< March 11	March 13 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for Matinee Club and delete of Modern Industry, as the album isn't proven notable. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 07:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matinée Club[edit]

Problematic notability. One single charted on the UK charts and they did play at festivals under their old name, but I'm not sure that that provides notability for the previous incarnation, and the new incarnation is signed to a non-notable label and has yet to produce anything other than downloads. Included in the AfD is their as-yet-unreleased "album", Modern Industry. Corvus cornix_talk 23:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 04:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 04:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if they had a single hit the charts in the UK, then they've satisfied criterion 2 of WP:MUSIC. -- Whpq (talk) 13:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per criterion 2 of WP:BAND and also these examples of independent coverage: [1], [2], [3]. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 13:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: If the band gets kept, should the album article be kept, too? Corvus cornix_talk 17:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say no only if there isn't any substantial coverage of it. Primary sources won't do. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 18:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article on the band, but delete the article on the album, per demonstration of decent sources for the one but not for the other. Anyone searching for "modern industry" is probably not looking for the album by Matinée Club.--Kubigula (talk) 01:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley Bassey discography[edit]

Duplicates content found at Shirley Bassey#Selected discography to the letter. Looks like a copy-paste job. PROD removed by page creator without comment. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shirley Bassey#Selected discography, this didn't need an AfD. Corvus cornix_talk 23:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as duplicate. Perhaps offer userfy option to the article creator, as this might have been an attempt at a spinoff that didn't go anywhere. 23skidoo (talk) 23:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a more complete discography than what's at the artist's page. I have removed the duplicate content from Shirley Bassey -- the discography seems long enough that it warrants its own page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Withdrawn. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 01:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suthun Music Label Group[edit]

Article seems to fail WP:CORP. Notability isn't asserted. On the other side ^Contribs|@ 23:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to point out that there might be a conflict of interest since the user who created this page is named Suthunmusic. --On the other side ^Contribs|@ 23:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have just reported the user name as promotional. – ukexpat (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom – ukexpat (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources establishing notability -- Whpq (talk) 13:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lack of sources; reviews don't really indicate notability unless they're coming from respected reviewers, and even then other sources are better. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 07:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yersinia (band)[edit]

Band fails WP:BAND. They seem to have only ever released 3 tracks on 2 split singles and a compilation. No evidence of significant coverage. The only coverage found was an interview in a web fanzine. Michig (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Look at the band's page. It's in German, so you might have to hunt. But there is an interview section. There are multiple reviews of the band. If you need help, get a German translator. Also, they are signed to a notable label. Undeath (talk) 01:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, FinalWar is not a fanzine, it's a German Black Metal magazine. I'd say that it's a fairly notable magazine. Also, their website shows that they released two EP's and then released songs on the other albums. So they have a total of four pieces of music out. Undeath (talk) 01:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Quote from the main FinalWar page: "... every work is done in our freetime and this time is rare, so reviews can take 2 months or longer to be written". That doesn't look like a professional magazine to me.--Michig (talk) 07:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 04:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete [4] I see nothing but flimsy mentions at blogspot, myspace, metalarchives, etc..etc.. Fails WP:MUSIC. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 05:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Bstone (talk) 05:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What about this. You have to read a bit of german to find the review. Undeath (talk) 05:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable subject. Peter Fleet (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Non notable subject? What does that mean? How is the interview non notable. Your comment does not give any reason. Undeath (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sable Chemicals[edit]

This article reads like an advertisement. The merit of it is debatable. Would like to see a logo or photo. WP:N23:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Golgofrinchian (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Neither advertising tone nor lack of a logo/photo in the article is a good reason for deletion. A brief Google Books search showed plenty of references in reliable publications, so I would say the company meets notability guidelines but could be cleaned up (once again, not a reason for deletion) as the spelling is pretty bad. --Canley (talk) 02:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. —Canley (talk) 02:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even though Google searches have been disparaged up and down on AFD by WP:GOOGLEHITS, it is still a good idea to Google the topic before bringing it up for deletion. This search on Google News shows that the company is covered by business article after business article, easily passing WP:CORP. A priori, I would expect this to be the case, because the agricultural situation in Zimbabwe is a long-lasting and serious topic, and a major fertilizer producer in the country will be a key player in such a case. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - easily sourceable. And after reading the article, I don't see where it really reads like an advertisement. -- Whpq (talk) 13:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Article was a dicdef for the neologism ciga-voice posted to a totally irrelevant title. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Post definition[edit]

Apparently made up term; no sources, no relevant Google hits, dictionary definition at best. Prod removed anonymously. ~Matticus ^U_C 22:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most likely a hoax. Paste (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. The title of the article makes no sense. Hoax? Yes. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above users. Most likely a WP:HOAX --On the other side ^Contribs|@ 23:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kubigula (talk) 01:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Big Four Beauty Pageant Titleholders[edit]

Redundant. We already have list articles for the winners of the individual pageants. The grouping of the "big four" seems artificial: no source is presented describing them as the big four. Finally, there is no crossover among the pageants. This type of a list might be useful for boxing, where champions may hold multiple titles at once, but I don't see it adding anything beyond what is at the individual pageants' articles. —C.Fred (talk) 22:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 04:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A lot of work seems to have been done in the last few months on complete entries for individual Miss World/Universe/etc titleholders. This really is unnecessary and besides, the term 'Big Four' is an industry one and the listees are not likely to be searched for by it. Plutonium27 (talk) 10:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant -- Whpq (talk) 13:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fourth runner-up. Should any of the "Big Four" be unable to fulfill its Wikipedia duties, then it can take its place. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. We have plenty of lists with all the information inside of this one. Undeath (talk) 00:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Four pageants and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Five Pageants PageantUpdater talk • contribs 03:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jessamyn West (librarian)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, is largely self-written, and is probably supported by members of a forum of which the subject is a moderator. Note for example that user Dhartung tried to initiate a speedy keep soon after this article was nominated for deletion. This user's talk page states : "I have also been a very-long-term member of MetaFilter" Roadtotruth (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I mistakenly acted on the "close" of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessamyn West (librarian) without reading the dates. That AFD from 2005 was erroneously listed on the AFD page. I apologize for any confusion I added to, but note that I rolled back my own edit as soon as I realized what the problem was, and that I personally added this 2008 nomination to the day's log, as the nominator seemed confused about the process. --Dhartung | Talk 22:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's still something wrong, because this is the third nomination for deletion, not the second. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Here we go. The first one was: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessamyn West. I don't understand the structure of the templates that create the previous-AfD-box, could someone who does add it to the list of previous AfDs? Dpbsmith (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the first was a VFD: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jessamyn West (later moved to the AFD namespace). The AFD history box code isn't infallible; just link the missing ones when you know about them. I'm not inclined to worry about the AFD numbering as long as there are no collisions. The third that you're thinking of was this speedy closed in 2006. Not clear if there was a new AFD discussion template opened. There was also a db-bio for which this article (having been kept in an AFD) was not eligible. --Dhartung | Talk 23:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although standards have changed since 2005, West would still meet the criteria even if she had not continued to gain notability. There is a WIRED profile and numerous interviews, profiles, and discussions of her or librarian.net in technical journals and every major newspaper in the country, including the San Francisco Chronicle, the L.A. Times, USAToday, the New York Times, the Boston Globe, and so forth. 57 Google News Archive results for "jessamyn.west librarian.net". The references in the article are adequate but could obviously be expanded. Per an earlier overwritten text of the nomination, yes, she installed Linux on her library computers, and made a video of how to do it that attracted attention, making the event notable. --Dhartung | Talk 22:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

The nominator appears not to have bothered to check the history of the article, or previous deletion discussions, or he would not have said that the article "is largely self-written." In fact, Jessamyn West (User:Jessamyn) has made only a very few, very small edits, and even from the very beginning was reluctant to participate in the development of the article.

(The nominator ought to have addressed the content of the article, rather than speculating about the authorship or "supporters" of the article).

I, on the other hand, made large contributions to the development of this article in the early stages. If you check this April 15, 2005 version, which is mostly my work, you'll see a distinct resemblance to the current article. I am not a member of MetaFilter. I don't know what MetaFilter is. I don't follow Jessamyn Charity West's blog or websites. I don't know Jessamyn Charity West, apart from a half-dozen emails I exchanged with her while developing the article. I was originally drawn to the article the first time it was nominated for deletion, because I couldn't figure out why anyone would want to delete a biography of the famous Quaker novelist Jessamyn West. It turned out that, at that time, we had no article at all on Jessamyn West (writer). Intrigued by the identity of the names, I proceeded to work on biographies of both people. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I noted in October 2005, with regard to notability, having been mentioned in the New York Times, singled out for special notice in Library Journal, cited in Wired for her anti-PATRIOT-act activities, and being among the first bloggers in history to be given press credentials raises her above the bar for notability. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability demonstrated verifiably in the article. Had there been a footnote next to the line about her being one of the first press-credentialed bloggers, I'd have weighed in with a strong keep. —C.Fred (talk) 22:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems notable enough based on supplied references. Klausness (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

If this article is kept, are we to assume that the first say, 100 or 200 press-credentialed bloggers each deserve a dedicated Wikipedia page? I believe there have been several whose pages have been deleted on this basis already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roadtotruth (talk • contribs) 23:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, why would we assume such a thing? Dpbsmith (talk) 23:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see she is mentioned in the New York Times, July 8, 2007, p. 1, in an article entitled A Hipper Crowd of Shushers" about how libraries are evolving. Only a couple of short paragraphs in the middle of the article ("Jessamyn West, 38, an editor of 'Revolting Librarians Redux: Radical Librarians Speak Out' ... agreed that many new librarians are attracted to what they call the 'Library 2.0' phenomenon. 'It's become a techie profession,' she said," but obviously the New York Times is aware of her as a source to consult on library trends. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability established by references. Coffee4me (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The complete list of 37 bloggers given press credentials for this one particular convention in 2004 can be found at http://www.cyberjournalist.net/news/001461.php . A search of Wikipedia shows that the vast majority of them do not have dedicated Wikipedia pages. Based on the above proposed notability criterion, perhaps they should all be invited to create one? Roadtotruth (talk) 01:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Roadtotruth, the fact that we have ONE article in which such credentials are PART of a notability rationale does not translate to a precedent that ALL such credentials automatically acquire notability. See the What about X? style of argumentation, which is deprecated for AFD and notability discussions. West is cited frequently in professional journals indicating her stature in the world of her profession, only part of which is related to her personal blogging. Please acquaint yourself with WP:BIO, and by the way you are making leading questions in this AFD, WP:POINT as well. --Dhartung | Talk 02:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am fully acquainted with the notability rationale of Wikipedia. I am also well aware that a collection of trivial second source references does not constitute notability. Furthermore unless Metafilter is considered either a "field" for the purposes of notability, or a reliable secondary source, I would suggest to you that your involvement as a long term associate of Ms West and the haste with which you wished to declare this proposed deletion a speedy keep would appear to constitute sufficient grounds for a WP:CONFLICT. My point above goes entirely to consistency of precedent of a threshold for biographical notability. Roadtotruth (talk) 02:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I explained my mistaken edit above. My connection with West on Metafilter is no more meaningful than my connection with her as Jessamyn (talk · contribs). The assumption of good faith is perilously close to being breached. Feel free to continue to argue that being the subject of over 50% of a WIRED article consitutes "trivial", if it suits you. --Dhartung | Talk 03:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article you cite above mentions Ms West alongside "many of her colleagues" who are "on the front lines of battling the USA PATRIOT Act". Clearly many librarians around the world contribute greatly each day to social causes collectively without recognition in Wikipedia. Ms West was singled out of this vast group for an interview possibly due to her self-made internet profile. I have no doubt Ms West is popular and respected amongst the circles she contributes to. However, the same could be said of many tens of thousands of hard-working everyday people around the world who do not reach the required threshold of notability as it is defined here. Roadtotruth (talk) 04:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And yet, the article quotes her, discusses her signs, and thereby makes her notable. This is how notability works, despite your personal disinclination to read it that way. --Dhartung | Talk 07:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability established by references. Oska (talk) 12:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The user (Roadtotruth) nominating this deletion has as their only contributions to Wikipedia this nomination and subsequent comments. Oska (talk) 12:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With a little imagination and empathy, it is not difficult to see how in such sensitive matters involving a sizeable base of loyal internet supporters, how even a well-established editor might choose to remain anonymous. Indeed Wikipedia guidelines state in several places that even "vandals" or "trolls" may be correct and as such, their contribution should not be dismissed out of hand. Notably in this instance, such a directive is provided in the WP:SK criteria. Roadtotruth (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - reliable sources exist and support notability -- Whpq (talk) 13:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The only things I added to this article were a photo and a few minor factual edits. I don't know the user who originally created the article, who is not a MetaFilter member, and dhartung and I do not know each other except as people on the Internet together. They've both already said as much. Jessamyn (talk) 14:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. – joeclark (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If we have any more equally important bloggers around, yes they should get articles too. Not everyone with credentials is important, but some of them are. arguments based on But what if there were 100 or 1000 or 10,000 more are missing the point. We have room for everyone who belongs in an encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 23:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Indeed. Of course, by itself it wouldn't be sufficient; and given uncertainties about how the DNC credentialing system worked, we have no assurance of how well it would track with WP:BIO. But it's a list that's likely to include more than a few potential articles. --Dhartung | Talk 03:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If anything, West is more notable now than she was the first few times this article was suggested for deletion. Is it usual for the same article to come up time and again for the same reason?--Hatchibombotar (talk) 03:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of the things I'm trying to remedy is a long-belated overhaul of the structure in line with WP:MOSBIO. Inline citations, infoboxes, and so forth are just a start. --Dhartung | Talk 03:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She's made big contributions to the discipline of LIS. Walkingpaper (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This AfD raises no issues that were not raised in the prior AfD's. Waste of time and space to debate this here. -ikkyu2 (talk) 03:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G1 Patent nonsense by Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 22:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mrahccigam[edit]

Fictional character created by the same person as this article, and that person is identified only by his Wikipedia moniker. Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 22:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: WP:NN, WP:NFT Toddst1 (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have the right to keep the page because I created it. Some other users are getting on my nerves about my submissions as well. I'm not happy about this. neogotchi (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete This is the kind of unremarkable nonsense that new page patrollers delete hourly. AfD doesn't even need to deal with this. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Speedy delete. Original and unsourced. Why the debate? Cheers !Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. How did these even get to AFD? --BrucePodger (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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), nomination was withdrawn, no !votes to delete. скоморохъ 03:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eric McDavid[edit]

This person is not-notable. He is a cause celebre for several anarchist and terrorist organizations, and they have published information about him. anarchistnews, indymedia, and arkangel are self-publishing sites for these activist groups, they are not independent, mainstream, reliable sources. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 22:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Through the amazing use of Google, I've started adding better sources to this article, and updating it. This shouldn't have been brought here as AFD is not cleanup. Murderbike (talk) 22:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I see a lot of coverage in the Google News archives. --Pixelface (talk) 22:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable, well-sourced — Omegatron 22:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable with many sources. Paste (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability established by coverage in The Sacramento Bee (2 articles) and The Conservative Voice, both of which are independent of the subject. скоморохъ 00:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:N, good amount of sources. Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 03:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

withdraw the nom. There were no external sources when I proposed it. thanks for the correction to those who found them. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 07:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Julia and David White Artists' Colony[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Julia and David White Artists' Colony

Contested prod; possibly notability guidelines for inclusion; tagged as such since April 2007. I'm not exactly sure what an "artists' colony" is, but the full phrase google search turns up very little. It might just be that it's named something else due to it being in South America (i.e., maybe it was translated to the english form, and the english form turns up little?). Anyway, I'm sending this here in hopes someone else knows. :P Cheers =) slakr^\ talk / 21:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I find a single mention in this news article, but it isn't about them. Unable to dig up anything else resembling a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 14:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is lacking. --Stormbay (talk) 02:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Props to Styrofoam for merging. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 07:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June 30, 2003[edit]

It's an article concerning a date that's essentially a duplicate of the information in 2003 and June 30. STYROFOAM1994^talk Review me! 21:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. We have articles on dates, and on years, but not on individual dates in individual years, and there's no reason why we should change that.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete- Poor execution and there are several websites that cover this very thing. Golgofrinchian (talk) 22:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Should I just nominate this for speedy deletion? STYROFOAM1994^talkReview me! 22:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Under what criteria? --Pixelface (talk) 22:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, not sure about this. I was unaware of Category:Days in 2003, Category:Days in 2004, Category:Days in 2005, Category:Days in 2006, and Category:Days in 2007 until now. --Pixelface (talk) 22:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete needless, unjustified. JJL (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this may be related to pages in the Current events portal (or an attempt to turn them into articles). --Pixelface (talk) 22:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move this article into the Portal:Current events namespace (much like Portal:Current events/2008 March 9). And I would support a similar move of every article in Category:Days in 2003, Category:Days in 2004, Category:Days in 2005, Category:Days in 2006, and Category:Days in 2007 as well). --Pixelface (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this article is actually transcluded onto June 2003 so I'm unsure of a move at this point. --Pixelface (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Now I see the tremendous amount of similar articles in the category. What do we do? Do we enlist a committee to move all these things into the appropriate corresponding year articles? STYROFOAM1994^talk Review me! 23:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.This has come up frequently in the past (not necessarily this precise day article,but severalof them have).It seems that there was an experiment with creating individual day articles over the course of the last few years that has now stopped - individual days were ranscluded onto month articles. If you wan to delete this one, you'll have to address the whole lot, and that'll need more than a simple afd. Grutness...wha? 00:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So how do we deal with this giant thing? STYROFOAM1994^talk Review me! 00:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that it might be best to start a discussion on these pages in general at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion, and posting a link to that discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. Grutness...wha? 05:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I say we merge with June 30th. K im u 03:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already merged it. STYROFOAM1994^talk Review me! 20:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment I have posted a centralized discussion at Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Removal of many individual date articles. STYROFOAM1994^talk Review me! 20:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If one wished to use Wikipedia to look up a certain date,in this case June 30, 2003,it would be in the articles 2003 or June 30. 99.230.152.143 (talk) 01:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment By-the-by,shouldn't you list all the other articles in the category "Days in 2003"? If you don't know how,then you should read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list multiple related pages for deletion. 99.230.152.143 (talk) 01:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know how to do that; somebody else suggested that because of the immense amount of these articles, I should post a centralized discussion (see above) STYROFOAM1994^talk Review me! 01:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 consensus is for deletion ("it can be sourced" is not a convincing keep argument) and, in any case, it fails notability requirements since translating a single book is insufficient. Finally, it needs to be deleted as the text is copyvio. TerriersFan (talk) 04:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sunjoy shekhar[edit]

Did a quick search for sources online but did not find any that appeared relevant. This page is the highest returned result. Delete unless it can be sourced. Fightindaman (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I also couldn't find any relevant sources, but he either co-authored, or maybe translated a book, which I added to the article. Coffee4me (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He just translated the book. The book was authored by Gulzar. utcursch | talk 07:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it can be sourced, but we may need more time. Bearian (talk) 19:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We know nothing about the person except that he translated a book by Gulzar. Impossible to write even a stubby encyclopedic entry without a single independent reliable source. Abecedare (talk) 04:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the article content is a cut-n-paste copyvio from [5]. Should be speedy deleted as such. Abecedare (talk) 04:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isakssons theorem[edit]

It doesn't look like there are reliable, secondary sources on the subject Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not to mention that, if this is true, it would be a clear contender for the Ig Nobel Prize. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 21:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, just a touch over 8 hours' sleep is what you need for a 24-hour cycle, but you can get more waking hours by running on a 12-hour cycle with about 1.75 hours sleep and 10.25 hours awake... of course, the theorem doesn't tell us how many hours' sleep we'll need once we "get tired"... Oh, just Delete per nom. JohnCD (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, delete. As noted, this is not verifiable, and Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. —Bkell (talk) 22:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete made up one day. JJL (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Interesting if true, but no sources. Renee (talk) 02:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 03:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As it says, made up in school one day. Chris (talk) 08:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR (at best). There is a particular sleep theory based on cyclical naps but this is not it. Plutonium27 (talk) 10:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Put to sleep. Not a "theorem", which by my understanding doesn't properly name an empirical discovery. Seems close to the heart of original research. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Unanimous – WP:SNOW – KEEP. Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Russow[edit]

I'm ambivalent on these professional activists. There seems to be a lot of these types of bios on Wikipedia. They do get news coverage 'cause they are activists. Joan Russow apparently has run for office several times but was never elected. She was leader of a party that has never had a candidate elected. Is she notable? Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, she was the party leader of a major Canadian federal party. GreenJoe 21:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But what is a 'major' Canadian federal party? If the party has never held a seat in the House of Commons, is it major? Is it notable? Is Joan Russow notable? I never heard of her until I stumbled on her bio a year ago on Wikipedia. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Green Party of Canada continually get more votes than the Bloc Quebecois. GreenJoe 21:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the Bloc Quebecois has elected people to the House of Commons! Quite a few actually. The Green Party of Canada has elected no one. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you make an apples to apples comparison and compare Green votes to Bloq votes in the one province both parties run candidates in? Lies, damned lies and statistics, as they say. Reso lute 22:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, I'm playing devil's advocate here. As I say above, I'm ambivalent. Still, where does the line get drawn for notability? It is easy to get your name in the news. It is easy to run for office and lose. It is even easy to become the leader of a defunct political party: for example, the Social Credit party in its last days. Easy, of course, being relative; but does that make someone notable enough for Wikipedia. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"It is easy to get your name in the news." It seems that, in your view, the bar is set too low...? If you get your name in the news, repeatedly, non-trivially, then that is good enough for Wikipedia. Cheers, --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She is notable enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitplane01 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the notability guidelines for politicians found at Wikipedia:Notability (people):

Politicians who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature.

Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city.

Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such a person may be notable for other reasons besides their political careers alone.

