is officially released nancy ^(talk) 16:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muse's fifth studio album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Muse's fifth studio album

No name, no release date, currently being recorded - there are a few sources but I question whether there is encylopedic value in having an article on an album that doesn't exist. Naerii 00:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until such a time as the album's title, tracklist or first single, and specific release date can be provided from reliable sources independant of the band and the record company. -- saberwyn 00:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: (I'm the article's creator, just to make it clear). Where's the deletion rationale? "Encyclopedic value" is entirely subjective, and anything not encyclopedic on the basis that it doesn't belong here encompasses every single reason on why something may be a candidate for deletion, yet not a single one has been put forward. WilliamH (talk) 00:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:MUSIC#Albums: In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia., if you want a policy based reason, but really, the silliness of having an article on something that doesn't exist and may not exist from quite some time is in itself a reason to delete. Naerii 01:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And furthermore: "Articles and information about albums with confirmed release dates in the near future must be confirmed by reliable sources and should use the ((future-album)) tag." Naerii 01:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:CRYSTAL & WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry WilliamH but the precedent is to delete until there is more info. As well it should be.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 02:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - needs a title, a tracklisting, and a source to pass WP:CRYSTAL --T-rex 04:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Untitled future albums should be speedily deleted. Lugnuts (talk) 07:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:CRYSTAL = no unverifiable speculation. Since all the information here is verified, WP:CRYSTAL does not apply. For this reason (and this is not a WP:WAX based argument), the "silliness of having an article on something that doesn't exist" cannot be a legitimate deletion rationale when it is completely acceptable to have articles on upcoming things, and the subject certainly is of wide enough notable interest to merit an article had it already occurred. WilliamH (talk) 13:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You notice how all the products in that category have names? And if you're resorting to a policy-based argument (ick), what response do you have to my quotes from WP:MUSIC#Albums? Naerii 13:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles"

A moot point. That's in reference to released albums, which the subject isn't.

"Articles and information about albums with confirmed release dates in the near future must be confirmed by reliable sources and should use the future-album tag."

Yes, the release dates of albums must be confirmed by reliable sources. Another moot point - this album doesn't have a release date. We can't add one if it doesn't have one.

Whatever a subject may or may not be called is inconsequential, so long as it isn't unverified speculation. Saying an album might be called this/that/the other and this might be a song on the album without any verification would be problematic. Since the article doesn't do this, WP:CRYSTAL does not apply. The fact that it does not have a name is irrelevant, because no unsourced speculative name is given, which would be crystal balling. It is the merits of arguments that will manifest the outcome of this discussion, so as much as I hate to break down such policies so systematically (it is the spirit of them I find most important than pedantically following them to the hilt), of course I'm 'resorting' to a policy based argument.

Wikipedia:MUSIC#Albums also says that unreleased albums generally aren't notable, but may be, however, "if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources". This has, and its name is clearly not intrinsic to the fact that all the points of contention are verifiable independent coverage from several sources, asserting notability on a subject which would clearly warrant its own article had it already occurred. WilliamH (talk) 16:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This definitely does not fail WP:CRYSTAL as I understand it: the article contains well-sourced information about an event that is notable, by virtue of the band's fame, and almost certain to take place. I have sympathy with both arguments regarding WP:MUSIC, but I thought I should add my interpretation of CRYSTAL. If this is deleted, I would like to suggest that a note is made, mental or otherwise, that a lot of the current content could be usefully used in a future "production/creation" type section for the article. Rje (talk) 17:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per multiple precedents re WP:CRYSTAL, WP:V, etc.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proprietary[edit]

Is a dictionary Definition. I don't feel there is anything else to be said about the topic. It was originally created by people unaware of its use outside of the term "Proprietary Software" and left unmerged due to the term "Proprietary Hardware". Given that those topics use a somewhat incorrect definition of Proprietary that was fair enough. However, those topics are now pretty complete in definition, there is nothing left to merge, and the actual definition already exists at wiktionary. I questioned the article on the talk page very recently, but decided to AfD when i noticed the same question had been asked 4 years ago and not recieved a response. Jimmi Hugh (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to disambiguation page for blue-linked items which could be referred to with the term "Proprietary": i.e. the Wiktionary link to the term, and any non-redirects listed at [43] - my count says 14 items. Wipe the unsourced and unarticled entries. -- saberwyn 00:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is more than a dicdef. --CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 02:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way is it? - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 09:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More of a good disambiguation page than a dictionary definition. --Canley (talk) 04:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to dab page per Saberwyn. Dab pages are the only real exception allowed by the no-adjectival-titles policy (WP:ADJECTIVE), and this case seems sufficiently parallel to the example of Organic given there. Deor (talk) 11:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - perfectly good little stub, or convert to a dab page. Bearian (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While i'm feeling that a disambiguation might be the way to go (I was under the impression Deletion and Disam were mutually exclusive and AfD was required first so you're not just overwriting the previous form, my bad), i have to ask, what is a "perfectly good little stub"? Are you implying we should keep stub articles that have absolutely no chance of becoming anything more than a stub? Even when they are in complete opposition to numerous policies. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 07:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge. Target and content to be merged obviously requires further discussion, so action to be taken by others. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black Technology[edit]

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and rd to Full Metal Panic! or a subpage. JJL (talk) 03:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge along with Arm Slave, Mithril (Full Metal Panic!), and Whispered to List of concepts in Full Metal Panic. Serious trimming should be done. They all appear to be almost completely in-universe plot details. -Verdatum (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Important to Full Metal Panic, but hard to justify its own article. swa q 21:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge ...or place in associated subpage per nom. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. Consensus is that these women are only notable for their one conviction, and that WP:BLP1E applies. Sandstein 06:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bridget Mary Nolan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