I'm not convinced an un-elected activist is notable. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I'd hardly characterize the Greens as a "major" party, it certainly is a notable one. The leader of the party would also be notable. Reso lute 22:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - availability of sources doesn't seem to be an issue, and I think the leader of any party running a nation-wide campaign (I now the Greens weren't running a full slate in Russow's day, but they were still running candidates across the country) is going to be notable. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Leaders of registered political parties are notable. CJCurrie (talk) 01:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just purely on the basis of WP:N. Just now I added two more references to major news sources, and there are plenty more. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Councillors of City of Glen Eira[edit]

Constant vandalism by former Glen Eira councillors and/or supporters - this has to stop !!!! --CatonB (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason for deletion is because there are former Glen Eira Councillors and/or supporters who are constantly editing this article with their biased vandalism and this has to stop right her right now --CatonB (talk) 21:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - vandalism is not a criterion for deletion, notability is. This article covers material already contained in an adequate summary at City of Glen Eira#Past and Current Glen Eira Councillors. I can't see that we need expanded details on the councillors. Wikipedia is not a directory - per WP:NOT#DIR--Matilda ^talk 23:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This seems like an end-run around notability requirements. There is little encyclopedic need to keep a list of all local politicians, and it's rife with problems, as seen. --Dhartung | Talk 23:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the creation of the article is weird. I am not sure where it came from. User:Fantasy who appears to be not Australian, created the article fully formed - lots of links etc but with the comment this details and not-election are not relevant for an Encyclopedia. see relevant diff. I thought it might have been a break out from the article on the council but the revision history of that article doesn't support that view. Curious? The user has left wikipedia.--Matilda ^talk 23:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not a matter of some deleted history under BLP concerns? --Dhartung | Talk 03:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing that the logs of either this article or the article on the Council reveal to me (I have admin access so should be able to see). --Matilda ^talk 04:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following links shed some light on the history:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glen Eira city councillors and this --Melburnian (talk) 09:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Level of detail provided on individual councillors is not notable and as stated by Matilda the coverage in City of Glen Eira is sufficient. Murtoa (talk) 03:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NOTE. Gatoclass (talk) 04:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete City of Glen Eira covers this article in enough detail. Fails WP:N. Twenty Years 05:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local councillors are generally considered non-notable by WP standards except occasionally mayors. This would set a bad precedent. —Moondyne click! 06:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but it is not correct that local councilors are non-notable; it depends on the city, & the nature of the government (whether its a ceremonial position or an influential one), NYC and Chicago and some others have been considered notable, & i'd be prepared to go down to a size of about a million. But not 124,000, like this one.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 10:07 (AEST), 14 March 2008
Merge. The level of detail on the councillors would be a worthy addition to the main council article. There is no policy in WP that this type of detail should be deleted, only that it shouldn't have its own page. Assize (talk) 03:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - there are WP:BLP concerns with some of the information. The individuals are not notable in themselves according to our criteria as others have mentioend above. The article on the Council already mentiones them and is otherwise quite a substantial article - I can't see where it would fit to have this much detail about the councillors, who assaulted whom, who was sacked, .... Please have a look at the article on the Council which in my view seems quite well balanced.--Matilda ^talk 03:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Aslett[edit]

Insufficient notability, ~~fails WP:RS~~, strong suspicion of autobiography dramatic (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sources - local New Zealand news sites - seem reliable enough to me. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 21:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, slight brain fade there. However, none of the references show him doing anything notable: He entered one art competition and didn't win - another one (which no longer attracts many professional artisrts) and did win. And community boards are the lowest teir of local government - members are not notable. dramatic (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 03:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of ntability, despite actual mud. Johnbod (talk) 04:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable enough. --Helenalex (talk) 21:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Maxim (magazine) Non-admin closure -- RoninBK _{T C} 23:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maxmen[edit]

I don't understand why this page was created to begin with. We don't have articles for every single different language edition of Maxim... Lady Galaxy 21:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, and possibly merge any sourcable information. Not necessary to have seperate pages for other language editions of this magazine as they presumably fail WP:N standalone.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the creator's username backwards, that would suggest a WP:COI.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he's only made six edits (five of them to that magazine article), and that was in July 2007. I think he's long since abandoned this site so it wouldn't be worth it to try and call him out on it. Lady Galaxy 13:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. Although there is one delete !vote, nominator, who appears to be working on improving the California river and creek articles, has found sourcing. Since geological features such as rivers and creeks generally are considered notable, I deemed this closing uncontroversial. Non admin close. Xymmax (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marin Creek[edit]

This creek may not even exist, does not assert WP:N, is not at present WP:V Furthermore, I don't think it even exists, I have live nearby for a long time and have never heard of it evn though I am a creek enthusiast. Topozone maps don't show a Marin Creek as described in the UC Village area, it does show Codornices Creek.[6]W-i-k-i-l-o-v-e-r-1-7 (talk) 21:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Speedy Keep and unlist, found sources, apparantly it is a tributary of Codornices Creek.[7]W-i-k-i-l-o-v-e-r-1-7 (talk) 21:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe a hoax? Lady Galaxy 21:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Tasini[edit]

Subject fails WP:N and WP:V. RUnning in a primary does not confer notability, and the only references are external links to a defunct campaign website. Other then that, the subject is primarily a blogger, and former labor union leader, although the National Writers Union piece makes no mention of him and I see no reason why any pertinent info on him (the insurance issue and the New York Times case) need to be mentioned outside of the main article on the Union. MrPrada (talk) 20:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep small claim to notability.Dreamspy (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep don't much like the guy but he ran at least a half-way credible primary challenge--Mr Beale (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, president of a national union for 13 years is definitely notable. --Dhartung | Talk 22:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep "Tasini was the lead plaintiff in the case of New York Times Co. v. Tasini," from the article. Most important copyright case of the last 20 years, still not completely resolved. this is someone people will want to read about.DGG (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merged nat.utoronto 22:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wilfrid Laurier University Student Publications[edit]

This organization fails WP:ORG. They're really not-notable, and they fail to cite sources. ~~Delete~~ Merge & Delete per Shawn in Montreal. -- GreenJoe 20:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it's also the parent article for the student paper, and I believe we have a precedent that all university newspapers are notable, do we not? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So have an article on the main paper. GreenJoe 20:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^[1]*Delete. Not notable. The student paper: yes. The umbrella organization: no. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand you. In voting to delete, you're also voting to remove the very information that would go in the student newspaper article you support, are you not? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove redirect at The Cord Weekly to restore article. Delete Wilfrid Laurier University Student Publications which is essentially a promo piece about an administrative unit at a university. It is neither encyclopedic nor notable. There are millions of administrative units. Who cares? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fine to me, with the added proviso that we move the other text about the student publications to the main article Wilfrid Laurier University Students' Union. I'd be happy to do this myself, meaning we'd be left with an essentially blank article Wilfrid Laurier University Student Publications with an AfD tag on, which I'd be happy to vote to delete. My question: would I be allowed to do all this, while an AfD is in progress? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can merge it in so long as you don't blank the current article that is on AFD. GreenJoe 02:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can go ahead and improve the article any way you see fit, even while it's being discussed on AfD. If all the content is elsewhere, and you don't get any objections here, go ahead. Remember that anyone can revert changes that don't reflect consensus. Both WP:BOLD and WP:HEY are relevant here. I say go for it. —BradV 05:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Brad: you can see a solution to this problem, and nobody vociferously disagreeing with it. I say be bold. Once this is fixed, come back here and we'll ask an admin to do a speedy close. AndyJones (talk) 13:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I won't have time to work on this until tonight at the earliest but if no one else makes these text moves, I will. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —Noetic Sage 05:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. NN. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 05:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Multimerge per Shawn. Bearcat (talk) 22:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done and done. Content has been merged to The Cord Weekly and Wilfrid Laurier University Students' Union, as appropriate. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close (as "Merge") since that seems to accord with every !vote above, and consensus seems to have been reached. The redirect should go to The Cord Weekly, I think. AndyJones (talk) 15:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested above. Reggie Perrin (talk) 17:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge as this clearly fails to satisfy WP:N—Noetic Sage 14:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per Mlaffs and Neier. Very good debating, Mlaffs and Robwing. Constructive, civil compromises make me happy. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 07:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Phelan[edit]

Contested PROD. Has not made an appearance in a fully professional league so fails WP:ATHLETE. robwingfield ^«T•C» 20:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. robwingfield ^«T•C» 20:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this has already survived one AFD and is pointless busy work. --B (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO#Athletes. The article can easily be restored if he ever plays professionally. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The largest newspaper in the country felt he was worth an article [8]. National media coverage is prima facia evidence of notability regardless of whether he plays in the professional regular season. --B (talk) 23:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have the weirdest sense of deja vu. Does not fail WP:ATHLETE, as making an appearance in a fully professional league is only one of the two possible criteria. He's competed at the highest amateur level of his sport, and has valid secondary sources published. I've just added two more to the article - the USA Today draft preview linked above, in which he's the subject of both the headline and the photo inset, and an earlier reference to his being recruited by Wake Forest out of high school. Mlaffs (talk) 05:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - you've misread WP:ATHLETE. It says either "Competitors and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis", which Phelan fails, or "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)" for which Phelan is inelligible as football is a professional sport. robwingfield ^«T•C» 07:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - With all due respect, I don't believe that I have misread WP:ATHLETE. My position is that you cannot define an entire sport as "professional" - it's just not logical. Football is competed at both the professional and amateur levels, as are basketball, hockey, baseball, American football, tennis, figure skating, and almost any other sport you can think of. That's why there are two tests. If you're an athlete competing at the professional level of your sport, you're generally considered notable. If you're an athlete competing at the highest amateur level of your sport, then you may also be considered notable if you have secondary sources published about you. Mlaffs (talk) 12:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While WP:ATHLETE is often cited as an exclusive reason for deletion, reading the section heading at Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria is instructional. quote Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included. Waving around WP:ATHLETE criteria as if notability established in normal ways (non-trivial coverage in multiple reputable sources) can be ignored is simply bad for the project. Neier (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, as correctly pointed out below: meeting part 2 of WP:ATHLETE, which says explicitly: Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Julius James[edit]

Contested PROD. Has not made an appearance in a fully professional league so fails WP:ATHLETE. robwingfield ^«T•C» 20:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. robwingfield ^«T•C» 20:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's not a contested prod - it's an invalid prod. This article has already survived one AFD and thus the prod template is invalid. He was a three-time Big East defensive player of the year and one of only two three-time winners of a major college soccer award [9]. He meets the WP:BIO requirement of coverage in external reliable sources - [10][11][12]. He was the 9th overall pick in the MLS draft. We're not talking about a random free agent. He obviously meets our inclusion guidelines. --B (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO#Athletes. The article can easily be restored if he ever plays professionally. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 23:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' - college soccer is not professional, so the subject fails WP:ATHLETE. --Angelo (talk) 08:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The rule also allows for amateur athletes about whom there are reliable sources to be included. One wikiproject's decree that American college soccer players are non-notable doesn't override the general notability criterion. --B (talk) 16:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While WP:ATHLETE is often cited as an exclusive reason for deletion, reading the section heading at Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria is instructional. quote Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included. Waving around WP:ATHLETE criteria as if notability established in normal ways (non-trivial coverage in multiple reputable sources) can be ignored is simply bad for the project. Neier (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ATHLETE even says that amateur athletes can be included if they meet the general notability criterion. But that part of the guideline is ignorable. --B (talk) 22:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ATHLETE BanRay 09:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You may want to check out User:B/NCAA data. This is a list of articles that use the NCAA template - virtually all of them are US college athletes. Appearing in a fully pro league is not nor has ever been a requirement for an article to exist. Having reliable external sources of information is the ONLY requirement. WP:ATHLETE even says that amateurs about whom there are reliable sources of information are considered notable. --B (talk) 17:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it says that about competitors in amateur sports. Once again, football is a professional sport. Yes, it can be played at an amateur level, but that doesn't mean that there are "two levels" of the sport. It simply means that those who play at amateur level aren't good enough to play professionally. Wikipedia currently views such people as not notable. robwingfield ^«T•C» 18:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep like all the others. ugen64 (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Do you enjoy having the same arguments week in and week out? It's beyond stupid to keep "some" MLS players and not "others". Since the president has already been set that the MLS players in the 2008 MLS Draft should stay (much to the chagrin of some power tripping people around here) the rest should stay and then sort the players out later. And yes, just because X doesn't mean Y, blah blah blah, but then again I think most of the people against this are from Europe and don't really know how the NCAA works. Shame. GauchoDude (talk) 09:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Josh Lambo[edit]

The result was DELETE. Toddst1 (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contested PROD. Has not made an appearance in a fully professional league so fails WP:ATHLETE. robwingfield ^«T•C» 20:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. robwingfield ^«T•C» 20:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO#Athletes. The article can easily be restored if he ever plays professionally. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only WP:BIO#Athletes but also WP:N. K im u 23:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 23:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 03:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While WP:ATHLETE is often cited as an exclusive reason for deletion, reading the section heading at Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria is instructional. quote Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included. Waving around WP:ATHLETE criteria as if notability established in normal ways (non-trivial coverage in multiple reputable sources) can be ignored is simply bad for the project. In this case, WP:N is not established; so, it should have been used as the deletion rationale rather than the weaker WP:ATHLETE. Neier (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ATHLETE BanRay 09:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, like all the other SuperDraft nominations you have made. ugen64 (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 07:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Nyarko[edit]

Contested PROD. Has not made an appearance in a fully professional league so fails WP:ATHLETE. robwingfield ^«T•C» 20:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. robwingfield ^«T•C» 20:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. The general notability criterion - non-trivial coverage in multiple media sources - supersedes project guidelines. Nyarko was the subject of at least three biographical articles external to Virginia Tech and his pro team - [13] , [14], [15]. This was discussed ad nauseam at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Espinoza. WP:BIO says, "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." All three of these articles obviously meet those requirements. The fact that he hasn't played in a professional league changes nothing. We have a gracious plenty articles on college football and college basketball players and there's no logical reason to invent new standards for college soccer players. By the way, it's not a contested prod - it's an INVALID prod - the article has already survived an AFD and thus a prod is invalid. --B (talk) 21:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO#Athletes. The article can easily be restored if he ever plays professionally. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you like to delete all of these too? WP:BIO#Athletes says that "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)" are notable. Patrick Nyarko has competed in division I college soccer. He was not paid for his time at Virginia Tech. --B (talk) 23:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Football is not an amateur sport. And if you claim that we should have articles on players who play at the highest amateur level within professional sports, we would end up articles on complete unknowns such as players in county leagues in England as I'm sure people would be able to provide references from coverage in local papers. пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - We're not talking about complete unknowns in county leagues. We're talking about players who were drafted in the first round of the MLS draft. In the case of Patrick Nyarko, not only has he been drafted overall number 7 by an MLS team, but he is the subject of a biographical article in the Washington Post, the 6th largest newspaper in the country. He's even worth more than a mention in the New York Times [16] (although I don't know that they are a reliable source nowadays). When someone receives national coverage, their notability usually isn't questioned. --B (talk) 23:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 23:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per significant arguments made in the last AfD, which is inexplicably not linked to here. matt91486 (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sourcing argument made by B and also on the grounds that this was nominated for AFD and survived (albeit with no consensus) only about 6 weeks ago. Articles can't be repeatedly nominated in such a short period of time until a desired outcome is found. 23skidoo (talk) 23:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Football is an amateur sport when it's played at the amateur level. You can't define an entire sport as either amateur or professional - almost all sports are competed at both levels. Again, I have the weirdest sense of deja vu ... Does not fail WP:ATHLETE, as he's competed at the highest level in amateur sports and has valid secondary sources published about him. If the references already included - including the Washington Post article - aren't enough, the USA Today piece just added as a reference to the Pat Phelan article could also be added here. If all those references, plus his being a Hermann Trophy finalist and being a top selection in the draft don't add up to notability, well, I just don't get it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlaffs (talk • contribs) 05:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - no, football is a professional sport. Some countries may not be able to fund it professionally, in which case such leagues are not notable. The US has one professional league, the Major League, and it is only that league in which appearances confer notability. As I said on Pat Phelan's AfD, you've misread WP:ATHLETE. It says either "Competitors and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis", which Nyarko fails, or "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)" for which Nyarko is inelligible as football is a professional sport. robwingfield ^«T•C» 08:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - First of all, there are three fully professional leagues in the US. The first is not "the" Major League -- it's Major League Soccer. There also exists USL-1 and USL-2. Secondly, you are forgetting about WP:BIO, which trumps WP:ATHLETE. Since Nyarko has received significant press coverage, he's notable regardless of what WP:ATHLETE says. This is just case #34431413 in the long list of misunderstandings of the way American sport works. Since the "academy system" is only in its infancy in the US, the notability rules laid out by WikiProject Football don't function very well for US players. --Balerion (talk) 08:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, and definitely my final one, because my head hurts. It's simply not logical to define a sport as being professional or amateur. A specific sporting league or competition can be either professional or amateur. An individual participating in a given league or competition can be either professional or amateur. The sport itself is modified by those distinctions, not defined by it. Let me just throw out a 'what if', not because OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but just to get you thinking. Would you consider a figure skater - let's take Sasha Cohen as an example - who competes in the Olympics or in the World Championships, which is the highest amateur level of that sport, and who has secondary sources published about them, notable or not? Think about this carefully. Following the logic you're outlining above, the fact that figure skating is competed at the professional level defines it as a professional sport. As a result, Sasha Cohen would automatically not be notable, despite the fact that she's competed at the highest amateur level of her sport and regardless of having significant secondary coverage. That's an awfully tough standard, and it seems that the Football project is the only one grappling with this - I don't see similar arguments from the other sports projects. Mlaffs (talk) 13:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:ATHLETE is irrelevant; subject specific guidelines are inclusive, not exclusive. The question is whether the sources B has offered meet the general criterion of significant coverage in independent reliable sources; my answer to that is yes. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 08:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he definitely fails WP:ATHLETE. Of the given sources, two of them cannot be considered as valid, since they do not cover the subject in detail, but are merely a commentary about football events, and the other two have a debatable reliability. In addition, guidelines are considered as being both inclusive and exclusive, --Angelo (talk) 08:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And our argument has nothing to do with WP:ATHLETE, since it is a SECONDARY requirement. He fulfills the PRIMARY one. matt91486 (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - However there's no substantial coverage about the subject, and no enough reliability for the given valid sources which cover the subject in detail. And therefore the subject fails WP:BIO's basic criteria. Let me also remind you being featured in the news is not a proof of notability in itself. --Angelo (talk) 14:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Being covered in multiple news outlets over an extended period of time is almost always a proof of notability. matt91486 (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't understand what you are trying to say. I linked three newspaper articles above that published biographical articles about Nyarko - none of them were merely recapping individual games or anything like that and all of them were external to Virginia Tech. What is unreliable about the Roanoke Times, Richmond Times-Dispatch, or Washington Post? We probably need to go ahead and rewrite some of our articles if those are not reliable sources. --B (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Many articles containing non-trivial coverage of Nyarko in reputable sources. While WP:ATHLETE is often cited as an exclusive reason for deletion, reading the section heading at Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria is instructional. quote Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included. Waving around WP:ATHLETE criteria as if notability established in normal ways (non-trivial coverage in multiple reputable sources) can be ignored is simply bad for the project. Neier (talk) 22:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Same arguments as similar nominations, see this and this. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Franklin[edit]

Contested PROD. Has not made an appearance in a fully professional league so fails WP:ATHLETE. robwingfield ^«T•C» 20:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. robwingfield ^«T•C» 20:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is pointless busy work and this entire series of AFDs is a waste of otherwise useful time. This is not a contested prod - it's an invalid prod. This article has already survived one AFD. He is playing in preseason games [17] and deleting the article for 17 days (the season starts March 29) is senseless. --B (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO#Athletes. The article can easily be restored if he ever plays professionally; for all we know he might break his leg before the start of the season and never play - we can't rely on WP:CRYSTAL balling. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He already has played professionally. Nowhere do I see WP:BIO say that preseason games don't count. He is on the roster of a professional team. He has played a game with that professional team. --B (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's quite clear: "Competitors and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league". Pre-season friendlies are not leagues! пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - A regular season game isn't a league either. No game is a league. An apple isn't a telephone and a car isn't a newspaper. What's your point? The team is in a full professional league. This player has played at least one game with this team. Preseason, postseason, regular season - nothing in the guideline says it makes a difference. --B (talk) 16:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per B. Using the notability guidelines in order to delete things temporarily until all the formalities are in place, and forcing someone to recreate the article from scratch, is an exercise in pointless bureaucracy. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argument is based entirely upon WP:CRYSTAL and completely ignores the fact that an admin can restore the article with a couple of clicks if the person in question does pass the criteria in the future. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Two can play that game. Your WP:CRYSTAL assertion is based completely on that he has not played a league game yet, and completely ignores the fact that the player has signed up for the team, and has played for the team as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You can't twist it round like that. WP:CRYSTAL is about editors claiming things will happen (as you have done), not about claiming that things will not happen. As noted above, the criteria for WP:ATHLETE is "Competitors and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league". He has not played in a league game! пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - From WP:CRYSTAL: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced." In fact there is more to this person: he has played on the nation U21 and U23 teams. Now, I will not call the US a big football/soccer nation, but playing for the country is certainly a major claim to notability, and definitely on par with "major league". If WP:ATHLETE is calling for inflexible approaches and the total ruling out of common sense, then it should be either ignored or revised. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It was revised, but WP:BIO people refused to accept WP:FOOTY/Notability. English peasant 14:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        See, now on this one, I'd agree that the article doesn't demonstrate notability. If there are valid secondary sources out there that can be added to improve the article, I'd say 'keep', but as it currently stands, I'd say Delete. English peasant, I've looked at WP:FOOTY/Notability, and I think it's a fantastic standard in terms of helping to determine what to include - in other words, it's a great starting point. For me, though, the opening sentence of that essay says it all - "Players are deemed notable if they meet any of the criteria below.". While they're deemed notable if they meet any of those criteria, that doesn't automatically mean that they're not notable if they don't. For determining that someone or something isn't notable, I think it's only reasonable to look beyond the project standards that define what to include, and onto the general community standards. Mlaffs (talk) 16:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        One projects guidelines don't override WP:BIO, which says that anyone is notable if there is media coverage independent of the subject. This player obviously meets that requirement - a cursory google finds [18], among others. --B (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While WP:ATHLETE is often cited as an exclusive reason for deletion, reading the section heading at Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria is instructional. quote Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included. Waving around WP:ATHLETE criteria as if notability established in normal ways (non-trivial coverage in multiple reputable sources) can be ignored is simply bad for the project. Neier (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no appearances in a fully pro league BanRay 09:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You may want to check out User:B/NCAA data. This is a list of articles that use the NCAA template - virtually all of them are US college athletes. Appearing in a fully pro league is not nor has ever been a requirement for an article to exist. Having reliable external sources of information is the ONLY requirement. WP:ATHLETE even says that amateurs about whom there are reliable sources of information are considered notable. --B (talk) 17:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it says that about competitors in amateur sports. Once again, football is a professional sport. Yes, it can be played at an amateur level, but that doesn't mean that there are "two levels" of the sport. It simply means that those who play at amateur level aren't good enough to play professionally. Wikipedia currently views such people as not notable. robwingfield ^«T•C» 18:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's an outrageous argument. Does the fact that Michael Beasley has not played a minute of professional basketball mean that he "isn't as good" as, say, Dominic McGuire? More significantly, does it make him "less notable" than McGuire? I don't know if you're an American or not, but you should remember that soccer players in particular are very wary of skipping college to play soccer (unless they move abroad at a young age, like Landon Donovan), simply because there isn't enough glamour and money in the sport to justify that - so like most basketball and football players, they go to college both as an insurance policy and to get media coverage that will give them a better chance of succeeding in the MLS. But this is all irrelevant, since WP:BIO talks only about how "notable" someone is, roughly comparable to how much significant media coverage a player receives. And high draft choices in the SuperDraft more than satisfy that requirement. ugen64 (talk) 20:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Aren't good enough"? Wow ... well, that may be true in some cases - there are definitely those who play at the amateur level of their sport because they aren't good enough to play at the professional level. There are also those who play at the amateur level because they aren't old enough yet to play at the professional level, due to age restrictions placed by the pro leagues, such as John Tavares. There are also those who play at the amateur level and complete their education before turning professional, such as Matt Leinart. Finally, there are those who compete at the amateur level because that's the primary level of competition in their sport, where the professional level is what you do after you retire from amateur competition, such as Sasha Cohen. Anyone fitting any of those categories could be considered notable if they have sufficient secondary sources, per WP:BIO. Regardless, I've said it before on the other Afds and I'll say it again - a league or a competition can be professional or amateur, a competitor can be professional or amateur, but practically every sport is competed at both levels. You cannot define an entire sport as one or the other unless it's impossible to compete in it at both levels. Mlaffs (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Do you enjoy having the same arguments week in and week out? It's beyond stupid to keep "some" MLS players and not "others". Since the president has already been set that the MLS players in the 2008 MLS Draft should stay (much to the chagrin of some power tripping people around here) the rest should stay and then sort the players out later. And yes, just because X doesn't mean Y, blah blah blah, but then again I think most of the people against this are from Europe and don't really know how the NCAA works. Shame. GauchoDude (talk) 09:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chance Myers[edit]

Contested PROD. Has not made an appearance in a fully professional league so fails WP:ATHLETE. robwingfield ^«T•C» 20:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. robwingfield ^«T•C» 20:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this player was the first overall pick in the MLS draft. He meets the WP:BIO requirement of external reliable sources [19][20][21][22]. It's a foregone conclusion that he is going to play - deleting it, then recreating it in 17 days (the Wizards have their first game on March 29) is pointless busy work. --B (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Notable as draft pick and even if not it's overly pedantic to delete it now just in case he somehow never gets a chance to play in two weeks. JJL (talk) 22:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the first overall pick in any American major league sport is going to receive far and away enough media coverage to meet WP:BIO. WP:ATHLETE is subordinate to WP:BIO, so it really doesn't matter. matt91486 (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - B, it would be great if you could the add the sourcing you're referencing in all these Afd discussions to the actual articles. It's not enough for those of us throwing their weight behind 'Keep' to know that these players are notable and that they satisfy WP:ATHLETE - their articles need to demonstrate notability, and a few of them are lacking in that regard without these external sources. Mlaffs (talk) 05:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per B. Maxa megalon 2000 17:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While WP:ATHLETE is often cited as an exclusive reason for deletion, reading the section heading at Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria is instructional. quote Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included. Waving around WP:ATHLETE criteria as if notability established in normal ways (non-trivial coverage in multiple reputable sources) can be ignored is simply bad for the project. Neier (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for reasons given by nominator. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ALEXANDER JOHN FRENCH VC[edit]

Duplication of John Alexander French; unlikely search term, no need to redirect. Carom (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; all it needs are sources. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 07:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keen Engineering[edit]

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP. Seems to be nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:CORP. ArcAngel (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced and unreferenced. Dreamspy (talk) 21:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above. Lady Galaxy 21:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, early leader in green architecture, numerous Google Books results (not just listings) such as Marketing Green Buildings and The Ecological Engineer. At the least, should redirect to Stantec Inc. of which it is now a subsidiary. --Dhartung | Talk 22:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep but needs cleaning up. Sources are there (per Dhartung). Plutonium27 (talk) 10:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability might be thin, but notability exists. Suggestions: thin out the 'timeline' stuff & introduce some pictures of the architecture they have done. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 11:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted. IrishGuy ^talk 21:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milton Brisson[edit]

Article fails WP:BIO Hu12 (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not only does it fail WP:BIO, but it also has no references or external links. K im u 19:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Possible Hoax. Renee (talk) 19:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 (or WP:CSD#G3 based on previous edits [23][24]). --Pixelface (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 07:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Slater[edit]

Unremarkable male porn star; completely lacking in encyclopedic notability. bd2412 T 19:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable. Renee (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not referenced and not notable. Lady Galaxy 21:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he's noteable enough —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitplane01 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax about folder named CON in windows operating system[edit]

Original research essay about some programming bug. Not remotely notable. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if the article was to be rescued (aside from the notability issue) it would need a new title and wholly rewritten text i.e. a new article on a different (but related) subject. Nick Connolly (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N and full of WP:OR. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails WP:N ArcAngel (talk) 19:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable. Renee (talk) 19:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The author seems to be undecided as to whether this thing is a hoax or not. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 20:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but I suppose it[25] could be mentioned in the Microsoft Windows article. --Pixelface (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research and not notable at this time. Shell ^babelfish 22:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably like everyone here tried it and I couldn't create a folder but beside that not worthy of an article per WP:N.--BigDunc (talk) 22:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, chain e-mail demonstrating misunderstanding of reserved words is not itself notable. If this were reliably sourced, perhaps a mention in another article; there's something close at LPT#Naming. --Dhartung | Talk 22:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Stephen[edit]

Non-notable junior Canadian badminton player. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that you should allow for more content to be added to the Alex Stephen page before you make your judgment because I don't believe you know anything about him. Zachzmuda

Delete. No sources, non-notable. Renee (talk) 19:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as being unsourced so fails WP:N. Article could be construed as original research. Junior badminton players generally aren't notable IMHO. ArcAngel (talk) 19:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, delete it you bunch of wikipedia nerds... if you let the article build you'd realize that he is a legend... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachzmuda (talk • contribs) 20:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Zachzmuda (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 21:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are a bunch of dicks... Alex Stephen is a godsend... he's pretty much the best thing to happen to organized sport since... Gretzky (who by the way has three wiki pages). I once watched alex get three girls pregnant at the same time. Eat your heart out Wayne.

I have known Alex Stephen for almost 15 years. He is 3 year Ontario Badminton Champion and a 3 year national badminton finalist. He is well known in the badminton communnity. Maybe badminton isn't the most important sport to you, but that doesn't mean you can't still respect it. Secondly he is a well known person in the community. He has worked had various successful companies and has been a great asset. It is upsetting that you would want to delete such a great leader in the community. "Think of the Children (in badminton)" he is a legend to them and you want to crush their hopes and dreams, how could you do that to the children! I hope that you will reconsider! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayden.davies (talk • contribs) 21:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Hayden.davies (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 21:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sheffield Steel why does it matter if we have not edited a lot of stuff on wikipedia. This is a topic that we feel will help grow wikipedia. Why don't you post your opinion instead of hiding behind your useless contributions above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachzmuda (talk • contribs) 22:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously humorous attempt at a Keep. I applaud the effort no matter how misguided. Golgofrinchian (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 03:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, unreferenced. A quick google search as well, brought up badminton canada results and he in 2004/2005 he was 49th out of 69, and then in the doubles 28th out of 42[26]. Nothing notable. --Borgarde^talk 06:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability, no reliable sources, fails wp:athlete. This looks much like a snowball in the making. Mstuczynski (talk) 08:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah the anguish. Delete as Useless Contribution per zachzmuda Plutonium27 (talk) 10:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per zachzmuda. -- Alexf⁴² 21:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Air Gumbo[edit]

This article appears to have been imported from a directory of proposed airlines. The company was supposedly started in 1998, has news on its website going back to early 2003, but has yet to make a single flight. The only cited source is Flight International's directory, I am unable to find any sources which are independent of the company or its press releases. Is it really a surprise that an article on Air Gumbo turns out to be a bit... fishy? Guy (Help!) 18:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Little notability, only one outside source, more needed if article is kept. Is there a stench here? Where's the tackle box and worms? Dusti^{talk to me} 18:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like another airline venture which is never getting off the ground. Can always be revived if there ends up being any there, there. FCYTravis (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The "company" website and a directory listing are nowhere near adequate for WP:CORP. Mr.Z-man 19:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:CORP. ArcAngel (talk) 20:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 03:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cdnetworks[edit]

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Cdnetworks. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk)

Delete No other edits than by the editor, single use account. Almost qualifies as an Ad. Dusti^{talk to me} 18:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC) see change of mind below [reply]
Keep, the company is listed on KOSDAQ and appears to be notable based on the Reuters article. It's supposedly the #3 content delivery network in the world. --Pixelface (talk) 19:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it appears to be a market leader in whatever it does. This page resulted from an edit war with Grinsandfun (talk · contribs), who is now banned for 31 hours. So that is bad, he was promoting the company, adding his red wikilink on two pages, Streaming media‎ and Content delivery network‎. He even deleted another company's wikilink from one of those pages. Definitely a bad player. Went to 3 reversions and he was out. But just before that he did come up with a verifiable source that it's a notable company (Reuters). So unfortunately, I think it's a KEEP. I told him to create the page. He did a bad job at that, all advertising, so I fixed it with a minimal stub, single-sourced. I have no connection with any company in the field, no interest in the matter at all. Colfer2 (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sourced, notable, and has at least a minimal amount of encyclopedic content, however messy. Wikidemo (talk) 21:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for the reasons above, but should be moved to CDNetworks. — brighterorange (talk) 01:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with that move idea. If you do, could someone make sure that the backlink on Image:CDNetworks Logo.gif gets updated before Betacommandbot barks at it? -- RoninBK _{T C} 05:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep After seeing what happened above, I am changing to a weak keep. Even though the article may be poorly written, it has a chance. There is one source, so it now is sourced. Though written like an ad, that can be, and maybe already has been, fixed. Dusti^{talk to me} 15:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've given it my own once-over, article is now at least on-par with the other CDN articles. I agree that this article's birth was a bit dodgy, but the article is definitely notable. -- RoninBK _{T C} 06:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 07:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of professional wrestling stables and tag teams[edit]

It doesn't define how long two people need to team together to be considered a "tag team" and more-or-less just reiterates what is already located in the various sub-cats of Category:Professional wrestling teams and stables. Listcruft. Nikki311 18:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki311 18:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - isn't useful, and is basically list cruft. Pointless article. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 18:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Useless information that doesn't belong here. Article just well, rambles on about nothing. Dusti^{talk to me} 18:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not useful information. ArcAngel (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, lists and categories are not mutually exclusive. --Pixelface (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Per nom, the article is list cruft. Nothing about a tag team itself, just lists of teams, some who have teamed only once.--TrU Co -X 20:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; Is non-notable cruft. –Cheers, L A X 20:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; the article seems a bit trivial. Zenlax ^T ^C ^S 20:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I despise "professional wrestling" but a great deal of effort went into this list. I am sure it is useful to someone that is doing a doctoral thesis on some team thing in this "sport". The author should write an article at the top that explains the tag thing and what it means to us laymen. Golgofrinchian (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Amount of effort put into an article is not a reason to keep it. Also, your comment didn't need to contain your personal opinions on professional wrestling. Nikki311 01:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my sarcastic tone of my post. Golgofrinchian (talk) 02:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete There is an appropriate way for this list to be presented, this however is not it. Any two wrestlers who happen to be thrown together one week could theoretically make this list, which makes this list largely indiscriminate, and unmaintainable. If this list were to be culled to only reflect the pairings which are otherwise notable, (title winners, or those already with articles, and included background information as Golgofrinchian indicated, then it could probably stay. -- RoninBK _{T C} 03:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete.. Rjd0060 (talk) 00:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Macaco de perigo[edit]

This is definitely a category unknown. From the photos in the article, these signs exist but there's no information under Macaco de Perigo or Mo nkey Monkey other than wiki mirrors. Non-notable graffiti apparently? TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete original research and probably unsourceable until somebody external to Wikipedia makes a study of this particular tag. Graffitti can be notable, but... Nick Connolly (talk) 18:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced and probably original research. Dusti^{talk to me} 18:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While fascinating, I can't establish notability without sources, which seem to be nonexistant. Consider me a Keep if we do locate independent sources or data. I'm also sorting this as Transportation, since it's related to roadway signage. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 19:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hilarious until someone gets hurt. OH, and Delete, for reasons well stated above by nom and others. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teebeedee[edit]

Seems unnotible - declided speedy deletion for spam, but no references other than it's own site that I can see. RT | Talk 18:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced, fails NPOV, poorly written, almost qualifies as an Ad. Can I place my grandparents here :) Dusti^{talk to me} 18:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-referential apparent dead-end Plutonium27 (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N and WP:WEB. Gary King (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability requirements, could almost be deleted as advertising. Shell ^babelfish 22:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Canley (talk) 13:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gilera SMT[edit]

Apparently non-notable moped. I read Italian, they're not reviews of the product or highlighting any notability. I'd expect far more reviews of a notable moped. There are a handful of reviews in the English and Italian ghits but they're customer driven and no RS coverage. Note the speedy was declined because this is apparently not blatant advertising but I'm not sure what else to call an 'article' that's nothing but product specs for a seemingly nn moped. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 12:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Descriptive article about a distinctive moped model. this sort of subjec is usually considered notable. Article may needs additional refs, but not deletion.DGG (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It should probably stay. Chri$topher —Preceding comment was added at 18:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nice HEY. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 07:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian picardi[edit]

This was already deleted under Adrian Picardi (around 10 days ago as "not yet notable"). Right now, it is a mess of WP:CRYSTAL ("securing a spot as one of the young and prominent, up and coming filmmakers in the industry."), WP:POV ("makes them extremely commercially appealing in the visual sense."), and says he's made very few materials (in 2007). I see lack of reliable sources (MySpace, and Memelabs). His current production is up for speedy deletion. Doing a search, all I can find is a mess of Myspace, personal profiles, and other sites that aren't too reliable. Soxred93 | talk bot 05:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not yet notable. If it's just a recreation of a properly deleted article then surely this one can be speedied? Alberon (talk) 09:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a re-creation of a speedily deleted article; it can't be speedily deleted as a re-creation - it must meet the criteria on its own. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 11:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
??i've moved the article to Adrian Picardi. --Tikiwont (talk) 14:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, re-creation.....why hasn't it been speedied? Dusti^{talk to me} 18:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY - it appears to have been fixed up, a lot. Bearian (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has several reliable sources, and some that are less so (IMdB, for example); he's gotten a film into a major film fest; he's won an award. That's enough for me. Bearian (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 00:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deafax[edit]

Page source reads "All information has been freely given by Deafax please e-mail for verification info@deafax.org". I think this page was written by a Deafax employee. Only one spurious source and no claim to notability. Shii (tock) 18:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is almost like an advertisement. Lists no sources. Dusti^{talk to me} 18:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Looks like an ad. Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 03:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of my HI resources have scraped up anything to source. Plutonium27 (talk) 10:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Does important research on deaf technologies. Karenonthames (talk) 12:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Above is user's only edit.—Chowbok ☠ 04:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent media mentions that I can find, Google News Search turns up empty.—Chowbok ☠ 04:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as no evidence has been produced that he currently meets the relevant notability guidelines - WP:BIO. Davewild (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noah lemas[edit]

Non-notable biography. The subject seems to be a local businessman/entrepreneur who will be running for a seat in the United States House of Representatives. As of the time of this nomination, a Google search on "Noah Lemas" returns 44 hits, none of them anything more than personal/professional profiles and something to do with a local baseball team. If he does get elected to the House, he may deserve an article then but not only as a potential candidate. Too tangential. SWik78 (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When one states directly that something is "too tangetial," (sic) they should think first about spelling and then about definition. This article is not tangential, it is of direct relevance to Oregon's 2nd congressional district race and to its major party candidates. Is this deletion for the sake of deletion? OregonChange (talk)12:00 pm, PST, March 12, 2008.

Comment No, the purpose of this debate is not deletion for the sake of deletion. I do apologize if a missing letter n made you completely confused as to the purpose of the debate or even what I was trying to say so I went ahead and fixed it. Thanks for the friendly reminder. The Wikipedia notability criteria for politicians states the following: Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such a person may be notable for other reasons besides their political careers alone. In my opinion, as I understant that particular policy, the subject of this article, which I assume is yourself (perhaps incorrectly), does not qualify as a notable politician. I hope that answers your question. SWik78 (talk) 19:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I understand the importance of proper spelling. I know I would be confused reading an argument about something that was of relevance to a congressional district race and two its major party candidates. It's good that it got fixed before it could confuse people. SWik78 (talk) 19:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the measure of notability is the result of Google searches, why even have Wikipedia? Google can stand on its own. Incidentally, delete if you deem necessary, but the media coverage of this candidate begins tomorrow morning. "Notability" is relevant and the rather vague definition of Bio rules as established by Wikipedia certainly does little to more clearly define it. And, again, as can be seen readily on Wikipedia[27], the "rules" are rather arbitrarily enforced. And I mention the missing 'n' only because I expect more of someone who, implicity, is detail oriented. If one of your primary hobbies is sitting around and looking to delete entries, you would think there would be enough detail orientation to avoid simple spelling mistakes while attempting to hang your hat on multi-syllabic words. You chose the word "tangential" in order to convey a certain sophistication so that your opinion would be deemed more valid. By butchering the word (I appreciate your having fixed it already), we are easily reminded that one big word does not an intellect make. As nit-picking hobbyist, it would seem in your best interest to pick nits more carefully. Rant ended. OregonChange (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - probably political spam. Not notable until elected to an office, if then. Until then this person does not meet WP:BIO. A similar current deletion debate is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Myers. Wikipedia is not a voter pamphlet or a soapbox. -IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No claim to notability. Dreamspy (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice against re-creation of evidence of substantial coverage in third party reliable sources is provided - so far, nothing. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:N. Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 03:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources to back up any of these claims. No indication of any significant press coverage, or any coverage whatsoever. Politicians running for Congress are not notable merely by running for office. A candidate in a party primary is still a face in the crowd. Nothing to show that this isn't the case here. The article looks like a cut-and paste of the candidate's official bio. The article's author's name and contributions to date indicate a SPA with ties to the subject's campaign. Wikipedia is not a place to conduct your campaign. DarkAudit (talk) 13:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps an article focusing on the 2008 race for the Oregon 2nd district would be more notable? Such an article would be less focused on Mr. Lemas' biography, and more on issues that he is planning on discussing in the race, the state of financing of the candidates, the relatively late filing of opposing candidates, etc. -Yokem55 (talk) 16:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TriMicSlots[edit]

Contested PROD. No sources to assert notability, substantiate claims, or even prove it's existence. DarkAudit (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to break WP:PERNOM, but my only opinion for now is Delete per nom, since DarkAudit has made several good points against the article. Two One Six Five Five ^τ_ʃ 18:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, notablitiy, and very little information to support the article to cover all aspects of the subject. Dusti^{talk to me} 18:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dreamspy (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The game was banned because it was too addictive? Nominator has made several good points to delete, the only thing I can add is that it's a possible hoax due to the addiction and ban statements. SWik78 (talk) 16:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing to show that the game that was "banned" ever existed, either. The links go to slot machines and arcade games, but that's it. DarkAudit (talk) 16:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 reason to delete given. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 14:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreleased Material by Britney Spears[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Reason the page should be deleted Thankssir (talk) 02:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankssir why are you trying to delete this article? I worked very hard on it and I see that you must be upset over when "Luv The Hurt Away" leaked? No fans knew about the song before it leaked in 2006, I don't see why you're making a big issue out of it. I'm trying to put only the most accurate information on it. There isn't a reason to delete the entire page because of this, it's ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.44.12.3 (talk) 03:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Close No argument for deletion is presented. Yng varr 12:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I left a notice on the nominator's page informing him/her to provide a reason. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 13:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ouat (korean musical groups)[edit]

Non-notable music group that fails WP:MUSIC guidelines for inclusion in wikipedia. Searching reveals nothing substantial apart from trivial mentions/unreliable sources [28], [29], [30] Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 17:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 17:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 17:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, users at kowiki also can't verify the Korean version of this article either, see the AfD discussion ko:위키백과:삭제 토론/Ouat. cab (talk) 01:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Impressive discog, but nothing notable about it. Undeath (talk) 04:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. To spend this much time discussing the minutiae of interpretation of a supplemental notability guideline (that is, one intended to make the determination of notability easier than the general notability guideline), seems quite silly. Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Athletes is not intended to be another hurdle that an article must pass to be considered notable. It is intended to be a shortcut to otherwise having to prove-out references according to WP:N. Since the guideline fails us in this case, as it makes it much harder, we must put it aside and get back to the general guideline. That would be the whole bit about the subject having been the subject of a substantial depth of coverage published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject, or non-trivial coverage of less substantial depth in multiple such sources. So all we needed to find was multiple independent reliable sources backing up reasonable assertions of importance or significance of the subject. As this discussion failed to yield same, and extraordinary efforts to make it fit WP:ATHLETE obviously failed, my decision is therefore to delete the article. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rhys Archard[edit]

Pro footballer for a single-season; doesn't seem to meet notability requirements. I'm not an expert in aussie football by any means though, so I'm deferring this to AfD in case I'm missing something here. Shell ^babelfish 17:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep played at the highest level of his sport (Wikipedia:BIO#Athletes). JJL (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 02:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You might be missing the bit of WP:BIO#Athletes about playing in a professional league (the Australian Football League). Association football players are often kept on AfD for playing one match for a professional team (likewise, they're often deleted if they've signed but not played a match). I think most Australians would agree that any AFL footballer who had played a whole season is notable enough for inclusion. Weak delete Shows how much I know about AFL (not much at all)! --Canley (talk) 03:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets BIO. Twenty Years 05:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As far as I can tell, never played in any senior games per [31]. If there's better information than that then it should be added to the article as a reference. Even if non-notable, we might keep a rookie's article if there was a likelihood that he was going to be promoted as it would be silly to remove his article prematurely. Archard has apparently retired without that happening. The article is a sub-stub and has zero chance of being expanded. —Moondyne click! 06:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC) See below.[reply]
Delete From the references I've checked, he never made a league appearance in the AFL. In 2007, he was a "rookie" squad member of AFL team Adelaide but did not play a league game. The rest of his football career has been outside the highest level, in regional country football with Echuca, then in the SANFL. He hasn't actually played at the highest level of the sport, hence would appear to fail WP:BIO#Athletes. In this regard, existing articles for fellow Adelaide "rookies" James Turner and Greg Gallman would also appear to be suspect. Murtoa (talk) 06:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well if he's played in the SANFL, he may be actually be notable. We have lots of good articles on WAFL/SANFL (non-AFL) players. Do you know for whom and when and if there's a reference? —Moondyne click! 07:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC) He appears to have played for both North and South Adelaide in the SANFL, and got 1 vote in the 2007 Magarey Medal count.[32] He also got named in the Adelaide Advertiser's 2006 "SANFL team of the year". He was 2006 Club Champion for SAFC.[33]. Sorry to stuff you all around. Article is now slightly expanded with some references. I'm changing to Keep. —Moondyne click! 07:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think a distinction should be made between SANFL players pre and post 1990. Since the advent of SA-based clubs in the AFL (ie. post 1990) it can't be argued that a SANFL player has played at the highest level, and therefore meeting WP:BIO#Athletes. Before 1990 (and particularly thinking pre-1980 when it was rare for SA players to move interstate), for many SA players, playing in the SANFL was the highest level that they aspired to. These days you could argue that being picked for the "SANFL team of the year" is merely confirmation that you've not been good enough to make the highest grade (ie. AFL) in that year. Murtoa (talk) 12:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps compare them with cricketers. State first-class cricketers are notable per WP:CRIN, a level below Test and ODI cricketers, the highest level of cricket. The SANFL and WAFL competitions are a bit like the interstate Pura Cup and Ford Ranger tournaments, a level below AFL. Sadly, the WP:AFL project has never gotten around to writing a notability guideline. —Moondyne click! 13:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - On the other hand, state cricketers play in the national competition, while SANFL, WAFL and VFL players only play in a state competition, unless you want to count playing in a State of Origin match, or they're picked up for the AFL. - Bilby (talk) 03:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Fails the "playing at the highest" level test but has some significant articles (I've added two ) written primarily about him. Very borderline but I think, given that he seems to have given Footy away. There is unlikely to be enough to write a verifyable and neutral article. A good comparison is Paul Scoullar who played at the top of the SANFL, in numerous premiership teams, was far more significant to and successful in the sport than Archard...but is not written about enough to be notable - Peripitus (Talk) 00:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Long Island Sound link. Articles look very similar so any merging can happen from history - Peripitus (Talk) 11:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Long Island Crossing[edit]