A well written and factually correct article, however this person is a non-notable criminal who was sentenced to a suspended sentence only of two years and four months. Made plenty of news headlines at the time however this article fails on notability grounds. Longhair\^talk 22:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Longhair\^talk 22:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete It reads like a newspaper article rather than an article belonging in an encyclopedia. While not dismissing the seriousness of her crimes, I would suggest that there are BLP concerns with creating an article on an otherwise non-notable person who has not even been subjected to a custodial sentence. Further, there are elements of WP:COATRACK where the article expands into sex offences by female teachers. Also, there seems to have been a category created called Category:Australian statutory rapists, containing a list of about five similar offences. I have never heard the term "statutory rape" in an Australian context. I would delete this article, delete the category and delete all the articles populating the category. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC) UPDATE: To confirm since the additions delete all -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge It's unfortunate the main nom takes the only one who wasn't given a significant jail sentence, and then uses her suspended sentence as an argument for deleting all of them! Probably the best thing is to merge them into a group article. I don't feel comfortable voting that whatever you do to an under-age Australian boy you won't be notable. If not merged, keep. Johnbod (talk) 06:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A Wikipedia article is not some form of additional punishment to be imposed on offenders. It is not our place to try and impose some version of Megan's Law. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Courts in Australia are open to the public, so Megan's Law isn't relevant. All this information is readily available through Google anyway. Assize (talk) 13:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Wikinews is the next door on the left. They were cases that interested the media as they were unusual, and have prurient interest. None of the criminals are notable beyond the crime and sentence.- Peripitus (Talk) 09:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

**NOTE FOR CLOSING ADMIN: These people are all the articles listed on Category:Australian statutory rapists which is nominated in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 June 30. Please deal with that as well. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment all these women are convicted of "statutory rape", i.e. having sexual intercourse with a minor (who is legally unable to consent). I doubt that the individual convicts are notable in their own right but the subject of statutory rape is notable. Suggest merge all together into Australian Statutory Rape (or perhaps some other existing article on this), but greatly trim: details of what they claimed at their trials are non-encylopaedic news. A brief statement of the offence they were convicted of, including the attitude of the other participant might be worth having, but certainly not at the present length. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I agree the subject of sexual abuse of children is an encyclopedic topic, I am not sure there is an offence called "statutory rape" in Australia. There is already perfectly fine articles on Child sexual abuse and Sexual harassment in education, which focus on the phenomenon and are not mere lists of incidents. Any attempt to create an article such as List of persons who have sexually abused children in Australia, which seems to be what you are suggesting, still would not be encyclopedic. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The trends in the sentencing are themselves a matter of encyclopedic interest, and for that at least some detail of the offences is necessary. Johnbod (talk) 13:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting on 5 cases will not give a trend in sentencing - serious research is needed for that. Peripitus (Talk) 21:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not merge, lists of cases are not encyclopedic content and trying to make conclusions from lists of cases in a overview article would be original research. If sources exist that analyze this subject in general, they can be used to write a general article, specific cases could be used as examples in such an article, but cannot be used on their own. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There is enough secondary material out there to justify either a biography or an article on the crime. Falls clearly with WP:N as being entitled to remain. This particular case continues to come up time after after time in the press, which demonstrates that it is not WP:ONEEVENT. Not much has changed since the last AfD. If the article reads like a newspaper article, then be bold and change it and improve it. Assize (talk) 04:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:BLP1E. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How does this actually breach WP:BLP1E? It is not a separate biography to a main article on the crime. It is well referenced. The person is the major person involved in the incident. If anything, the article should cover the incident rather than the person, but that is not a ground for deletion. Assize (talk) 04:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - None of the cited reasons remove the wp:blp1e problem. Although I usually I'm a proponent of moving these bios to the "event", in this case I don't feel the events are that notable. I guess I can only speak for the US, but here, these stories pop up every once in awhile, the tabloids have a little run with it, and then it's completely forgotten about. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't understand. What is the actual wp:blp1e problem, so that it can be addressed. Just because these types of cases are "common" in the US doesn't mean that they are not notable in Australia. The sources demonstrate that it is notable in Australia, and not just in one city. There is nothing in WP:N that says only some types of crimes are notable. Assize (talk) 07:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The BLP1E problem is thus: "Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." While this is not an exact fit to the situation here the principle is the same; the privacy of non-public people should be protected and abuse of that privacy elsewhere doesn't justify us taking firther measures to erode rhat privacy. WP:BLP1E is designed to apply where a subject may meet WP:N but creating an article is still a bad idea. This particularly applies where a subject is notable for a negative event. There is not just a legal obligation to deal fairly with such people but a moral obligation as well. A quote I found and support: "I don't want to be involved with a project whose mission of human knowledge has been so twisted as to require us to document with meticulous detail for all eternity the lives of anyone who ever did something funny, stupid, criminal, minorly newsworthy or got converted into an Interwebs meme. That's not just me - it's a lot of other people, too. In these cases, Wikipedia has the potential to actively harm people by preventing people from ever forgetting something happened." Note, the fact that the same infomation is available elsewhere does not mean that there is no consequence for including the same information here. Information on Wikipedia is much more easily found than searching back through court records or old newspapers. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 09:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I still don't see how BLP1E applies, so I guess we differ, and I say WP:NPF applies. There are no defamatory statements made, article is written in mostly neutral tone, and is factual. The internet has changed how long information is kept. It's a fact of life. Stopping Wikipedia isn't going to change that at all. Assize (talk) 12:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete for all per WP:ONEEVENT. Nick Dowling (talk) 23:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All per WP:ONEEVENT. No need to engage in publishing negative biographies when the notability of these people is marginal at best. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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