A virtual clone of this article was created at Long Island Sound link due to a minor process snafu. The new article looks better written, and probably has a better name too. I suggest the best way to fix this would be to have this article be deleted and turned into a redirect to the new one. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never knew about the article until today. I still say if there's going to be a change, relocate this one to the other. ----DanTD (talk) 19:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect this to the other article. No deletion needed to do that. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I've screwed up a few times this way, for example accidentally creating an Andrew Haskell Green article due to misspelling, or found where others made similar mistakes. Such a minor error is a non controversial matter and normally solved by merger. Deletion is supposed to kill the article without trace, a drastic action not needed here. And darn it, I worked a little on this article, and now the new one created by mistake turns out to be better written. So, what the heck, I don't see that one name is better than the other. Cancel the Afd and use the article talk pages to discusss the details of the merger. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The other article provides a better view on the subject. Dough4872 (talk) 22:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Morven. Had I known that this article existed, I would have edited it, then proposed a move. At any rate the page history should be preserved. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 23:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's the procedure to cancel a deletion notice? Clearly the consensus is, merge, not delete. Jim.henderson (talk) 03:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. There is a consensus below to keep the content. Though there is some support for a merge there is not a consensus as to an appropriate target. Further discussion, on the appropriate talk pages, is needed. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia (terminology)[edit]

I'm just not sure this is necessary in the main namespace. There's nothing to suggest that the mere terminology passes the general notability guideline - multiple reliable non-trivial published sources covering just the terminology in detail? Also, either this article is at the wrong title, or there are lots of irrelevant examples, because there are many wikis discussed in this article that are not Wikipedia. Perhaps a better title would have been Wiki- and -pedia (terminology). As I said, I just don't think this page is necessary. Another possibility is to compress and merge this information to wiki, which I think could work well, but equally I think deletion is plausible. I understand that this article was created due to the perceived need for it, but personally, I think we don't need a seperate page for this. I'm merely considering this for deletion, and am willing to see what people think so that their views might change mine on this - it's not an outright "I want this deleted now". h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if you think a merge is a possibility, you should start a merge discussion before listing it for deletion. --Pixelface (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although the name is just wrong. History of the name Wikipedia? List of Wikipedia-related names? It should probably be explicitly a List. --Dhartung | Talk 22:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge somewhere. Yes, our the terminology is confusing, but I'm not sure if this is the best way of explaining things. Perhaps... (a crazy idea...) add a diagram to Wiki/Wikipedia/Wikimedia Foundation/etc? The thing is explained in prose form in various articles, we don't have a diagram yet =) (only half-joking) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content into Wikipedia, Wiki and List of wikis as appropriate, then delete or redirect. I agree that this article is superfluous, and its content would fit quite comfortably into other articles. Vl'hurg ^talk 19:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of wikis. Most if not all of the content to be merged into the other articles already exists in those articles. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 12:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere - the information might be useful.--Kozuch (talk) 22:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Redirect or Merge- as a new Wikipedian I've been turning to this page a lot for direction. This is probably where a lot of newbies will end up as they try to figure out what is going on here. IMHO, I seems unwise to have this page be deleted. --Booksellergirl (talk) 13:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think it's pretty much agreed deletion is not the answer. Deletion is mostly for things that have to die, not for articles that are misnamed or duplicative. Better to cancel the deletion and discuss the questions of move, merge, whatever, on its talk page. Jim.henderson (talk) 03:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Blatant copyright infringement. _GB^T/C 20:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Window Box Gallery[edit]

No assertion of notability; external links (and Google hits) are limited to business listings and even Google News only knows about it because it sells tickets to events. 9Nak (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyvio, cut'n'pasted directly from gallery's own website and its descriptions on other lists of galleries (which are directly linked from the article for Corebot convenience), as with all pages created by User:Jpll85. DMacks (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, notability has not been established as per the general notability guideline - WP:NOTE. Davewild (talk) 20:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GRkbd[edit]

Neither Greek nor English sources demonstrate any notability of this software which has been defunct for 7+ years. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability for this software. JJL (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)" this article clearly doesn't meet this criteria. K im u 17:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Camp McFadden[edit]

Taking this to AFD after a prod was removed without addressing the problems. Original prod message was: "The three references on the article only mention the camp in passing or are published by the camp itself; further searches for reliable secondary sources brings up nothing. Fails WP:CORP}". I still can't find any sources that indicate this camp is notable for anything. PirateMink 09:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)))[reply]

Delete non notable organization. --Strothra (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This AFD was never listed. It runs from this timestamp: —Random832 02:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Its a summer camp. It has summer camp facilities, and people there do summer camp things. Without any substantial WP:Reliable sources independant of the camp or its associated organisations, which can be used to WP:Verify the information in the article and demonstrate the notability and importance above and beyond the average summer camp, there's not much that can be done here. -- saberwyn 23:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Carlsson[edit]

Non notable character. The only reliable source cited just that she is appearing in a album by Lars Winnerbäck , the source is a "Official Hompage" without relevant content. per WP:Bio Wiki-nightmare (talk) 16:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Well, delete per criteria number seven. K im u 17:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 16:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 16:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete As per above. Lady Galaxy 21:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was history merge to Museum of Illumination and Heating Appliances, leaving redirect from native-language original. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aydınlatma ve Isıtma Araçları Müzesi[edit]

I prodded this article because: The page Museum of Illumination and Heating Appliances was a redirect. I copied the contents of this page to the other page. The article name should be in english. I tried to add this reason to the Prod template, but it isn't showing up. I tried to prod the article but the reason wasn't showing up for some reason so I put the reasoning on the article's talk page. The prod was removed without the person removing it checking the talk page. Rockfang (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to the deletion; I'd created it with the Turkish title because at teh tme I thought that was standard; here in BC we use, for instance, native-language names as opposed to their English forms - Skwxwu7mesh vs Squamish. I'd visited this museum and noted it was missing from teh Istanbul page/categories so added it....Skookum1 (talk) 16:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move over Museum of Illumination and Heating Appliances to preserve history under the GFDL. (See Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves for more information on why we should do it this way.) No objection to a native-language redirect. --Dhartung | Talk 22:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 current article fails the notability guideline - Wikipedia:Notability (books) and the article appears to be mostly original research anyway. Davewild (talk) 22:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pot of Gold (book)[edit]

Is this a notable book? Nothing in the article indicated that it is. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete willing to change my nomination if anyone can find how it fits into Book notibility guidelines, but I was unable to find anything.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per number one. K im u 16:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- well, it's not hopeless; it does meet the threshold standards of wikipedia:Notability (books) -- it's cataloged at the British Library and is held by 38 libraries according to WorldCat. However, it seems like a not-particularly widely known work, probably not too notable by most standards. I haven't gone looking for reviews yet. Confusingly, there's a novel also called Pot of Gold by Judith Michael which is much better known. At the very least, the "reader review" section belongs on Amazon, not here. -- phoebe/(talk) 06:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Phoebe makes valid points for inclusion but without the OR 'reader review' section, the article is two non-notable lines. wp:snow seems to have the answer here. Mystache (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus to delete (default keep). Interested editors may continue the discussion of possible merging, elsewhere. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jael Strauss[edit]

She's a non-notable losing contestant on a reality show. Jael has done very little modelling since the show other than a few test shots, and she really hasn't done anything since the end of her season.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Please also note that although I tried to speedy these pages, other people disagreed and removed the notice, even though all these pages have been deleted previously. SKS2K6 (talk) 06:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for all 3. I personally added both Bianca and Jael. and I think that while the 3 women nominated here might not be as famous as Jaslene or Caridee, they all belong here. Anchal: She was CoverGirl of the Week twice, she was the only girl from her Cycle to appear on celebrations for Cycle 10 (the Tyra Show) and she still has strong fandom to this day. Jael: She was the most memorable contestant of her cycle (makeover meltdown, fight with 50 Cent, friend who died of a overdose). She was once CoverGirl of the Week and got one first call-out. She has also appeared on ANTM Exposed, the Tyra Show, ANTM Cycle 10 and is about to start a clothing line. There has also been controversy about nude underage pictures. the fact that her friend died has also led her to speak up about drug issues. Bianca: Like Jael, very memorable contestant, has appeared on ANTM Exposed, the Tyra Show, won one challenge. she has modelled for Project Runway and is about to be on BET's Rip the Runway Show. That's why I would keep those. Siemgi (talk • contribs) 00:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 15:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All three articles fail to give any information about the models outside of "this is a summery of the shows, and now they still model in the following citys", Secondary sources are scarce, and they read like a fansite. The comments from the creator back this up, they all are just models and doing model stuff which includes appearances but not notable actions.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could this information be merged and redirected to the article on the season each person was a contestant in, or a subarticle of the series or the season dealing specifically with the contestants? -- saberwyn 23:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to appropriate cycle article -- Whpq (talk) 14:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - David Gerard (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Although there are ideas to merge, they have been speficially refuted as not needed, as most of this article is WP:OR. That doesn't mean the parent article couldn't be improved though. Sea Duck (Tale Spin) is an unlikely redirect, but Sea Duck is a valid one, and will now redirect to the parent article. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sea Duck (Tale Spin)[edit]

I loved the TV show TaleSpin, but come now, an article on the Sea Duck? It establishes no notability through reliable sources, and is an in-universe plot repetition that is already covered in the TalesSpin articles plot section. This is therefore duplicative and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into TaleSpin. Articles that can be merged should not be nominated for deletion. Stop wasting everyone's time. --Pixelface (talk) 15:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- hint for newbies, don't nominate articles for deletion for fun and ruin weeks of good work, its notable in my opinion anyway. AndreNatas (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions are not relevant, the article needs to assert notability through multiple reliable sources, not guesswork. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hint for everyone, don't randomly throw out the phrase "good work" in a desperate attempt to save an article you like. JuJube (talk) 06:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remember this show... I loved this show, mainly because of the Sea Duck. However, this article on the Sea Duck has two problems. Half of it is plot details already and better reproduced elsewhere, as mentioned above. The other half is one person's fan speculation about what humanworld aircraft components would need to be strapped together for an approximation of the TaleSpinworld "Conwing L-16": great for animation-fan kitbashers. However, with no WP:reliable sources to verify the information in the article or elaborate on the fictional aircraft's importance beyond the cartoon. I would suggest a delete or redirect without merge to the article on the cartoon. Also, Sea Duck redirects here, but would be better redirected to the TaleSpin article as well. -- saberwyn 22:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to go with Saberwyn's logic as it pretty much mirrors my own thoughts on the topic. My !vote would be Redirect without merge as there's not much non-original research here worth merging. JuJube (talk) 06:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - there's nothing here really to merge that isn't already in the main article -- Whpq (talk) 14:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Tale Spin as a sub-section and redirect to that section? I know it probably doesn't have enough information and notability to stand on its own, but the plane is a fairly prominent part of the show. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 22:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Redirecting to Tail Spin doesn't make sense if there's no merged content because you'd have to type "Tail Spin" anyway to search for it. Since the article already duplicates content from the main article, merging is pointless. Jay32183 (talk) 01:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - per nominator's reasoning. Nothing valid here to merge. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to agree with Jay. With Wikipedia:NOR pulled out there is nothing to merge and the likelihood of someone typing "Sea Duck (Tale Spin)" is slim. Dimitrii (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Haemo (talk) 05:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oucho the Cactus[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Previously nominated for AfD, but held purely due to the injunction, which has now lifted, thus I am re-nominating this with the same rationale as last time, by Realkyhick - "Contested prod. Non-notable fictional character, doesn't merit stand-alone article. No sources aside from CBBC web site generic link. Borders on fancruft". _Talk Islander 15:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Ed Petrie. --Pixelface (talk) 16:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sticking with my original !vote of merge and redirect on the first AfD. I don't know if there's enough info otherwise. Somebody want to change my mind here? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 00:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard United Nations simulations[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Harvard United Nations simulations

Looks like three nn orgs melded into one article. Speedy contested by editor. Mystache (talk) 15:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, looks like an okay sub-article of Model UN. --Pixelface (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not very notable. We already have a Model UN article. 70.55.84.89 (talk) 05:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, merging the three stubs together is an attempt to make a single better article. Bearian (talk) 18:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, these three stubs were "melded into one" as the result of a previous AfD where it was decided that they didn't merit there own articles, but were notable enough to have a combined article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harvard Model United Nations. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, considered closing as a no consensus but considering the sources identified at the end of the debate feel these sources go a long way towards satisfying the concerns of many of the delete opinions especially as a no consensus would default to keep anyway. However please add these sources to the article which does have an overlong plot summary compared to the rest of the article. Davewild (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Superman/Shazam: First Thunder[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Superman/Shazam: First Thunder

No content except for a long summary of the plot of this four-issue comic book miniseries. Don't really believe this is notable to stand on its own as an article. FuriousFreddy (talk) 01:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No real-world notability established and WP:NOT#OR. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summaries aren't OR unless they draw conclusions or make speculations about the primary source. However, Wikipedia is not meant to be a substitute for the source material, so the article should definitely be condensed. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 02:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable artist: Joshua Middleton and writer: Judd Winick. Notable enough for a paperback reprint. Some review attention: Here and here and here, among others. Not a major event in the history of comics publishing, but notable enough in my opinion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What notablility does this have in the real world other than "it existed?" Virtually every comic that comes out is reviewed; that doesn't mean they all deserve Wikipedia articles. Being produced by a "notable" artist and writer doesn't inherently make the comic notable. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 23:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to failure to meet WP:NOTE. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 17:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 08:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agreed with TreasuryTag that this article fails to meet WP:NOTE. Cubzrule (talk)
Keep or Merge with Captain Marvel (DC Comics). This is a mini-series featuring very notable characters published by a major comic book company. It has secondary sources as listed above. Granted, they're not the most prestigious reviewers, but it could be considered significant coverage. The plot summary aspect of the article is rather horrific, but that should be addressed by editing, not by deletion. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 02:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is every Superman comic book inherently notable because Superman is in it? And what content here would be merged to the Captain Marvel article? Redirect, fine, but merging? --FuriousFreddy (talk) 04:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amend that to "comic book series" and I would say yes, actually. I also feel that all comic book series published by the two major American publishers, Marvel and DC, are also notable. I feel that this is akin to the notability of all television series produced by the three major American networks. I recognize that not everyone agrees with this. However, there is no specific notability guideline for WikiProject Comics, so the consensus is hashed out on a case-by-case basis.

As far as merging content, this series outlined the "origin" of how these two characters first met in the fictional DC universe, so I think this could reasonably be mentioned in the Captain Marvel article. It might be of interest as the character belonged to another shared universe prior to its acquisition by DC. On the other hand, I'd be loathe to put it in the Superman article as that article has already had to be split several times. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 05:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's already mentioned in the Captain Marvel article. And while the comics project may not have specific guidelines for notability, Wikipedia in general does have specific guidelines for dealing with fictitious works. And not every comic (series) is inherently notable because it exists and was published by Marvel or DC. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - multiple reviews of the storyline, in addition to the quick list above, satisfies notabilty. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As it stands, the article has way too much information on the plot, and almost nothing on non-fictional information. I may be willing to change to keep if more sources can be added to the article and more encyclopedic information can be added. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 14:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a miniseries with Superman and Captain Marvel is notable in my opinion. --Pixelface (talk) 14:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh-huh, you do realize we base these decision on guideline/policies and not your person opinion? TJ Spyke 14:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to indicate what makes this miniseries notable. TJ Spyke 14:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete Well, this really sould be merged with Superman and captain marvel, as it appears to be notable enough to be on here; but I don't think it should have it's own article. K im u 18:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's noteable enough. Series of this sort are usually notable. a keep or delete shouldn't depend on the present state ofthe article, if more or less content of some sort is needed, the solution is editing. DGG (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it should be judged by its sources, which are wanting. Blast Ulna (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep here's another RS. [34] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) And a subscription only ref. [35] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think we can drum up more information on this. I did some quick nosing around and found: Interviews with artist [36] [37]. At Comic Book Resources: "This will probably go down as the best modern characterization of Billy Batson" [38], sales: #2 (28) [39], #3 (28) [40] and #4 (50) - trade (#19) [41]. I'm sure we can dig up more information and flesh it out with thoughts from the creators and a reception section for reviews, sales, etc. (Emperor (talk) 03:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Charmed family and friends#Samuel Wilder --- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Wilder[edit]

Charmed IS my favorite non-animated show, believe me. And I do believe that most characters deserve their articles, believe that also. I also believe that Sam isn't notable since he has only been in three episodes. I say ~~delete~~ and remove him from the list of recurring characters from the Charmed articles. Three episodes, that's hardly recurring. Maybe redirect him to one of the lists of Charmed characters, but I highly doubt three episodes is enough to get him his own article. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 14:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 14:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 14:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any mergeable information into List of Charmed family and friends#Samuel Wilder. --Pixelface (talk) 14:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vanquish, err, Delete per Pixelface. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 15:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You may want to read what "per" means in deletion discussions. --Pixelface (talk) 16:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Satisfactory? — Huntster (t • @ • c) 06:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Could you mind explaining why you striked out your vote? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's well written, and he's a noteable character on an important TV show —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitplane01 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how three episodes makes him notable. Being part of a famous work is never a good reason. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 22:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the main points about the character into the character list that Pixelface provided. The only sources are the episodes themselves. If the character has only been in 3 episodes then it's probably unlikely any substantial third party sources will be found. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that, the entry in the list is probably good enough already. This article can just be deleted. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the list., as that would be a better idea. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Addhoc (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeygopi Panisilvam[edit]

Fairly obvious hoax/nonsense. Apparently he was born in 1933, was killed in 1948, but became leader of his tribe in 1956, after it had dissolved in 1947. Google, Google books, Google Scholar and Google News (since forever) all turn up a blank for his name. The tribes mentioned don't seem to exist either. There is a book listed as a reference, but Google Books and Amazon are both unaware of its existence, and Calcutta Press seems to exist only as a simple printer. The page history makes interesting reading - I suspect this article was a lunchtime's entertainment for a class of schoolkids. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 14:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 14:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, see sock galore at User_talk:Slakr#Sockpuppet's_contrib including a "Jeygopi'sahom-o". --SABER^EXCALIBUR! 14:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Kind of sorry I wasn't around to enjoy the fun. --jonny-m t 14:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia isn't the place for joke articles. ArcAngel (talk) 14:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Page has been unprotected. Rudget. 15:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per G3 as a blatant hoax article. DarkAudit (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And I hear my dinner is ready Plutonium27 (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the G3 tag I placed for blatant hoax was removed because of the AfD. The AfD does not preclude marking something for speedy if the article so qualifies. this does. DarkAudit (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep - Peripitus (Talk) 11:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wagnerian rock[edit]

This is an original-research essay that gives no citation, let alone an authoritative one, that the subject matter is an established subgenre among critics, musicologists or anyone else. "A genre created by Jim Steinman"? Please. This article is rock-fan writing, it is not encyclopedic, and for the sake of retaining the Music Genre project's credibility, this needs to be removed. It's ridiculous. --24.215.162.198 (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC) Text copies from talk page. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 13:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failing WP:NOR. ArcAngel (talk) 14:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The term does in fact seem to be in use, particularly to refer to artists like Meatloaf. Sadly, most of the Google news results are behind paywalls, but they seem to be more or less in agreement on the definition. I'll take a look around to see if there's something more authoritative and focused, but given that the term seems to be from the early 90s, I suspect that the lion's share of sources will be found offline instead. --jonny-m t 14:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a start. --jonny-m t 14:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge some to Jim Steinman maybe but a genre this is not. And as a Laibach maven I must further protest the content as it stands Plutonium27 (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge to Jim Steinman. This term is primarily applied to Bat Out of Hell. --Dhartung | Talk 23:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to have currency in the rock world 600+ Google Book hits. Benji boi 01:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you don't put quotes around he search term, or use a period in between [on Google only], you get unrelated results. With "Wagnerian rock" there ar only 8 results, and half of those have no relevance whatsoever. Google: Basics of search --Dhartung | Talk 02:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that but many of those references were to Wagnerian rock but simply didn't use that exact phrase. Our goal is not to delete useful content here it's to see if there is merit to keeping an article that needs improving and in this case i think there is. Benji boi 02:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I've looked around, and while I can't find a lot of notable references, I've added a few from various newspapers, including one from Time Magazine. The term is in use, and it is applied to more than just Meatloaf and Steinman, so I'm willing to go with a weak keep rather than a merge, if only because the merge suggestions assume that it is Steinman specific, and that doesn't seem to be the case. - Bilby (talk) 16:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article is now backed up by ten footnotes. I think we've confirmed that it's not "original research". Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article was helpful, no matter if there are citatations or not —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.5.206 (talk) 20:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sorry for posting anonymously, I can't find my password at the moment. Good job to the people who found citations for the non-Steinman artists. If anyone needs any more articles for the term being applied to Jim Steinman's music, there are several articles hosted on Jim's website. A couple of them are from noted magazines like Rolling Stone and Circus, from 1981 and 1977, respectively. Hope this helps. --Ben M. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.7.61.27 (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSD G2, as apparent test page which is merely a partial duplicate of CONCACAF Gold Cup with no additional content. --Angelo (talk) 09:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CONCACAF Gold Cup Real[edit]

Requesting the deletion of this article as it is a content fork / duplicate of the original CONCACAF Gold Cup article. Nothing links to this article and it should be speedily deleted. --otduff ^t/_c 07:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 15:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pointless article. Even a re-direct would be a waste of time. - fchd (talk) 17:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GiantSnowman (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. AR TYOM 20:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I have redirected to List of Darkwing Duck characters; knowledgeable editors are encouraged to merge relevant and verified information. seresin | wasn't he just...? 00:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Fossil[edit]

Non notable character, made only one single appearance in the cartoon show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by McJeff (talk • contribs) 2008/03/12 11:50:41

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Darkwing Duck. As the nom says, no indication of real-world notability (though it is pretty high on the nostalgia scale). --jonny-m t 14:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Darkwing Duck characters and turn into a redirect. --Pixelface (talk) 15:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to list per Pixelface. JuJube (talk) 06:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 seems the most sensible solution offered here. So be it. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Ontario Business[edit]

notabilty? --Flitzekacke (talk) 10:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Steve Crossin (talk) 14:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. This is a local trade magazine from Sudbury, Ontario. No independent sources. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 14:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this is actually the first nomination of this article. --Pixelface (talk) 15:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - obviously real, audited circulation 25,000, which makes it not insignificant for a business trade publication. There's no encyclopedic purpose to deleting these kinds of articles. Independent sourcing is not a very useful notability standard for trade publications but no doubt there are some. Wikidemo (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC) (or merge with Laurentian Media Group, per Bearcat, below - Wikidemo (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Bearcat (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Full disclosure: I wrote this article back in 2005, when both my own sense of and Wikipedia's articulation of notability were not as well-developed as they are now. If I were creating an article today, however, I'd probably just describe it in the article on its publisher, which is in pretty sore need of expansion itself anyway. Redirect to Laurentian Media Group. Bearcat (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GreenJoe 21:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Laurentian Media Group. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also support the merge to Laurentian Media Group. That article should be expanded with information on their other publications as well. Also note that this isn't a "small local trade magazine", it covers all of Northern Ontario. vıd ıoman 00:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Laurentian Media Group. Reggie Perrin (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PSBill[edit]

I am going through AfD rather than CSD#G11 because it's been around for a couple of weeks and I am not sure about notability. I am very troubled by the fact that all of the sources are from the official company website. I do not think notability has been established. Jaysweet (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination; another online provider of "E-commerce solutions" with no third party references; fails to meet either the business or the website notability guidelines. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While I don't think it's quite blatant enough for WP:CSD#G11, I certainly don't see any evidence of notability, and a news search turns up nothing. --jonny-m t 14:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 14:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 15:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 15:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything other than forum posts as far as sources. Doesn't pass WP:N--Torchwood Who? (talk) 15:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP, no secondary sources. KnightLago (talk) 15:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability per WP:CORP. Gary King (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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_Darkwing_Duck_characters#Villains, as already merged. Black Kite 07:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Splatter Phoenix[edit]

Non notable Darkwing Duck character - made only two appearances in the show's 60 episode run, nor was ever featured in spinoffs (video games/merchandise/etc) for the show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by McJeff (talk • contribs) 2008/03/12 11:47:35

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 13:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 13:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Darkwing Duck characters. Articles that can be merged should not be nominated for deletion. --Pixelface (talk) 13:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Pixelface -- both clauses, as that's exactly what I'd say myself. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've already merged the first paragraph into the List of Darkwing Duck characters replacing the existing entry for this character. I felt the text of this article was much clearer about the character than existing entry, however I did not merge the second paragraph.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you've merged any information, the article cannot be deleted but needs to be turned into a redirect in order to preserve the contribution history. --Pixelface (talk) 16:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I guess all it needs now is a redirect to List of Darkwing Duck characters#Villains --Pmedema (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I've already done a non-admin close once today and don't want to be trigger happy. It might be a good idea to leave the AfD open for a few days in case there are any arguments about individual characters warranting their own articles. Although I think the policy is pretty clear in this case we should probably let this run its course.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 17:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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:COATRACK and general notability guidelines. That's a whole lotta red links. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dedicated to the End[edit]

not notable play; article seems to be about recent high school production (see WP:Coatrack) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication of notability for the play. Performances of the play appear to be limited to a single first production, and a highschool production. -- Whpq (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Objection - Play is notable although not particulary widely known and has been performed in many locations (see updated page). 19:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - inclusion of reliable sources would help establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 00:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

F. E. Zip Zimmerman[edit]

Non-notable; fails WP:BIO. His single credit is cinematography for a 15-minute short Lucas made as a film student. Jfire (talk) 17:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 13:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable, even if it was ref'd, which it's not. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 13:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:N and really dosen't have any usefull information. Obliteration is required!--Pmedema (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, are we gonna create an article about Lucas's golf caddy now? The Dominator (talk) 22:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 - WP:CORP. Davewild (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SVS Printing Company[edit]

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Seems to be nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 (talk) 13:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Author has no other contribs and may have COI. More to the point, Google doesn't offer sources to support WP:CORP. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 14:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Steve Crossin (talk) 14:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:N and WP:CORP, and possibly WP:COI as well. ArcAngel (talk) 14:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Google search should be for its Dutch-langauge name, Drukkerij SVS. See http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Drukkerij+SVS%22 for about 1500 ghits. --Eastmain (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This company gets 1550 GHits, but 98% of those are Yellow Pages listings, and none of them are in reliable sources. Basically this is just a run-of-the-mill printing company for your wedding invitations or your business cards. The article about this company has also been deleted over at the Dutch language Wikipedia, see nl:SVS Drukkerij. A ecis^Brievenbus 17:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - obviously not a "run of the mill" company if claims in article are true regarding printing for major corporations. It seems to be sourced, and makes a claim of notability, so unless you can understand Dutch it's hard to say otherwise. Someone ought to evaluate the article for copyvio vis-a-vis this site. Either wikipedia, or the site, is a word-for-word copy of the other in places. Wikidemo (talk)
- I don't see how this is a claim to notability. Printing corporate publications for notable companies doesn't make a company notable, because notability is not inherited. Basically they're on the same level as the company providing the coffee in the cafeteria. A ecis^Brievenbus 15:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - no assertion of notability, no evidence of good citations from Ghits etc., and reliable sources are unlikely to be found. Bearian (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Media of Albuquerque, as it seems it already has been. Please remember to note mergers in edit summaries as set forth at Help:Merge in order to comply with GFDL. I will note it at both articles in this case. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of radio stations in Albuquerque[edit]

Duplicates (probably incompletely) the already well maintained (by WP:WPRS) List of radio stations in New Mexico Rtphokie (talk) 13:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after copying any non-duplicate info to List of radio stations in New Mexico. - Dravecky (talk) 13:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, but agree with Dravecky about merging non-duplicates into List of radio stations in New Mexico. ArcAngel (talk) 14:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that if any information from this list does get copied over to the state list, then GFDL will require us to redirect this title to the other list instead of simply deleting it. Do follow Dravecky's suggestion — and then redirect if information does need to be copied back into the state list, or delete otherwise. Bearcat (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought: while it's correct that cities should never have individual "Radio stations in City" and "Television stations in City" lists — these should be organized by state, province or country only — it is permissible and even encouraged for cities to have omnibus "Media in City" lists which combine radio, television and newspaper list sections. So do compare against the state list as per Dravecky, but merge to Media of Albuquerque instead. Bearcat (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or merge to Media of Albuquerque per Bearcat. DHowell (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And Histmerge to Media of Albuquerque due to copy-and-paste move of information, and leave this as a redirect as a plausible search term. DHowell (talk) 16:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Histmerge to Media of Albuquerque & leave this article page as a redirect . Pearll's sun (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge with history into Media of Shreveport. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 17:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of radio stations in Shreveport[edit]

Duplicates (probably incompletely) the already well maintained (by WP:WPRS) List of radio stations in Louisiana Rtphokie (talk) 12:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after copying any non-duplicate info to List of radio stations in Louisiana. - Dravecky (talk) 13:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, but agree with Dravecky about merging non-duplicates into List of radio stations in Louisiana. ArcAngel (talk) 14:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that if any information from this list does get copied over to the state list, then GFDL will require us to redirect this title to the other list instead of simply deleting it. Do follow Dravecky's suggestion — and then redirect if information does need to be copied back into the state list, or delete otherwise. Bearcat (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought: while it's correct that cities should never have individual "Radio stations in City" and "Television stations in City" lists — these should be organized by state, province or country only — it is permissible and even encouraged for cities to have omnibus "Media in City" lists which combine radio, television and newspaper list sections. So do compare against the state list as per Dravecky, but merge to Media of Shreveport instead. In fact, I've already copied the information over, although I haven't redirected since there's an open AFD. Bearcat (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or merge to Media of Shreveport per Bearcat. DHowell (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And Histmerge to Media of Shreveport due to copy-and-paste move of information, and leave this as a redirect as a plausible search term. DHowell (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It needs some work, but that's no reason to delete it. Rjd0060 (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of campus radio stations[edit]

as already noted, this is an incomplete list which may never be completable. These stations are already categorized in their home countries, is a list of them providing any value? Rtphokie (talk) 12:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 13:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete because a lot of the stations on here aren't very notable themselves or don't have articles; I just checked about 10 links more or less at random, and at least four of them went to disambiguation pages or an article on a completely different station. If this is kept, it could use some serious cleanup. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 14:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Categories don't replace lists; they serve two very different purposes. Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigational templates explicitly states that they should be used in synergy rather than replacing each other in most cases. For example, if you specifically wanted to see what college radio stations broadcast in Chicago, without the list you would have to manually click through most of the 372 stations in Category:College radio stations in the United States to see which ones are in Chicago. And only five countries have dedicated "(campus/college/student) radio stations" categories — so if you wanted to see what student radio stations broadcast in France, you'd have to manually click through every single article in Category:Radio stations in France to see which ones are operated by university students. The list could certainly use some serious cleanup and improvement — the US should probably be split out to its own separate list, for example — but since lists and categories organize and contextualize the information in different ways, they're not redundant with each other. And the incompleteness and/or sloppiness of a list are reasons to improve it, not reasons to delete it. So keep and cleanup. Bearcat (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was notified of this discussion as the person who began the article back in mid-2005. I disagree with the implication that the nominator opens with that the merit of a list is decreased by its being open-ended. There are two main types of lists - closed and open; Wikipedia is equipped to deal with and embraces both. As Bearcat points out, categorization and listification are complementary rather than mutually exclusive. What one wants to discourage is recapitulating one in the other format. If this list were merely a list of stations in each country, there would be no merit to its retention. However, the list includes home city, call letters and hosting University, a combination that cannot be as efficiently recapitulated in categorical form. The list could be further enriched by adding more information, such as year of establishment, status (active or off-air), broadcast season (school year or year-round), etc. These additions to the information are not redundant with that information also being found in related articles as presence in specific articles does not provide an overview and comparative view that such a list does. I would encourage a set of specific goals be established for the list so that improvement drives can work toward those goals. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it will be as complete as we make it. most articles in WP will benefit from further editing and most lists from additions. Lists of uncertain length, but with a clear criterion are perfectly acceptable.DGG (talk) 23:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
week keep: It suffers from being both incomplete, and out of date. its bad organization doesn't help things.jonathon (talk) 03:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and Ceyockey; clear criteria for inclusion, and has information which cannot appear in a category (such as location and school), and meets list guidelines. It is as maintainable as any other Wikipedia list of this length and breadth, of which there are many. DHowell (talk) 23:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nomination has been withdrawn, concerns of other delete opinions are being addressed as it has been verified that it is being released one week from today. Davewild (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Balkansko a naše[edit]

Unreleased album (crystal ballism) with little or no media coverage and no references. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums and songs and WP:V. Prod removed without comment —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete per nom. Non-notable unreleased album. Dgf32 (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DON'T Delete It is Edo Maajka, read his wiki page, broke hip hop line sin Balkans, his 4th studio solo album, set to be released on March 25, 2008, there is a source for all the info look at the bottom, this is the most covored album in Balkan media yet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djamo (talk • contribs) 03:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment ~~That link at the bottom is a store.~~ There still is no media coverage shown in the article, and much of what's in the article is not in the link included. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 10:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - correction That is not a store, that is the website of Menart Records, the record label that Edo Maajka is signed to and is releasing the album through, the link announced the album's release —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djamo (talk • contribs) 15:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I stand corrected and I apologize for my hasty assessment. The rest of my above comment, however, still stands. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment There is plenty of coverage more than any other album in that region Balkan region, I put more refrences or sources, I can even give you more nut I don't know if that is enough or not. I'm just not a good citation editor, I mean I don't know how to do that and I did read up on it.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maxim_(talk) 12:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unreleased album, thus fails on WP:MUSIC. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 13:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ if your going to delete this article, then delete the first three albums by Edo Maajka, on which there was no disscussion, Balkansko a Nase is coming our March 25th, it is the same as eminem's King Mathgers or Lindsay Lohan next album or Dr.Dre's Detox, if you do decide to delete then I'm quiting Wikipedia because this is not fair as Edo Maajka is the number one rap artist right now and according to him and others sources this will be his best album yet, I started tyhe artcle on Edo Maajka dna his albums and if I have to I'll finish it.
- Comment One !vote per editor, please. Please don't get bent out of shape about this. If the result is delete, just wait until the album's released and then re-create the article (why not save a copy of the article in your userspace right now?). The albums you're comparing this to have TONS of media coverage; I realize that since this is a Bosnian artist, major international media probably won't cover it much (if at all) but really, is it such a big deal to wait until the album's released to give it an article? Until it's out you can include the information in Edo Maajka. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nicely said User:Hello Control. The band seems to pass WP:N but unfortunately unless the 'upcoming' release of the album has notability it fails WP:CRYSTAL. --Pmedema (talk) 16:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment If you keep it it would be the same if I make a article about it later. I'll put more coverage media coverage of it.It is noteable because he woon't make another album becasue this upcoming album will be hard to remake.
- Comment 2 one more thing, did you know that Edo's single from his third album "Bomba" was featured in the Hollywood series Sleeper Cell in the episode titled "School" of season 2.

Nomination rescinded Due to the added references and that it does seem to be coming out next week.[42] —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I told ya'll, now don't worry about it anymore

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Perez Centeno[edit]

Peruvian engineer. Doesn't appear notable; no independent sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment More economist/internationalist than engineer, actually, and seems to have some name recognition and a platform of sorts, but actual notability is a bit unclear. One isn't notable for merely accumulating a lot of graduate degrees, for example. --Dhartung | Talk 08:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carter | Talk to me 16:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maxim_(talk) 12:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Though a good number of articles are linked to this one, but it seems that notability is not up to the mark to qualify for WP:N. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 12:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. -- Steve Crossin (talk) 14:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, falls short of WP:BIO without independent sources. --Dhartung | Talk 23:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, the article current fails the notability guidelines for future films - as set out at WP:NFF. Am quite willing to restore (and/or userfy) as and when reliable sources show shooting has begun. Davewild (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Between the Night and the Moon[edit]

Shooting for this film has not been confirmed by reliable sources. As such, it fails WP:NFF and should be delted until shooting can be confirmed as having started. Fritzpoll (talk) 22:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why it isn't allowed. The film has been announced with press conferences and Kangana Ranaut has confirmed it in an interview with [Mumbai Mirror] --SpicyMaster (talk) 22:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I tried to explain on the talk page, none of the references you cite confirm that shooting has begun. Until that happens, policy seems to indicate that this article should not be created. Have a look at the policy link above - Fritzpoll (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maxim_(talk) 12:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - case like this one is always very shaky. Since it has not been released yet, WP doesn't permit its existence but it will get its notability when it will be released. Thus, sometime I put my opinion in this way that there is no point of deleting such article which has to be created later though some Wikipedias use to show their argument in this way that there is no harm to delete now and create later. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 12:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now since there is no verifiable confirmation that filming has begun. No opposition to recreation if production begins on this project in development. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and recreate later, not that much useful content, if someone is willing to userfy... The Dominator (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, with no merge. This article evinces a complete lack of secondary sources and wider notability (the "Jay Leno" example is particularly instructive). Merging while a debate is ongoing, while not strictly forbidden, is frowned on. In the instant case, since it appears that the merge was done in bad faith specifically in an attempt to derail the AfD, I have deleted the Doctor Eggman article and restored the revisions before the merge, to remove the merge from the article history, and will be warning the user that further such bad-faith merges may result in negative consequences. Nandesuka (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Eggman's flying fortresses[edit]

List of minor fictional elements with no secondary sources, fails WP:N. Near-duplicate of the recently-deleted list of vehicles; possibly a CSD G4 candidate, though I don't have the old list to compare it with; if not, then that AFD is at least precedent for this one. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:N -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 12:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Doctor Eggman. Articles that can be merged should not be nominated for deletion. --Pixelface (talk) 13:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment this isn't suitable for merging, for the same reasons that the last one wasn't. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Care to give those reasons? --Pixelface (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sure, no problem. Here you go. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I know where that AFD debate is. Now explain yourself here please. --Pixelface (talk) 15:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        OK. The article doesn't have any sourced assertion of notability and that would be excessive (and largely unsourced) detail in the parent article, so a merge would be inappropriate. Again. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The games are the sources for the information and the contents of articles don't have to be notable. [break]
        Only a handful of statements in the article are supported by sources, and those are dodgy, untranslated screencaps; hardly reliable sources. The contents don't have to be notable, but the topics do. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The games are acceptable sources per WP:PSTS and don't need to be cited. The games are reliable sources. And Doctor Eggman is a notable topic so I don't understand your last sentence. --Pixelface (talk) 03:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The games would be reliable sources, but they do need to be cited. All sources do. Dodgy, untranslated screencaps of the games don't count. Doctor Eggman being notable doesn't make his flying fortresses notable; notability is not inherited. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No, they don't need to be cited. It's obvious that the Sonic the Hedgehog 2 section was written from the videogame Sonic the Hedgehog 2. [break]
        Yes, they do. Only obvious facts are exempt from WP:V, not claims from obvious sources. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No, plot information does not have to explicitly cite the fictional work it came from. It's understood that the fictional work is the source. --Pixelface (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It has to be verifiable. Without cites, it's not verifiable. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Go look at the featured article Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope and tell me if you see any citations in the Plot section. --Pixelface (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        That it's done wrongly there doesn't make it right here. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Doctor Eggman is a notable topic so this content needs to be merged into that article. Go read the editing policy (particularly the Preserve information section). --Pixelface (talk) 14:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Doctor Eggman is a notable topic, so that article should be on wikipedia. However it shouldn't be bloated out with excess plot details. The information can be preserved, if necessary, by transwikiing. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The information can be preserved by merging. When performing a merge, not all of the information has to be merged. --Pixelface (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It can, but it shouldn't. In the parent article it would be excessive plot detail. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        You don't think a mention of the flying fortresses is suitable for the Doctor Eggman article? --Pixelface (talk) 15:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        A mention, yes. Something like "This is seen in many of the games, as there is almost always a point where Sonic chases him, yet Eggman seems to sprint ahead long enough to reach his next weapon or escape vehicle" - and that's already there. But this article should be deleted in its entirety. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Entirely in-universe with no third party sources. Possible Transwiki to Sonic Wikipedia AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment I'm adding my comment up here, as it seems to have gotten lost in the below kerfluffle - Let me put it this way. Dr. Eggman's flying fortresses are not notable outside the Sonic universe. Conversely, something like the Death Star, is well known and recognizable beyond the confines of the Star Wars Universe. As an example, Jay Leno or any stand-up comedian could make a joke about the Death Star exploding, or Family Guy or Futurama may feature episodes that parody the Death Star. As integral as the flying fortresses may be to the game, that does not translate to real world notability. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 19:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wow, what a lot of junk! Delete as unnotable. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All or some of the information can be merged into the Doctor Eggman article. --Pixelface (talk) 15:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - "can" is not the same as "should". Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete Does not meet criteria; however, it could easily be merged into Dr. Eggman. K im u 18:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article establishes notability per its multiple appearances in a variety of major games. Aside from the games themselves, I would be shocked if strategy guides and other published books as well as magazine articles (I see even in the Amazon.com results that some magazines devoted whole issues to Sonic) do not cover these things and could not be used as additional sources. In any event, definitely consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on Sonic games per the five pillars. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the sources you mention are present in the article. Further, even a specialised encyclopedia would cover a topic from a real-world perspective, not just provide minute detail of fictional elements with no analysis. See WP:IIFNO. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you are concerned with the tone of the article, Wikipedia:SOFIXIT. AfD is not clean up. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm concerned with the notability of the article, not its tone. More specifically, I'm concerned that it doesn't have notability, so it should be deleted. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Which reason are you referring to? 99.230.152.143 (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        "# Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)" Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Notability has already been established and thus the article should be kept. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No, notability has not been established. If it had, then the article would contain sources of secondary coverage. It doesn't. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, notability has been established by demonstrasting the existence of sources of secondary coverage. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Nope; still just dodgy screencaps. Percy Snoodle (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Yep, prose text on the topic. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        None of which is sourced in the article, so the article still fails WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Then add these sources to the article, rather than ordering others to do so. The article passes WP:N with flying colors. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't believe that any of the sources you mention are actually dedicated to the topic in question - if you want to prove me wrong, you'll have to do so yourself. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Believe it and instead of trying to diminish Wikipedia, please help us to actually make its articles better. Sincerley, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        When you add sourced coverage, I'll believe it. Until then, I'll continue to make wikipedia better by arguing that non-notable excess game plot detail be removed. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not an issue of whether or not Sonic the Hedgehog is notable, but rather if specific, albeit reoccurring elements of the game series, (i.e. flying fortresses) are themselves notable. Which must be corroborated by referenced verified third party sources. You are right though this information should be captured by a "specialized encyclopedia" hence my suggestion to transwiki to a specific wiki that focuses on th Sonic Universer [43] AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the first pillar, Wikipedia is already a specialized encyclopedia and something that is a major recurring element in multiple games tends to be notable. The phrase also gets plenty of Google hits. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's only the case that a major recurring element in multiple games becomes notable if it receives substantial, non-trivial independent secondary coverage. The fortresses haven't, so they're not notable. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They have had sufficient coverage for a paperless encyclopedia that contains elements of a general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and alamanacs, and that is only a few years old. They are still making Sonic games, and so the notability of its elements and coverage just keeps expanding. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is zero sourced coverage except for some dodgy screencaps. Zero coverage is not enough to meet WP:N. No amount of game-publishing by the creators will change that. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me put it this way. Dr. Eggman's flying fortresses are not notable outside the Sonic universe. Conversely, something like the Death Star, is well known and recognizable beyond the confines of the Star Wars Universe. As an example, Jay Leno or any stand-up comedian could make a joke about the Death Star exploding, or Family Guy or Futurama may feature episodes that parody the Death Star. As integral as the flying fortresses may be to the game, that does not translate to real world notability. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 16:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They have notability to millions of people around the real world. For Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit and that is also a specialized encyclopedia, we can afford to have articles on topics that are not as notable as the Death Star, but that still have some degree of notability in their own right. The appearances of these things in multiple mainstream games make it more than just a minor item. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It they're notable "to millions of people around the real world", then there will be coverage from a real-world perspective. That's what's required to demonstrate notability; dodgy screencaps aren't sufficient. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is coverage from a real world perspective, we just need editors to spend constructive time adding these sources, that we know exist, rather than wasting time just trying to remove the articles. Scores of books and magazine articles cover various Sonic related topics. We are not talking about a minor aspect of a minor game, but rather a significant aspect of a whole series of games, cartoons, comics, strategy guides, etc. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can prove that by adding sources of coverage, fine, I'll change my vote. If not, then the article continues to fail WP:N and continues to require deletion. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have already indicated the wealth of sources available on Sonic the Hedgehog related topic, but it will take time to go through these sources and expand the article. Fortunately, though, Wikipedia does not have any kind of deadline and so we can keep the article, now that we know sources exist, and allow our editors the opportunity to make the most of these sources. Nothing "requires" deletion unless it is a hoax, personal attack, or copy vio. So long as there is some evidence of notability and a reasonable possibility that sources exist, Wikipedia is not somehow degraded by having a stub or incomplete article. Our project as a whole is a work in progress anyway. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't added any sources to the article, so it still fails WP:N. You've linked to some product pages on amazon, but not demonstrated that any coverage specifically of flying fortresses exists. If you believe it does, ask to have this page userified; when you've added the sources you're welcome to recreate the article. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have made not effort to improve the article in any constructive fashion, but instead are focusing way too much time attempting to get an article that you simply don't like deleted. Imagine if instead that energy was spent helping to improve the article and I have provided links to plenty of sources that can be used to reference the artilce. I encourage you to go through some of them to see what you can find. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that I don't like it, it's that it's not-notable. If you had spent a small fraction of your energy in actually addig the sources that you claim exist to the article, I'd have changed my vote. The links you provide are all about Sonic or at best Eggman; none of them are specifically about the fortresses. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it is notable and references have been found and the article has been improved since the AfD began; I don't know why you are ignoring that and being dishonest by claiming you would change your "vote" (this is not a vote by the way, which further shows you do not understand how AfDs work). As a sub-article on the Sonic series, the sources do not have to be 100% about flying fortresses. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article may have been improved, but no reliable sources have been added. Until they are, it fails WP:N. You claiming it's notable doesn't make it so. I've changed my vote in the past when I've been shown to be wrong, but in order to do so sources of coverage which substantially cover - not necessarily 100%, but for the most part - Eggman's flying fortresses. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's plenty of sourced coverage in the totality of gaming magazines and strategy guides on the market. We just need to give our editors time to mine these sources. We've only been in existence for a few years. It takes time time adequately reference articles. Because we know sources are indeed out there, we need to allow our community time to make the most of them. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, then you can copy this article to a Sonic wiki, and copy it back when you have the sources. In the mean time, it fails WP:N and should be deleted. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, in the meantime, we should leave the article in place, so that editors have something to work with as sources are found and utilized. There is absolutely no logical reason to delete the article and certainly no reason that actually makes Wikipedia a better reference guide. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but that's not wikipedia policy. If you think it's illogical, I suggest you bring that up at WP:DEL. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is policy, in fact it's the First pillar of our policy and also our oldest policy we ever had. Policies trump guidelines. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, your opinion isn't policy. WP:DEL is policy. You misinterpret the pillar, and ignore the other policies. Percy Snoodle (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Wikipedia:Five pillars and Ignore All Rules are very much policies. Please do not ignore them. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not; but none of the policies and guidelines you mention say the article shouldn't be deleted if it fails WP:N. It is you who are ignoring WP:DEL. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It passes our notability guidelines, but fails any reason to be deleted. Five pillars and Ignore All Rules both say the article must be kept. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That you're using "Ignore All Rules" as a reason to keep boggles the mind. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That you want to delete a useful and interesting article boggles the mind. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That the two of you continue to bicker and repeat yourself boggles the mind. You've both made your cases, now lets leave that dead horse alone. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge into Doctor Eggman. 99.230.152.143 (talk) 16:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Why? Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because I believe that information would be useful in that particular article. 99.230.152.143 (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Usefulness isn't a resaon. Can you show that the article meets the notability criteria? Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's a valid reason when considered in conjunction with other good reasons. A reference guide is supposed to be useful. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        That's irrelevant here; the article fails WP:N and should be deleted. Usefulness is, perhaps, a good reason to transwiki; nothing more. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually it has been demonstrated overwhelmingly that the article passes WP:N and should be kept. I have seen no solid reason otherwise. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No, if that were the case then there would be reliable sources quoted in the article. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Perhaps this article is more suitable for Wikibooks or a different Wiki? --Headcase (talk) 03:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)~~ Wrong page, nevermind --Headcase (talk) 03:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 18:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant parts to Doctor Eggman, Delete the rest. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 12:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If we merge any of it, then we cannot delete the article, as we need to keep the contribution history in tact and thus would have to redirect without deleting per the GFDL. Sincerely,
  - Well, yeah. I would assume the closing admin would already be familiar with the procedure, which is why people don't typically mention it when voting for a merge and purge. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 06:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and merged this article into Doctor Eggman and I trust Percy Snoodle not to revert me. --Pixelface (talk) 20:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You trust wrong; we've spoken about your disruptive behaviour before. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please avoid ad hominem accusations against fellow editors. Thanks. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've spoken to pixel about making disruptive edits before. It's a separate issue to the deletion here. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You've said this content "isn't suitable for merging" but several people here disagree with you. I can perform a merge at any time. So stop acting like you own the Doctor Eggman article. Despite how it was closed, there was no consensus to delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dr. Eggman's vehicles. You even admitted that this article is "substantially different" than that one, so your reasons for deletion don't apply. --Pixelface (talk) 22:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - We've talked about this before. By sneaking the content out of the AFD process, you disrupt that process in order to make your point; you put your opinion above the rights of other editors to take part in this debate. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Further, I know of no policy or guideline that states we must 'respect an AFD'. If the information this discussion covers can be merged, as has been proven it can, then the AFD isn't being 'disrespected', it's be eliminated. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 22:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - To 'eliminate' it while the debate goes on is a diruptive edit, made to make a point. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Calling it disruptive doesn't make it so, as proven by my actions not falling under anything listed on WP:DISRUPT. Further, I have made my point very, very clear. The merge solves the problem and doesn't violate any guideline or policy currently in use. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 08:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        See WP:POINT#State your point; don't prove it experimentally. Performing the merge now, in order to present the AFD with a fait accompli, is disruptive to the process. Presenting it as "mediation" doesn't make it so. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The information is verifiable from the original game content, as well as comic books, walkthroughs, animated series etc. It can also have inherited notability from the Dr Eggman article as per WP:FICT, specifically the section regarding Summary style approach for spinout articles. Just as with lists of characters, Dr Eggman is known for his inventions and it makes sense to list them, either in the main body of the article or in a seperate section. I also think that there is a fair bit of WP:OWN occuring on the main Dr Eggman article that needs addressing. Gazimoff (talk) 11:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability and verifiability both require reliable sources. None appear in this article. I'm well aware of the disputed spinout section of WP:FICT; it doesn't exempt articles from notability or verifiability concerns. Mere assertions on an AFD page are not sufficient. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reliable sources have already been found and indicated above. Sincerley, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, they haven't. A few dodgy screencaps and a link to a transwikied wikipedia article aren't reliable sources. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:FICT specifically states that for spinout list articles such as this, that notability is inherited and further, that primary sources are acceptable for verifiability. I am happy to quote excerpts as required. My stance on WP:OWN remains on Doctor Eggman.Gazimoff (talk) 17:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:FICT doesn't state that notability is inherited; it isn't. WP:FICT states that spinout articles may be appropriate, but does not exempt them from verifiability concerns. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Doctor Eggman#Creations. That section appears to be relevant to merge this article into. 99.230.152.143 (talk) 15:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've reverted the redirect to show the article's existing content. The AFD template clearly states: "Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed." There must be consensus first to redirect and/or merge before making this change. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't blank the article and I didn't remove the AFD notice. Editors don't have to discuss before merging content. WP:MERGE says "Merging is a normal editing action, something any editor can do, and as such does not need to be proposed and processed. If you think merging something improves the encyclopedia, you can be bold and perform the merge, as described below." --Pixelface (talk) 01:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In normal circumstances I would agree with you Pixelface. However, in an instance where the issue is clearly being actively debated, and it closely aligned with an active AFD it would make sense to be judicious in any content merging decisions. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 01:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen (and you probably have too) many AFDs speedily closed due to information being merged into another article. It's a fairly common practice. If the argument it between delete or merge and it has been proven that said information can, in fact, be merged with little to no problems, then just what is left for us to discuss? -- Jelly Soup (talk) 02:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, my stance is to delete, and possibly transwiki. I do not believe this content is notable outside of the Sonic universe as it lacks real world verifiability. I was speaking to the process of merging content, not as to whether or not I support the actual content being merged. Sorry for the confusion there. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 02:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any advantage for Wikipedia in deletion, as this is a notable aspect of a major game series backed by verfiable sources. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I see you've argued that point several times already in this AFD. I already provided my reasoning above. Sorry, but I don't engage in this "Yes it is!" "No it isn't!" thing. You've made your case, as have I. I was clarifying my standpoint for the sake of Jelly Soup. Thanks. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 03:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability through independent sources. No rationale for justifying this as a spinoff article under WP:FICT due to this list being nothing more than a long line of in-universe WP:GAMECRUFT. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Transwiki - Dr. Eggman has flying fortresses, that's an important part of the character, but specific descriptions of each fortress are not necessary (a brief list witin Dr. Eggman's article with simple characteristics would be fine). There's two issues here. Part of this is WP:FICT - while Dr. Eggman's article is notable, and thus there's a reasonable cause for a spinout article for non-notable elements, this list is putting a lot of undue weight on the fortress list, particularly in that the fortresses have little to do with the Dr. Eggman characer directly. The second aspect is that the approach this article is written it is too much in-universe, and describes, in some cases, how the fortress is defeated (WP is not a game guide) and in other cases, is re-iterating plot elements from specific games. If you take these elements out, remove some of the speculation that's present, you'll have a much tighter list -- The list and fortress names can be kept (redirects in place) if each fortress is given 2-3 lines, and then that table would fit nicely into the Dr. Eggman page (presently as I write this, someone copied it verbatim). Transwiki the rest to a Sonic wiki (I'm sure there is one), and you still provide the coverage of the fortresses but in a manner more appropriate for an encyclopedic treatment. --MASEM 05:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Transwiki per User:Masem above, with major emphasis on pruning content upon merging. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 08:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 already speedy deleted it under WP:CSD#A7 (group). Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eschatol[edit]

Non notable band that fails WP:MUSIC. No tours, no sources besides myspace, and no label at all. Delete Undeath (talk) 12:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:N. WP:MUSIC and slightly WP:V since there is no third party reference available, at least through Online. Official site and Myspace is not enough to verify content on WP. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 12:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark A. Moore[edit]

Vanity page; does not meet WP:BIO criteria; unreferenced; it's about his career and written like a résumé AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 10:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Got the deletion notice. If the entry violates policy, then by all means delete it. I was hoping the online map links would be of educational value, but if that's not the case, or if the other stuff is COI, then it won't hurt my feelings if the page is deleted. All of the information listed there is avalibale elsewhere. Sparrow91 (talk) 01:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It says in the Guide to Deletion: "Note: Avoid using the word 'vanity' in a deletion discussion even if you think it's the case — AFD gets media attention, and the word 'vanity' in AFDs has caused real problems for the Foundation . . . Vanity is a potentially defamatory term that should be avoided in deletion discussions." . . . The word "vanity" appears multiple times in the complaints here. So how do we draw the line between "vanity" and offering educational information and links, etc.? . . . I'm all for deleting anything that's inappropriate." Sparrow91 (talk) 03:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:BIO. It seems that this article is a mirror of someone's selfmade home page! I have slight doubt that it is a case of WP:COI too. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 12:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Niaz. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 13:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vanity personal page of non-notable cartographer. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BIO, reads as spam or at least a vanity page. No reliable sources given for, well, any of the statements made. -- Kesh (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:BIO and WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Bio Wiki-nightmare (talk) 16:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bad nomination reason, prior AFD closed just the day before and enjoyed a 10 day debate reaching no consensus. Non-admin closure. --Auto ^{(talk / contribs)} 16:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of tomboys in fiction[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Delete as it is leading to an arguementGeorgiacatcrimson (talk) 10:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A list of tomboy's is hardly a helpful list. Sources or not, I don't see how this list is wikipedia worthy. Undeath (talk) 12:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Merge to Tomboy article. --DAJF (talk) 12:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. The previous AfD on the article was closed only 17 hours before this nom. No need to go through it again. Deor (talk) 12:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It even doesn't seem to be a list though it is named as list. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 12:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as a procedureal matter. I realize that the prior Afd was closed no consensus, but I simply cannot agree to a new Afd less than 24 hours after the last one closed. There's a finite number of cases we can consider here, and besides, while consensus can change a re-nomination this soon has the air of pushing for a particular outcome no matter what. Xymmax (talk) 13:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It may be relevant to note that the nominator opposed deletion in the first AfD. The article itself has been cleaned up and transformed significantly since then. --DAJF (talk) 13:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Indeed, this is a scorched earth attempt because the editor couldn't prevent the contents of the old list from being challenged and removed on verifiability and original research grounds. --Farix (Talk) 13:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Leading to an argument" is not a reason to delete an article -- it's a reason to work collaboratively or, if necessary, engage in the dispute resolution process. This seems to be a very pointy nomination. Not to mention, previous AfD was closed less than a day ago, which is not time enough to change consensus. Keep if not speedy keep (I'm not quite sure it qualifies for the latter). —Quasirandom (talk) 14:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as a WP:POINT violation - if an AfD was closed as no consensus, that's a sign that the article needs to be improved, not immediately nominated again. See WP:DR if you're having conflicts with other editors. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 14:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - the nominator would appear to be engaged in an edit war, the article just survived AfD, and it seems to be in the process of being rebuilt according to issues outlined in the AfD. Not only do the editors deserve time to work on the article, but the nomination is looking decidedly pointy. - Bilby (talk) 14:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as an attempt to game the system. The previous AFD just closed. KnightLago (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Back so soon? I voted delete in the first discussion, but this is a much improved article, while the previous one was a piece of crap. The most significant difference is that the author has added a footnote to every name, explaining where the person was described as a "tomboy", thereby setting a visible standard for what goes on here. If it's someone asking whether this article now meets Wikipedia's standards now, I'd have to say it does. Strong Keep. Mandsford (talk) 15:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Canley (talk) 12:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gnu distribution[edit]

POV fork of Linux distribution / GNU variants. Contested prod. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteper nom. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 10:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as misnamed. Arguably, GNU distribution could be a redirect to Linux distribution, or even more arguably that could be moved to GNU/Linux distribution and both could redirect there. I really don't know or care enough about the history of that particular controversy to give a view. I do know however that an article entitled Gnu distribution should either be about the distribution of Gnus (they're migratory so it varies with the time of year, but I doubt a separate article is justified) or about a hitherto unknown probability distribution first described by Dr. Gnu (the mathematician and friend of Flanders and Swann, gnot to be confused with Dr. No or Dr. Who). Qwfp (talk) 12:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC;-)
Delete per submitter comments. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 12:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. I think this information should be included in an appropriate article (if possible). But as a standalone article, absolutely worthless. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 12:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Qwfp's humorous but accurate rationale. I wouldn't object to moving it to GNU distribution, then redirecting to Linux distribution, but that seems a little excessive just to maintain a POV fork's history. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 14:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. This is the second time Chris and I agree. --mms (talk) 01:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ludo Graham[edit]

promotional autobiography, non-notable person Rapido (talk) 09:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care particularly, but I would note that he's becoming a bit more prominent now that's he doing voiceovers as well (Grandad's Back in Business, The Choir). Still not sure he meets wikipedia standards for notability, but the article should probably be brought up to date before a decision is made. -88.110.26.202 (talk) 09:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability isn't established. The article is over a year old and little has been done to expand it. It is vague and doesn't explain what he had done besides making notable british TV programs and the programs seem barely notable when I researched for them. -Jahnx (talk) 10:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've rewritten the article a bit, and he did win a BAFTA (British Academy Award) last year for The Choir (BBC2), so I'd say that makes him notable enough. --Canley (talk) 10:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Canley. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 10:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Since he has won BAFTA, he clearly establishes his notability, at least sufficient to pass WP:BIO and its sub-policies. But, it requires clean-up. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 13:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has he won an award? Yes. Do we have a reference to prove it? Yes, and here it is from BAFTA themselves: [44]. He's notable. Just fix it up a bit for the autobio concerns. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 14:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, BAFTA-award winning TV producer. --Pixelface (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 17:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Getting this BAFTA is to undoubtedly be in the notable business Plutonium27 (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have seen the above votes with interest... It seems that he and some others jointly won a BAFTA for the BBC2 series "The Choir" (which doesn't have a Wikipedia article itself). Intrigued I took another look. Maybe he's more famous than I thought? Maybe I made a mistake nominating the article? Alas, not the case. A Google search for "Ludo Graham" yields... merely 157 hits. If he was that notable, he would've surely not have had to start his own entry , but someone would've already started it! So I'm very surprised anyone suggesting a "strong keep" for the article. Rapido (talk) 00:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Even if he's not notable for anything other than the BAFTA award, he's notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. --clpo13_(talk) 00:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 could let it go the five days but consensus is now obvious. Wizardman 18:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of assault rifles[edit]

Currently unneeded. As a pure alphabetic list, all it does is partially duplicate Category:Assault rifles. Also, many entries are outdated and are now redirects. I have no objection to an eventual recreation as a table with other data such as year of introduction, operators, calibre etc. Sandstein (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn after a complete rewrite by OlenWhitaker. Thanks for your effort! Sandstein (talk) 16:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My script did not properly add this AfD to the daily log. I've done this now. Sandstein (talk) 08:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Duplication of category. -Jahnx (talk) 10:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Asams10 (talk) 10:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ since a category already exists and it provides only names. But, I would change my opinion if someone thinks to change it to an appropriate list. Note that intellectual matter of this list is sufficient to convert it to a Featured List. -- Niaz^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 13:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said earlier, currently there is no basic difference with this list and its category but it's intellectual merit is very rich and it can be improved up to Featured List very soon. Just Few min back OlenWhitaker confirmed me that he is going to expand this list and interested to put extra effort on it. Now, I believe we should keep this article, thus, changing my opinion to Keep. Though I am extremely busy with two different articles right now, but I will definitely try to manage few extra time to get back to this list and help OlenWhitaker. Cheers. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 21:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, AFD is not for cleanup. If you want the data in a table with year/operators/caliber/etc, put some cleanup tags on the article. --Pixelface (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 13:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as noted above AFD is not for cleanup or requests for expansion. Leithp 14:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~, can easily be improved to meet standards, and with some extra effort could be an FL. I'm tagging for cleanup now. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 14:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Strong Keep with the proposed new format by Olen on the article's talk page. Exactly what I was looking for, now start working! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, relying on the interest expressed by several editors in making this more than the indiscriminate list that it is now. Mandsford (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hersfold. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It could use some expanding and such, but it meets all the criteria for an article. K im u 18:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article needs a lot of work, but the subject matter is of sufficient note to warrant such a listing. At present it is redundant with Category:Assault rifles, but I see potential for something much better. This article needs expansion, not deletion. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 18:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC) 18:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Important Note: I have whipped up a sample treatment for a possible makeover of the page and posted it on the talk page for this article. Is it worth the effort to do the whole page in this style? Anyone have a better format in mind? OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 20:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC) 20:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further update: I am moving ahead with the re-formatting as we speak! Give me 24 hours and I'll have the whole page re-done. While I'm working on it I'll keep in on the talk page should anyone wish to contribute to the work in progress. Thanks, all! OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 21:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC) 21:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthest update: The new version of the page just went live. It is not quite complete yet, but I will be adding even more content in the coming days. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 16:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC) 16:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as pointless milcruft. Eithin (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as it duplicates an existing category, Category:Assault rifles, and further forces continuous editing to keep this list current. Why make more work for editors and duplicate editing efforts. Automation thrugh using categories is a much cleaner way to address this content. Yaf (talk) 19:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Strong Keep as with complete re-write it now includes much useful information. Yaf (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Lists and categories are not mutually exclusive. New readers of Wikipedia are more likely to use lists than navigate by categories. --Pixelface (talk) 20:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Help fix it, don't delete an article that could be very useful if fixed. Sf46 (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per the nominator and the proposal on the talk page; this list has potential to be far more than the category could possibly be. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there exists both articles and categories for a list of something (for example: "List of Looney Tunes characters and Category:Looney Tunes characters) --Philip Laurence (talk) 15:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PCPhobia[edit]

Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support the motion; it is a mere advertisement. Alexius08 (talk) 08:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is referenced from its own content, I agree with Otolemur. -Jahnx (talk) 10:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 10:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable due to WP:N and WP:WEB. Gary King (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. In fact this article has been speedy deleted once as spam. Were I an admin I would have speedied this one too. – ukexpat (talk) 23:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. --MPerel 06:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and get rid of Erez Ben-Ari (who I suspect wrote the article under a new username having previously created his own bio a few times) as well. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 10:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Elvey[edit]

Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO, lacking secondary source coverage. KnightLago (talk) 15:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per otto and lago above - with no category, or sign of any wikipedia experience by the writer -very unlikely to be adequately supported by other info Satu Suro 05:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Longhair\^talk 22:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. Twenty Years 05:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. —Moondyne click! 06:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Longhair\^talk 11:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sound Unlimited[edit]

A former hip-hop group, released a few singles, but only sources are a couple small newspaper blurbs, and a messageboard post. POSSIBLY notable, but leaning towards no. Only claim to notability is being signed. Jmlk 1 7 08:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - it doesn't seem like they are really know for anything other than being signed as the first Australian hip-hop band. However, this could be merged into the Australian hip hop article. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 08:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have added a number of sources to the article and added ((fact)) tags where needed. The band appears to have been a significant step in bringing Australian Hip Hop onto the national and international stage. Fosnez (talk) 10:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Independent sources and minor notability. Could be merged into another article like Kristjan Wager mentioned. However unless sufficient expansion is done on this article I believe it will be deleted the next time around. -Jahnx (talk)

Comment I don't think i would class their notability as minor. They were the first internationally signed Hip Hop band from Australia, one of only two in the 1990s. They have been mentioned in a number of google scholar articles. There are Google News and Google Book Search results for the band. I think notability has been establised (I.E. Significant coverage by multiple Reliable Secondary Sources Independent of the subject). Fosnez (talk) 11:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First, don't use google to determine notability. Second, the article is riding its entire notability on the first australian band being signed by the major record label. It would be safe to say they have notability but other than that, its lacking severely. Hoever since the full Discography was added I think this article is safe for a while. -Jahnx (talk) 11:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Longhair\^talk 22:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sound Unlimited Posse were huge in the early 1990s, which is that strange post-historical, pre-Google period it's hard to find online references for. "Kickin' to the Undersound" debuted on the Australian ARIA charts at #33 [45] and got up to #20 [46], - a Top 20 hit is notable enough surely, in addition to their major label signing. The "messageboard post" reference is an article from Ministry, a major music magazine. --Canley (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep adequately establishes notability. — brighterorange (talk) 01:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes Wp:N. Twenty Years 05:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:MUSIC. —Moondyne click! 06:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep conforms to wp:music#criteria for musicians and ensembles #5. Mstuczynski (talk) 07:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies notability requirements as outlined above. Dan arndt (talk) 09:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on why Keep is warranted. Firstly, I think the person whom nominated this, did so in bad faith. Secondly, regarding the comment to "(not use) google to establish notability. Well... it appears that google was used to question notability. It goes both ways! Encise (talk) 05:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Its ok man, chill... no reason to get pissed, nominations like this happening all the time (with no offence intended to the nominator), thats why myself and my buddies at The Article Rescue ~~Squadren~~ Posse monitor the AfD queue for articles that can be rescued from deletion. It happens more often then you would think. Also, as the article's creater you are more than welcome to contribute to the AfD debate. You probably have the strongest ability to argue for the keeping of the article because on your knowledge of the subject. Commenting on an AfD for an article you created is not a Conflict of Interest. - Fosnez (talk) 02:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per consensus. Article needs cleanup though, tagged as such. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sunnykutty Abraham[edit]

per WP:N and no Significant coverage on the topic, no reliable secondary sources that is independent of the subject --Harjk talk 06:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Changed to Keep per Nitinsunny's refs. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 07:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isnt this enough to prove a peesons notaility ?

Nitinsunny (talk) 08:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - above refs seem notable.PamD (talk) 10:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above person Mr.Sunnykutty Abraham is notable. Should not be opted for deletion. More information and coverage can be added. (Ashrafmedia (talk) 10:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Comment: All the references furnished are not independent of the subject (WP:N). It’s just mentioned his name and I agree that he is a journalist and CEO of a TV channel. False? Suggest Keep. --Harjk talk 04:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - cites noted by Nitinsunny appear to show notability. Bearian (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:SNOWball keep. This nomination is premature for the current event. May be re-evaluated later down the road. --Auto ^{(talk / contribs)} 16:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emperors Club VIP[edit]

Does this alleged prostitution ring need its own article? I don't think so, and I don't think there's anything to merge here either. Delete and redirect to Eliot Spitzer. --Nlu (talk) 06:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a brothel known for one event. It really isn't notable outside the scandal, which doesn't even have a separate article at this time. There are no preceding citations on Google News, for example. --Dhartung | Talk 07:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe that the article is worth keeping. Although I originated it, it has had numerous edits in the past 48 hours which have significantly expanded it, thus showing broad based support. The material contributed goes significantly beyond what would be appropriate for the Spitzer article. Granted, it wasn’t in the news before Spitzer, but it certainly is in the news now. There are many other articles on brothels and escorts who are of equal or less notoriety. --Nowa (talk) 11:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's probably a lot more to come on this story. RMc (talk) 11:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. If there is nothing more to say as events unfold it can be re-nomianted. HtD (talk) 11:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Current event has large publicity making this notable for the time being. -Jahnx (talk) 12:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now per Htd and others, Merge later if and only if Elliot Spitzer turns out to be the only high-profile person involved. It's way too soon to tell. Personally, I think the article shouldn't have been created until a 2nd high-profile person got exposed but the article is here and it's more efficient to keep it until things get settled. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this article should be kept. I actually came to Wikipedia a few days ago looking for this article and could not find it. I am glad someone took the time to start it. This is a developing story and I think there will be a lot more to add to it and it will be a valuable addition to Wikipedia.. Given the expense of their service, I imagine Eliot Spitzer is just one of many high profile clients that may drop. Even if there isn't, this is a huge story and deserves a Wikipedia entry, as does the scandal itself. --HurryTaken (talk) 14:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional Keep -- If prosecution results, it will certainly be notable enough. AnonMoos (talk) 14:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:davidwr reasoning. Merge later if necessary. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 16:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This (business? website?), a costly call girl operation whose clientele includes the rich and mighty, easily meets any notability guideline that might apply. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 delete votes--JForget 00:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 advance-knowledge debate[edit]

WP:POVFORK of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Article title get 5 google hits, suggesting this debate mostly exists on Wikipedia only. Weregerbil (talk) 06:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citing WP:POVFORK:

A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject. A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies.

this article is not a "content fork" since it is a subarticle and treats things that are not treated in other articles and is not a POV fork because it is not a "content fork" and also doesn't endorse a POV. If you don't like the title then maybe you could just try to suggest alternative names. The suggestion that "the debate mostly exists in wikipedia only" is definitely contradicted by the many sources that are cited inside the artcle.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 09:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reliable source in there somewhere which shows there is a famous debate going on? Something that shows the article describes an existing phenomenon, rather than conspiracy theorists collecting a farm of (mis)quotes that exists nowhere else than the article? A lot of the "sources" in the article seem to be conspiracy theory web sites... Any source that confirms the debate exists, describes the debate neutrally, confirms the hand-picked quotes are relevant and examines them from various sides, and allows a real article to be written? Weregerbil (talk) 07:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the topic is clearly notable, and a subarticle rather than a POVFORK. The fact that the title doesn't get ghits perhaps reflects difficulty in finding an appropriate title for a topic which hasn't got a formal name, but that doesn't prevent it from being a worthwhile topic for an article. PamD (talk) 10:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This one is parcular, however nothing has convinced me to vote against it as of right now. -Jahnx (talk) 12:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. That we may not have selected the best title doesn't mean it isn't a notable "debate" (discussion, concern). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Extremely well-sourced, notable topic, invalid use of Ghit criteria -- just because the article title isn't replicated elsewhere doesn't mean the topic is NN, OR or unique to Wikipedia. One glance at the sources completely eliminates the NOR argument. I agree with Pokipsy that if there's an issue with the title, take it up at the article level. 23skidoo (talk) 13:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable, sourced, and sadly this is a real debate. KnightLago (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Well-sourced, and it's hard to deny that people are not in agreement about who knew what prior to 9/11. Mandsford (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to 9/11 advance-knowledge controversy. The 9/11 advance-knowledge debate is only notable if there are independent reliable secondary sources about the debate. This article cites many sources, but they all seem to be sources of evidence that is used in the debate which is different than sources about the debate. Keeping this as 9/11 advance-knowledge debate would be like if Lincoln-Douglas debates gave numerous, well-cited arguments for and against expansion of slavery, but didn't say anything at all about the historical context of the debates themselves, their historical significance, the significance of Lincoln and Douglas being involved, etc. Chuck (talk) 16:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I like this move. I am no native Englisher, but it sounds better to me. And also, making claims and being ridiculed is not to much debate as controversy. // I'll take a look at 9/11 conspiracy theories ... and added  to avoid content forking. (keep)  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 00:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the sourcing could be a bit better, there is enough sourcing to show that the topic is notable. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the subject is notable and sources are available. It might need to be renamed to a more common search term; that's no reason to delete. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 22:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article contains important information that is not covered elsewhere on Wikipedia. A lot of the material has already been moved from other pages because they were getting too large. Logicman1966 (talk) 01:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an important topic in the 9/11 attacks that is unable to be fully addessed in other areas. The list of facts can hardly be considered controversial, so debate is a better title. It really needs it's own page with the amount of information it contains. Currently it is well written and needs more input. bov (talk) 02:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment google search yielding 600]  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 00:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zhang Shuqi[edit]

If this artist was notable, article didn't establish it. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability of importance to art isn't established. Most I could find on article is in this book Chinese Paintings in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford By S. J. Vainker Page 188(Google Book) and is almost word for word in what the wikipedia article is. I don't think this article will ever been improved better than this. This article could however could be included in another article of related subject perhaps. -Jahnx (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Stanford University's "The Shuqi Zhang Collection" here which includes a bio naming him as one of China’s most famous 20th century water color painters. He taught at a number of universities and was considered a goodwill ambassador from China in 1940's. The article could be improved by someone familiar with this field. KnightLago (talk) 16:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree... the nominator didn't think that the British Museum was significant for Wu Guanzhong, so I'm sure that Stanford University registers either. But if he's notable enough for Stanford, he's notable enough for me. Mandsford (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep silly nom. Johnbod (talk) 22:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per KnightLago and Johnbod. The nominator should have separated out the borderline-cases from the obviously notable before taking to AfD.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zhang Enli[edit]

Notability appears to be questionable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not as notable as a couple of the others listed, but I've added some references to the article and cleaned it up a little bit. In general he does seem notable - lots of references to his work, including in the Telegraph, and always referring to him as one of the more successful contemporary Chinese artists. There may also be more references if one can read French, and possibly a lot more for someone who knows the field, as there is a seemingly long list of publications in which he's included. - Bilby (talk) 11:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep wide secondary source coverage per Bilby, one of the more successful contemporary Chinese artists is impressive, perhaps someone more familiar with the art world could improve the article further. KnightLago (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given the other nominations made by this nominator today, his/her opinion about what's notable in the world of art is nothing I would rely upon. Mandsford (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. Too many nominations here. Johnbod (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 00:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7 (band) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absoloot Squad[edit]

Non-notable rap duo - fails WP:MUSIC and WP:NOTE. Searching yields mainly blogs and myspace. [47] Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 05:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 05:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - MySpace rappers from Iowa. No thanks. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I searched but could find no sources. Delete unless sources are provided prior to the end of this deletion discussion. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Can someone show me how this band meets WP:BAND at all? Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yan Pei-Ming[edit]

Notability appears questionable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep Notability is established by the contents of the article and the links provided. Most bios read like 'mild advertising'; so what? Edit improve articles, not waste our time such such feeble deletion nominations. Hmains (talk) 05:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a quick google search shows such articles as this one, which indicates that he is notable. The article should be improved though. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 07:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've made a start at cleaning up the article, but it is still little more than a stub. He's had a fair bit of news coverage (I've added some to the article), and one of his paintings sold for 2.9 million pounds, so I'd consider him to be notable. :) - Bilby (talk) 10:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable. Plenty of sources. -Jahnx (talk) 12:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable and widely sourced. KnightLago (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notoriety, excellent work and in line with: WP:5P.Golgofrinchian (talk) 22:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Library of Congress lists 7 books with Yan Pei-Ming's name in the title, and Google has about 11,600 English pages for Yan Pei-Ming Wmpearl (talk) 07:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He has a work in the National Gallery of Australia [48].--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 00:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xia Xiao Wan[edit]

Reads like (badly written) resumé. Notability questionable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 04:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep Notability is established by the contents of the article and the links provided. Most bios read like 'mild advertising'; so what? Edit improve articles, not waste our time such such feeble deletion nominations. Hmains (talk) 05:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see nothing wrong with the references and I can't find anything to actually contradict the information in the biography even if it sounds to some like advertising. This article should be given time to grow and expand.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 13:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A lot of room for improvement, but agree with Hmains and Torchwood that subject is notable and there are sources to establish it. KnightLago (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-nn artist, ghits nothing that asserts n, unsourced and likely to remain that way. nice art though.W-i-k-i-l-o-v-e-r-1-7 (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zhaoming Wu[edit]

Is this artist notable? I have doubts. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 04:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep Notability is established by the contents of the article and the links provided. Most bios read like 'mild advertising'; so what? Edit improve articles, not waste our time such such feeble deletion nominations. Hmains (talk) 05:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hmains -Jahnx (talk) 12:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources in the article already establish notability. KnightLago (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wu Guanzhong[edit]

Reads like resumé. The lack of a Chinese Wikipedia article makes it, I think, clear that the superlatives in the article are hyperbole, and that in turn makes notability questionable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 04:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - it took all of a few seconds to find [49], [50], [51]. ~~I want to assume good faith, but did the nominator consider tagging this with a notability concern, or, perhaps, checking Google News first?~~ Sorry, that was rude - but this article was relatively easy to confirm the notability of. - Bilby (talk) 05:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bilby. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 10:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think most of us have heard of the British Museum, and, yes, he did have his paintings exhibited there Mandsford (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability established by Bilby's sources and the British Museum. KnightLago (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per easily available reliable source coverage TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 19:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Bilby. Online sources are plentiful.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 00:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Manning[edit]

The article is non notable (WP:N). I have discussed this on Talk:Mike Manning. I do not think that the article meets the criteria set out in WP:BIO & WP:MUSIC. There are

six hits on Google for Mike Manning and Bad Poetry Blues Band and
the band (Google search) nets 245 hits.

Background

A proposal for deletion (WP:PROD) failed, on a revert by the article creator (Bluesfyre Bluesfyre Talk).

Bluesfyre has reverted other edits related to the muscial group ('Bad Poetry Blues Band') done by myself {my edit}{revert} and a WP administrator {NawlinWiki's edit}{revert}. Nephron T|C 04:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Delete Serious lack of WP:RS and no coverage to meet WP:N--Torchwood Who? (talk) 13:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maintain I believe the artist and the band, have made great progress in helping to promote blues music in the community. 08:03 13 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluesfyre (talk • contribs)
Delete. The band would normally have an article first, then the band members. SilkTork *^YES! 23:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Needs improvement, but there appear to be a lot of online sources showing notability available. Black Kite 08:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Yi Guang[edit]

Reads like advertising, and notability appears to be questionable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 04:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability established by sources in article and numerous mentions of his work being exhibited by museums, see here and here for quick examples. Also, because it "Reads like advertising" is not a good reason for deletion unless it would be impossible to salvage the article. While the article needs improvement, this is not the case here. KnightLago (talk) 16:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass WP:BIO. No work in museum collections, major awards or multiple third-party source. I agree with KnightLago about the mass AfD though. Contemporary artists (where an international profile can be verified, or not) are mixed up with early twentieth century artists (where verifiability is more complex, especially for Chinese artists).--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 00:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Apologies, KnightLago hasn't said anything here about the mass AfD.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 01:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The images linked in the article are their own proof of notability. Absolutely, this has been the most pleasurable AfD to research I've seen. Have you seen the images at [52]? If this doesn't belong on Wikipedia, we've gone crazy. I'm bookmarking the external links just in case! I get 11,300 ghits for "Wang Yi Guang" -wikipedia. The prominent returns are indeed this artist, though there are some other returns for that name. There was a catalog of the exhibition at the Schoeni Gallery published, it's for sale on that website,[53] and I found confirmation at a Cornell University Chinese Avant-garde Art Archive: [54], listed as Wang Yi Guang: Retrospective of Tibet - The Spirit and Movement.--Abd (talk) 02:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Shiyan[edit]

Reads like advertising and copyvio. (I can't tell right now whether it is copyvio since his site is down.) Delete. --Nlu (talk) 04:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep Notability is established by the contents of the article and the links provided. Most bios read like 'mild advertising'; so what? Edit improve articles, not waste our time such such feeble deletion nominations. Hmains (talk) 05:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The content of the article leads me to the conclusion that he is notable. I am, however, having trouble finding sources as this name appears to be fairly common, and I do not speak the language. Someone who speaks the language would be of great help to find sources to backup the assertions. KnightLago (talk) 16:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems to be a somewhat misguided clean-up effort. it might have been more considerate to nominate one or two & see the results before putting everyone to this trouble. DGG (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Kang Le[edit]

May be notable, but I don't think article itself establishes it. Delete unless notability established. --Nlu (talk) 04:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - wouldn't a museum dedicated to his work[55] establish his notability? --Kristjan Wager (talk) 08:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yes, it would. Keep per Kristjan Wager. KnightLago (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kristjan Wager. Although other (online) sources are thin on the ground, this one source is enough for me, given the fact that a Chinese artist working in the early-to-mid twentieth century is not likely to get a lot of coverage on the Internet.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shi Xinning[edit]

Notability questionable. Delete unless notability established. --Nlu (talk) 04:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - an article in the International Herald Tribune [56] shoudl establish notability, and there should be no trouble getting more. - Bilby (talk) 05:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Bilby. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 08:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources establish notability. KnightLago (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bilby. Plus, works in the Saatchi collection. I'm sure more sources can be found.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Qu Qianmei[edit]

Reads like advertising and copyvio, and notability is somewhat questionable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 04:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article needs improvement. However, this details an exhibition of work to the General Assembly of UNESCO, and then a world tour. Both establish notability. KnightLago (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The effort put into these nominations would have better gone into improving the articles. Things are either copyvio or not--cant delete on the basis that it might conceivably be. If one wants to allege copyright violation, one needs evidence.DGG (talk) 23:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although the artist has curated an exhibition for UNESCO [57], the article still doesn't pass WP:BIO. Organising one exhibition is not sufficient. The artist needs to have work in museum collections, have won major awards and/or be the subject of books or press reviews.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 00:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Notability "somewhat questionable" is a poor reason to delete. "Reads like copyvio" simply means that, probably, some publicity for the artist, or the like, was copied. That's an editing problem, not a reason to delete the article. Problems with content are not a reason to delete, they are a reason to edit. I found what appears to be a French governmental website with an exhibition of this artist listed.[58]. It would take quite a bit of work to verify the fairly impressive list of exhibitions on the article page, but it would be surprising if there were not information about some of these exhibitions in French publications.--Abd (talk) 02:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Qu Leilei[edit]

Notability appears questionable. Delete unless notability established. --Nlu (talk) 04:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the article needs improvement, the subject appears to have been a member of "The Stars Group of Artists". See here. This group apparently was instrumental in the fight for artistic freedom in Communist China and attracted over 200,000 people to their exhibits. More in depth research is needed, but this article could definitely be improved. KnightLago (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Might conceivably be notable but neither the article nor a quick google search turns up any evidence (or reliable sources). Eluchil404 (talk) 04:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This AfD is one of a series of similar AfDs, and the first two I reviewed and researched seem to have been quite inappropriate. It takes a short time to create an AfD, and then many editors have to spend time to keep it. If the first two AfDs had been more reasonable, I'd be more inclined to examine this one in detail. What's clear to me with this artist, from a brief search, is that Wikipedia is poorer without the article, and in no way is it improved by deletion. --Abd (talk) 02:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Author of 11 books on Amazon (I edited the article) more than enough to indicate notability to me.Dimitrii (talk) 13:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: though article needs to be moved to Qu Lei Lei to be consistent with common western spelling (contrast this spelling) and could use considerable expansion, individual seems notable. I'm about to add some of the references I've found to the article and would request as a courtesy that this AfD delay closure at least a few more minutes until I have a chance to see how much is out there that can be used. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added additional sourcing to this, enough to convince me that it meets WP:BIO for creative professionals in that his work has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition & has won significant critical attention. Further, the "star group" of which he was a founding member seems highly significant, even though it doesn't seem to be on Wikipedia yet. (Note photographs in this article.) I think he qualifies as notable. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arjuna Sittampalam[edit]

Non-notable biography: fails WP:BIO The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)-Ravichandar 04:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to fail the biographical notability criteria. Little assertion of any notability in the article. Minor news mentions but nothing sufficient - Peripitus (Talk) 11:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- about half of the article's words cromes from [59], possibly in violation of the fair use doctrine. Bearian (talk) 19:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- seems to be a cut , copy , paste work . but since this article is about a notable person the member may be asked to rewrite it in a 3rd party style Pearll's sun (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Shi-min[edit]

Reads like advertising (as well as copyvio), and notability is questionable. Delete unless notability established (and also delete if established to be copyvio). --Nlu (talk) 04:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Lee Shi-min is a leading contemporary artist, especially well-known in mainland China, and originator of several notable artistic innovations.

KWongtawan (talk) 18:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep I agree mostly with Hmains.

Nlu: if you feel the article reads too much like advertising, you may edit-improve it accordingly. The quality of many other comtemporary artist articles extant on wiki is far below this one. Bream1 (talk) 06:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep Notability is established by the contents of the article and the links provided. Most bios read like 'mild advertising'; so what? Edit improve articles, not waste our time such such feeble deletion nominations. Hmains (talk) 05:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Contemporary artists need to have seriously verifiable measures before being notable. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Unable to find reliable sources, but he is widely mentioned. KnightLago (talk) 17:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notability is asserted but not referenced. What major museums? External links just go to the main pages. Johnbod (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass WP:BIO. No work in major museums, no significant exhibitions, no major awards, no multiple third-party sources. There's an external link to MoMA, but a search of the museum site gives nothing: [60].--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am presently compiling further substantive information on a number of contemporary artists including this one which will be added in due course. Kreisler (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to allow time to gather more information. It would be worth revisting this article in 6 months to see if progress has been made on establishing reliable verification. SilkTork *^YES! 23:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per KWongtawan, Kreisler, and Hmains. Needs some better sourcing, and this can take time to collect. Note that reasons given for deletion are not proper grounds per se. "Reads like advertising" is a contant issue and is irrelevant to deletion. This nominator used almost identical language to nominate a whole series of Chinese contemporary artist articles. I spent quite a bit of time researching the first one, Wang Yi Guang, and came away (1) grateful that I was pointed to this art by this AfD, and (2) quite irritated that someone would want to delete that article. It completely impeached, for me, the credibility of this nominator; the canned, repetitive nature of the nominations reflects a lack of care. If Wang Yi Guang isn't notable, he should be! (But he is notable, and we have considerable reason to believe that Lee Shi-mina is as well.)--Abd (talk) 02:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep per WP:SNOW, clear incentive to improve the article has been demonstrated and notability is not an issue. Non-admin closure. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 14:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kalisha Buckhanon[edit]

Author biography article with a somewhat confused history of creation, deletion, restoral, etc. Appears to originally have been an autobiography. However, the subject may well meet notability guidelines, having two novels published by a major house (St. Martin's), a number of literary awards, and reviews in major publications including the Washington Post, Kirkus Reviews, and the (UK) Independent. It was tagged with CSD:A7 which does not seem to apply. Procedural nomination, with no recommendation. MCB (talk) 04:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, we couldn't wikify it fast enough before it was thrown to the wolves. I have notified the author, a new editor about WP policies. The original ((db-bio)) was placed in haste and shouldn't have even made it to this point. We should take more time to actually read the articles before we db them from the newpage patrols--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 04:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While I suspect there may be a COI in the article as originally posted, the author is clearly noteworthy, has won several important awards, has two books published by a major house, and so on. The article needs cleanup, pruning and proper referencing, but should not be deleted. Risker (talk) 04:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Understood that this is a procedural nom, but this is really straightforward, except for the over-the-top personal bildungsroman writing style. It could easily be trimmed by half just removing extraneous (and unverifiable) point-of-view exposition, not to mention many extraneous references, e.g. multi-sentence profiles of her parents. --Dhartung | Talk 04:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have warned Spindlemanagement (talk · contribs) (a single-purpose account) about our conflict of interest policies. --Dhartung | Talk 04:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good points by Dhartung.--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 04:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Absolutely fulfills WP:BIO and WP:NOTE given the content in the article. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 06:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 06:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 06:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't see anything wrong with the sources in this article and Washington Post is an excellent primary.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 13:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete (both) --- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dong Wen Jie[edit]

Reads like mild advertising, and doesn't really establish her notability. Unless notability established, delete. --Nlu (talk) 03:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article (for her husband) for deletion:

Xie Qiu Wa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

keep both Notability is established by the contents of the article and the links provided. Most bios read like 'mild advertising'; so what? Edit improve articles, not waste our time such such feeble deletion nominations. Hmains (talk) 05:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can establish notability from an independent reliable source. Sources listed seem to be commercial galleries, who of course stand to profit from making subject seem notable... Deltopia (talk) 13:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sure looks like self promotion, with vague terminology about public status. "Many" shows in the continent of North America? That's meaningless. A "leader" in the overseas Chinese art market? Again, this means nearly nothing. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacking reliable sources to establish notability. KnightLago (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although I would really like to see a photo of her work, I think it would help. Golgofrinchian (talk) 22:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not pass WP:BIO. No works held in museum collections, no important exhibitions, no major awards, no multiple third-party sources.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Delai[edit]

I must say, based on information given here, that this person might be notable -- but the article does not establish it and, more problematically, does not provide sufficient information to allow a person not well-versed in subject to establish it. Unless notability established, delete. --Nlu (talk) 03:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment. After doing a Google search, I am not convinced that this article is not a hoax -- but I cannot establish that it is a hoax, either. --Nlu (talk) 03:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't see any reason to think this article is a hoax; see [61] and [62]. On the other hand, I can't find much to confirm the subject's notability, either. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete due to lack of information to confirm notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Right on the border, here. The shows are what would make the grade, but the shows outside of China seem to be small and in specialty museums. What Chinese galleries mount was, at least, not reliable. This is close. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moonshine (band)[edit]

Non notable band under WP:MUSIC. Non notable label and no tours. Also, no third party sources to confirm any notability. Delete Undeath (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Fails WP:BAND. No coverage found, and possible copyvio of Metal Archives page, although it may have been the same fan who created both articles.--Michig (talk) 07:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No hint of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. [63]. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 17:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, fails WP:MUSIC Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 17:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn subject and any related articles should go. Peter Fleet (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ShamanDhia[edit]

Shameless self-promotion by a digital media artist. Is she notable? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOT TRUE! I am SO ashamed for making these mistakes! :) Please don't ban this page address if someone else wants to write about me later. I responded to the notability issue here:(talk)

the Hitochi Princess (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)ShamanDhia http://supervert.com/essays/technology/interactive_show - about "The Interactive Show"[reply]

other sources are hyperlinked from my school site: http://dm3519.aisites.com So, for example, the link goes back to me, but the link will display the newspaper article from the Buffalo Evening News. (which I bet I'm not supposed to scan and publish again) I am a "first generation" digital media artist, meaning I started exhibiting in 1992 (very early on - especially for females) and all my stuff is written and published on free sites, because it is in line with my philosophy of digital media art - so if yahoo! is not a reliable source because my Earthwork Artwork is housed there, I'll ignore it or delete it from my page. (?) I think I am a sort of special case, because I am working exclusively on the internet, and ecommerce is an element in my digital media creations, so everything has a donate button on it, it doesn't mean its commercial. I've never received payments from anyone on my so-called commercial sites, and they get very few hits.

http://www.geocities.com/shamandhia/fol.htm
People who mention me do it on blogs, like PIMAtalk (yahoo! group) I am not trying to advertise myself or my projects - I just want to get a legal page up about myself, because I am familiar with the content, and I can provide the information in the correct format when I know what it is.
(and your comments here have helped me understand a lot and have been very helpful so far.)
the Hitochi Princess (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)ShamanDhia[reply]

US Copyright info for Golem: (GOLEM_lives_783k.jpg)

http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&PAGE=First

Golem.

Type of Work: Visual Material Registration Number / Date: VAu000699904 / 2006-03-02 Title: Golem. Copyright Claimant: Denise Mortillaro, 1969- (Shaman Dhia, pseud.) Date of Creation: 2006 Previous Registration: Appl. describes preexisting material. Basis of Claim: New Matter: adaptation of design & additional artistic work. Copyright Note: Cataloged from appl. only.

Names: Mortillaro, Denise, 1969- Dhia, Shaman, pseud.

161.38.223.246 (talk) 15:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)ShamanDhia[reply]

Strong Delete per WP:COI, WP:AUTO and WP:N. Neutral The autobiography part is fixed, and I see an assertion of notability, but I can't find too many things concerning her and it still sounds a bit biased.-=Elfin=-³⁴¹ 02:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ~~above~~ below. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 02:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC) 02:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been watching this debate for the past five days since I made my initial recommendation on this matter and after reading through everything that has been written from all sides I now feel that I should like to weigh in once more. As I see it, this article, as it stands today, sits right smack on the line of the notability, referencing, and verifiability criteria upon which the proposed deletion largely hangs. The arguement for notability could be made, but would hang only by the slimmest of threads as there is still no independent, secondary source coverage that meets WP:RS standards. A mere breath in either direction could make it a clear keep or delete, but as it stands, the decision as to whether or not this article is up to standards seems to hinge on subjective definitions and semantic hairsplitting. However, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, so we can, in some cases, sidestep the "rules" or indeed dispense with them altogether. In such marginal cases where policy alone does not give us a satisfactory answer, I think it is incumbent upon us to use more abstract methods of arriving at a descision including the consideration of other criteria not normally considered criteria for deletion. I would therefore suggest that the following be considered:

This article could hardly represent a more clear-cut case of conflict of interest with the author of and only major contributor to this article being the subject of the same.
Wikipedia is already deluged with similar articles in which an individual writes an article about themselves or their own band, company, product, or thing they just made up at work/school.
The deleting of the non-notable or unsalvageable examples of such occupies a significant fraction of the overall deletion process at all levels (speedy, prod, AfD.)
The author/subject of this article has stated that she feels that she is "clearly worth a 1 in 2.4 million exception." This statement--which is hard to interpret as anything but conceit and arrogance--would undoubtedly be echoed by all the other author/subjects of the aforementioned articles about themselves, their bands, companies, etc. which are so often (and rightly) deleted.

Therefore, I believe that (lacking a clear direction from policy,) I must still vote for deletion for the simple reason that, in my estimation, Wikipedia is simply better off without it than with it. To allow this inclusion only serves to further encourage any of the millions of people with a marginally notable accomplishment or two, a few free hours, and a healthy dose of self-importance to flood the site with an equal number of self-congratulatory autobiographies and advertisements. I realize that this alone is not sufficient to merit deletion, I simply offer it as a straw that broke the camel's back in addition to the very marginal notability, etc. To that I wish only to add that none of the above is intended as a judgement on the individual who is the subject of the article, only this particular article's fitness for inclusion. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 22:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC) 22:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Neutral only hits on Copernic is self published.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Right now the whole page reads like a reseme. In fact it could be used as the header for one. The only activity mentioned that may have any notablility is Golem, and there are no secondary sources linking Denise/Shaman Dhia to the project, only primary. With the lack of any public coverage other than that which is drummed up by the creators themselves (including this article), this article dosn't have the notablility to remain in Wikipedia.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2008 ::)

Take a look at these, please:

EXHIBITS AND PROJECTS

Mar-92 Leading Edge Humanism - Buffalo, NY (Buffalo News; Wednesday, March 18, 1992 p.B9)

Nov-92 The Interactive Show - SoHo NYC (Artforum; November 1992 p.108)

Jul-96 Stations of The Underground Railroad - Lewiston, NY (GUSTO Buffalo Evening News; Friday, July 19, 1996 p.19)

Thank you for below ;) I very much appreciate your comments and guidance.

I would like to try to keep working on this until it reads - the "resume" style was an uninformed attempt to document "notability." This is my first experience creating on wiki, and though I understand the resistance to autobio's, I only learn by doing, and I can only do this page because I am familiar with the content. I will re-write, but I have class now 'till 5

the Hitochi Princess (talk) 16:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)ShamanDhia[reply]

Question do you have links for those articles?Coffeepusher

http://dm3519.aisites.com/DMORTarts.htm (all links/articles are outlined here)

There is a GoogleEarth entry for the UGRR project with 117 downloads.

http://dm3519.aisites.com/gusto.jpg <-- notes The Castellani Museum was at that time the first web site for a museum in western new york and cites me, "Dhia

Mortillaro."
the Hitochi Princess (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)ShamanDhia[reply]

161.38.223.246 (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)ShamanDhia (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However she does sound like a good teacher, from the few comments I did findCoffeepusher (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Elfin. Neutral - I am interested in seeing how this article develops before taking a stance. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 08:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Aside from showing the nadis, this is self-promotion, and Wikipedia does not advertise even the most worthy of persons or products. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ShamanDhia (I responded to some stuff here, as well)the Hitochi Princess (talk) 19:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)ShamanDhia[reply]

http://chsn87.wikidot.com/graduates <-- fact check about HS. Is this a secondary source?

161.38.223.246 (talk) 20:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)ShamanDhia[reply]

Comment The page was created by a newcomer on wikipedia, and although it did violate WP:COI and WP:AUTO, I believe that was more a newbie mistake rather than for the wrong reasons. Im going to ignore all rules in saying, can we actually save this article and turn it into a valuble contribution to wikipedia? I would like to use the AFD to improve an article for once, rather than mesuring its heart to the feather of the law. its just a thought.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Coffeepusher, for the vote of confidence :) I re-wrote part of the page as a narrative, and I'm looking into the format for citing the statements - thanks for the welcome message with all the info - VERY HELPFUL!! I'll be uploading a photo soon, then I'm just going to wait for a verdict about this page.

161.38.223.246 (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)ShamanDhia[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 06:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, I sent the permission letter for my portrait today: forthcoming; also thanks for the listing, David. Do I change the tag at the top of the page for speedy delete or leave it alone (I'm a total newbie in wiki). the Hitochi Princess (talk) 14:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)ShamanDhia[reply]

Delete per WP:COI, WP:AUTO and WP:N, still reads like a resume & still question AUTO & N. SkierRMH (talk) 20:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From my talk page "I am trying to give away Art through Wiki, which is what it is all about, I think." IMHO shows that there is still a grave lack of understanding about what is required to address the concerns that have been voiced herein. SkierRMH (talk) 00:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: [Ticket#2008031310018777] Permission for Denise Mortillaro portrait from photographer Catrina Genovese

Just got confirmation for my photo. The "resume read" has improved, but needs work still, I am requesting time to work on this as I am new to wiki and even though the page might be deleted regarding coi and auto, because I am familiar with my own work, I can more easily navigate the formatting in wiki and learn about the permissions and references - there's no way I could have done this much on an article that I know little about. I believe CoffeePusher understands correctly my issues qualifying me as a "special case." Other editors are not reading the comments, and take offense to my "crude edits" which are newbie mistakes - like answering in-line to the posts to which I am responding. i would clean up the page and fix it, but I really want to stay with one page at a time, and my time is running out for "ShamanDhia." Honestly, even the mean editors are helping me a lot with this (as did the "bots.")

From RHayworth's talk page

It is still shameless self-promotion. Have some modesty, woman. As I have already said more than once on this page: wait. When you become notable someone will write your bio for you. You have also done very crude edits to the AfD discussion, moving my signature to the end of stuff I did not write. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I was responding in-line to the comments because I was late getting the welcome message, and this is my first experience editing on wiki. Others have neutralized their opinion based on my edits. Thanks for the feedback, and I will try not to be so crude in the future.161.38.223.246 (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)ShamanDhia 161.38.223.246 (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)ShamanDhia[reply]

I think RHayworth is dead wrong, and no matter what I say that is always going to be her answer to me, and skimming content returns that attitude...but there are intelligent people reading and watching... I know for sure because some of my students at school reported what they read about me here, and were very involved in the discussions and also concerned about how I felt about being so "attacked." I explained that the yelling was mostly from auto-responders, not the people. (They see the ! and the colors and they get upset...they don't really read the messages.) They saw the comments and asked what I thought about the whole thing - the experience...they are taught in school that wiki is not a good source of info. They also told me anyone can post anything they want. We had a pretty long dialog about wiki and I don't mind speaking up for this system in college lectures.

ok - here's one for you. I did a website for an artist in 1996 that was hosted on hisname.com. Now another guy with the same name has that domain. I have the code, still. It was published on hisname.com, with a credit in the source code to me. If I put it on my site at work (college), It is considered self-published, or self-referencing...but it would be considered differently if it were hosted or linked differently, and the actual thing is a website. It's sort of the first one I made. http://dm3519.aisites.com/default.htm Check it out - its pretty cool. If I say published on hisname.com in 1996, and people go to hisname.com, they see his name, but that guy is not the guy who owned the site in 1996, and he doesn't know me.

ok - another one - then I want to include my EarthWork, but its sitting on geocities. I really made something out of the Earth elements, and its in NYC. http://www.geocities.com/shamandhia/fol.htm It was posted on a bunch of usergroups newsgroups.. yahoo ones I think PIMAtalk. How would I cite these if I were to include them in my page? How can they be wikiproofed? oh, yeah...someone did write my bio: (you have to look for my realspace data, not the cyberspace stuff) by that I meant you have to use my name, not my nick/id. http://www.artinstitutes.edu/newyork/experts_sec.asp?catid=305 does that count for anything with wiki? Its not on my faculty page.

I'm personally all about free speech and free art, and in the tradition of artists being a little different, and in the spirit of the wiki revolution, I think that at least one auto-bio by a conceptual digital media artist should be tolerated, watched, and formally accepted by the wiki community...because it will be a long time before anyone not in the digital media art realm will be able to understand my work enough to write about it. By deleting this page you are actually censoring progressive work that should be discussed and shared in a reputable cyber-community - that's not the purpose of wiki - ...yes, here I am being shameless again...

I'm only talking about the site I made in 1996 this month, because when I made it, no one knew what the hell computers were, let alone the internet, and art has always been a fringe culture in the US, so I never showed stuff or talked about it, because nobody knew what it was - also the technology available today (and storage space, and video, etc.) makes it possible to share it now...people can understand it and talk about it - but they couldn't do that in 1996. The people who did try to write about my stuff early on got most of the vocabulary and terms wrong, anyway...even Elizabeth merged my nick with my realname -"Dhia Mortillaro." A lot of people do that.

And the underground railroad stations project is huge, even 12 years later...and constantly growing, I put the googleEarth tour of the stations online in 2006, i think - not very many people understand the contributions of the Native American Indians - helping people navigate through the landscape from one station to the next - all the way to Canada. The map I made was a render from a topographical download from NASA and photoshoped to look like niagara falls... that screen became the GoogleEarth tour in 10 years. That's so cool.

Wiki is a kind of Plexus linking ideas and thoughts and threads. If you weave in my thread you're voting to remain progressive and adaptable. If you delete this page you are falling into lock and key karma power struggle stuff. You guys can understand that, but my waiting to be noticed by regular people to earn the honor of being "notable" beyond what I already am is crazy from my perspective because of the kind of artist I am. I can only truly be notable in cyber-communities, which are mostly friends and fans. Not always "reliable."

I'm long winded and sel-reflective tonight because I know I have to fix my bio tomorrow if there is any chance at all to save my page... oh yeah, and I have to figure out the footnote thing still. Thanks for reading, and thanks for the crash course in wiki publishing this week! I really had a lot of fun; and, I know the experience will influence how I approach my work in the future.

24.188.143.21 (talk) 06:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)ShamanDhia[reply]

I guess the blog-like entry above should go on the discussion page? A few questions in closing here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:ShamanDhia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.38.223.246 (talk) 16:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is still an artist resume. Intro does not state clearly why this person is notable. This is a notable artist?, art instructor?, psychic medium? References and links show the normal self promotion a working artists does, that is not notability, that is an artist's directory listing. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sign of meeting WP:BIO criteria. Johnbod (talk) 04:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong DELETE Vanity/ CV page, fails WP:BIO, WP:COI, WP:N, etc.... I would list for speedy if not for the references and how detailed it is. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 17:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updated since above 3 delete votes, msgs left on talk pagesthe Hitochi Princess (talk) 21:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)ShamanDhia[reply]

Delete The self-promotion is understandable but this artist is not yet notable. User:ShamanDhia should examine Wikipedia:Autobiography. Aramgar (talk) 23:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Strong Delete "...my waiting to be noticed by regular people to earn the honor of being notable beyond what I am is crazy from my perspective..." Thus does ShamanDhia continue to blithely demonstrate to us regular people that she considers her exceptional self absolutely worthy of a 1-in-2.4 million exception. And to claim "skimming content" as a basis for our failure to accommodate and consequent philistine intransigence is a bit rich coming from one who has so far given every indication of failing to acquaint herself with the WP that covers requirements for articles. Despite the efforts made to help and Coffeepusher's generous view of your newbie status. Please try to give us something to verifiably source your WP:N - so we can seriously consider your article - before any more self-regarding and frankly getting-on-forWP:BOLLOCKS essays. Plutonium27 (talk) 06:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am clearly worth a 1 in 2.4 million exception. How exectly do I need to prove it to you? Notability is not the same as poularity. My sources span 15 years and include the us copyright office, Buffalo Evening News, Art Forum Magazine, and the Castellani Museum Newsletter. What cuts it from your perspective? This is not an all inclusive list, just the basics to frame the article and provide evidence of notability, which is not the same as popularity. The issue isn't if I am full of myself or not. The issue is that AdF might be used in some instances to improve an article and keep it as a valuable contribution to wiki. Those able to respond to that idea, are the ones I can work with. Flippant and sarcastic judgements that discourage attempts to improve article quality should be tempered.the Hitochi Princess (talk) 13:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)ShamanDhia The edit history shows evidence that I am continually becoming aware of all of your formating and standards. Are there questions as to my N because the sources I submitted are not accepted, or is it that I need more of them, or different kinds of them? Maybe revert if this version reads worse than the earlier one. I haven't even been here a week yet (6th day). I'm not trying to insult anybody. If this version is Bullocks to you, read an earlier version and say if it made progess or not. I know the AUTO is always a valid arguement from your end.the Hitochi Princess (talk) 15:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)ShamanDhia "..but always remained focused on the idea of creating income throgh the internet instead of with regular jobs." I said it again in the page "regular" refering to out of the internet. Sorry, I feel badly that I was crude again after I said I would try not to be in the future. the Hitochi Princess (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)ShamanDhia[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nomination withdrawn by candidate. Non admin closure. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 20:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dozy Vs. Drake - Upon Further Consideration[edit]

~~NN single released on CD-R by an indie band, fails WP:MUSIC. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 02:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep - Thanks for catching my error, that was supposed to be in CD5 format, not CDR. The band is notable, and this was an official release on Revival Records. All Music Guide has published coverage on this single (here), as well as Trouser Press Magazine (here); therefore, this release is notable enough to keep according to WP:MUSIC.(Fulmerg (talk) 03:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Okay, I listed for AfD mostly based on the CD-R release, since that usually wouldn't fulfill WP:MUSIC. Since that was a typo, and the sources you added show independent coverage, I will withdraw the AfD. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 20:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 06:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - All I needed to see was allmusicguide. Meets WP:MUSIC. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 06:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above; subject is sourceable, and appears to have some notability. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 12:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb john clark[edit]

Bio created by User:Calebjc. Is he notable? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think so. The very best I could find was this which still doesn't cut it for me. Also the WP:AUTO issue is a problem. —Moondyne click! 02:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable Chris! _ct 03:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 08:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not only is vanity a potential, but there is the matter of Geogre's Law here: a person with miniscule letters for the name is in trouble. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tack on WP:COI. BusterD (talk) 22:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re Ozan Girgin a Lawyer[edit]

Unnoted legal case - Interesting and informative perhaps but simply not noted in the wider world. proposed for deletion but declined by the article's creater with the talk page note Just because there was no media interest does not mean this is not an important case. No news articles, scholarly ones, books etc... Fails the notability test and the material is not verifyable to reliable sources Peripitus (Talk) 01:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. If it isn't deleted, it needs rework - as it stands right now, it's not even made clear what country this happened in. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 08:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's obvious that it's speaking about Australia but I find no evidence that he or his case are notable. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. jj137 (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Blenkey[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Despite the previous nomination, this person is not notable. I can find two online references to him - this and this - both of which talk about him in the context of other events, his coverage is not really in relation to the crimes he has been convicted of. Likely violation of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP1E in addition. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing indicating broader significance of crime or criminal. --Dhartung | Talk 07:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 08:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: We neither track criminals nor advertise when they get out. Only crimes that serve as a "crime of the century" or a cause celebre qualify. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, couple more stories but none are about him on his own. If any evidence can be found that he's notable, I'd change but I don't see it. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 having a WP:SNOWball's chance. Non-admin closure with db-afd tag on page. --Auto ^{(talk / contribs)} 16:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Lake Bonavista, Public Elementary[edit]

Non-notable primary school. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N (no significant media coverage, seeing that it's an elementary school). -=Elfin=-³⁴¹ 02:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SHEESH. JJL (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. In the unlikely event that this article manages to survive this AfD, it needs to be moved to the school's correct name, Lake Bonavista School. I would also note that the article, despite being about a school, contains errors such as "It also has it's own e-mail", "The groups that they have is ...", and "... we have recived four new teachers". I find this disappointing. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I second WP:SHEESH. I suppose this could be an argument for a 'policy review message' --where the first time a person creates an article they get a message about policy with a message "please make sure article conforms to policy". Nephron T|C 05:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 06:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources. --DerRichter (talk) 07:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 08:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's also misnamed. How many school boards include asterisks in their school names? Utgard Loki (talk) 14:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Part of the claim to notability appears to be a child's broken arm. Forgive me, but boo hoo, that's not enough to make the school noteworthy. Especially since the source (unsurprisingly) doesn't say anything about it. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, this article had previously been deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teddy Khan and the current nomination was going the same way. –– Lid^(Talk) 11:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bryant Balmaceda[edit]

Doesn't assert notability. Fails WP:BIO. No references provided. On the other side ^Contribs|@ 01:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it looks like a google search on his name only takes you to his myspace page. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 08:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The page is just a list of moves and entrance music, does not establsh notability. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't establish notability, poorly sourced, no real info. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 18:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Google test; only a part of backyard fed and non-notable indy feds. Nikki311 18:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per non-notability. Zenlax ^T ^C ^S 18:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kid Icarus. A minor section in that article would be reasonable, if someone more familiar wishes to merge it in. Black Kite 08:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palutena[edit]

Article has no notability as established through multiple reliable sources, and is just a repetition of plot and character information from Kid Icarus and Smash Bros. Brawl. As such it is duplicative, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pixelface (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kid Icarus (series) or Kid Icarus. Nifboy (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, merging any unduplicated content into Kind Icarus or Super Smash Bros Brawl. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazimoff (talk • contribs) 18:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kid Icaarus would make more sense than Smash Brother Brawl since the character originated from the Kid Icarus series and not the smash bros series. --76.71.209.55 (talk) 22:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Does not show, and I am unable to find, any third-party sources asserting indepedent notability of this person. Black Kite 08:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel James (Record Producer)[edit]

It is unclear how this record producer is notable enough to warrant an article in his own name. No decent referencing to verify and reads like a promo. Concurrent edit warring at his wife's article suggests a possible COI by one or several SPA's —Moondyne click! 00:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ——Moondyne click! 01:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If claims in article are all true then it might meet WP:N standards, but there are no sources that meet WP:RS standards so it lacks verifiablilty. I tried a Google search and found nothing that meets WP:RS, though, admittedly, the search was complicated by the fact that Daniel James is a very common name. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 02:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC) 02:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I'm not convinced that the work listed on the article asserts sufficient notability. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 06:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Twenty Years 05:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Several references have been added to verify that article is legitimate Laveeto (talk) 21:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No-one has suggested he's not legit. Its notability we're discussing here. —Moondyne click! 00:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSD A7. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tov Rose[edit]

Bio of an inspirational speaker. Has been deleted once as nn-bio. Rather spammy article. Is he notable? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 00:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as recreation of deleted material. Non-notable, WP:AUTO issues. —Moondyne click! 02:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The previous deletion was speedy, per WP:CSD#A7, so it is ineligible for G4 deletion. It is as eligible for A7 deletion as it was before, though, as the deleted version differs from this one mainly in having more internal and external links, but has very similar text and very similar lack of reliable sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article contains no WP:RS compliant sources and none were found with Google. Claims are made of marginal notability in the article (TV and radio appearences) but nothing verifiable. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 02:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC) 02:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Coffeepusher (talk) 03:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not-notable, lacks reliable sources, could have deleted it as G4. Oysterguitarist 05:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion or evidence that he's notable TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy DELETE no assertion of notability Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 17:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Punjab Chiefs[edit]

Article violates WP:NOT#INFO. The article simply lists chiefs of Punjab, none of whom have their own article. Article does not mention why any of these people are notable. Noor Aalam (talk) 00:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep don't hate me because I find it WP:USEFUL. JJL (talk) 00:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article clearly states why these people are notable, viz that they had great wealth and influence. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. Coffeepusher (talk) 03:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory, not that I can imagine what this particular directory might even be good for. These village headmen of the 1860s were not notable for anything other than a mention in—what was effectively—a British (colonial government) directory. As headmen, they would have been influential among their tribe, and they would have represented tribal property, but they almost certainly did not have "great wealth and influence" (emphasis mine) as has been suggested. The sole source of the "Punjab Chiefs" directory is a report of the kind that that were made all the time, and all over the British Empire. These reports of inter-tribal (read inter-familial) relationships/rivalries were made because, if united, local tribes could be a hassle to British interests. To play off one tribe against another, one had to know the relationship between the two. The WP article is just the product of that hum-drum colonial divide-and-conquer politicking, tabulated as a directory, and patently failing to be about Punjab Chiefs. -- Fullstop (talk) 15:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it is a very valuable article containing information on key political Punjabi leaders during the period of the British Empire in Punjab. Very historical, very valuable and very notable. However, it needs a good clean up and also if the editor who began article adds more information to it to make it more valuable from the books you used. It has the potential to be a article with great historical and history preservation article. Good work, some of the names are very hard to find due them only being in old books, this info impossible to find on internet. Please add more info from books you used to make it more valuable.--Trv93 (talk) 05:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis article serves the purpose of a reference for historians studying the history of the Punjab during the colonial period of British India .in relation to Punjab chiefs , their family backgrounds , clan , and tribes .

Robert Montgomery (administrator) who commissioned the book, himself served as Lieutenant-Governor of the Punjab a position of prime political significance during this historical period . The significance of this article as a reference point to this book and period may also be valued from what one the authors of this book Charles Francis Massy has to say in the preface. :-

“I was asked “ to write a business –like book of reference for District and Administrative Officers , studying brevity and eschewing minute detail .”These instructions I have obeyed at the sacrifice of much interesting matter which came under my hand. The book will not attract the general reader: but it will probably be found useful as one of reference, and every endeavor has been made to secure an accurate record of modern facts affecting the families. “

Having said this I would like to add that there is scope for improvement in every article including this one and as such all pages may be considered work in progress.

The reason cited that for deletion has perplexed me viz “The article simply lists chiefs of Punjab, none of whom have their own article.” If not having an article on Wikipedia is fair ground for deletion , we may as well assume that wikipedia has already touched upon all subjects worthy of inclusion , I find this logic abhorrent .Cheers Intothefire (talk) 15:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a list of quite possibly notable people. It's actually more of a list (perhaps should be renamed), which is allowed to be rather similar to a directory. Nyttend (talk) 14:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all by Splash. (Non-admin closure) --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Calavari[edit]

Nonnotable artist, but I don't think it would be very A7 or PRODable. A Google search shows very little, and it reads suspiciously like a vanity or even attack page. Although critics are mentioned, the critics in question are not mentioned at all. bibliomaniac 1 5 00:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn per Google. JJL (talk) 00:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Noor Aalam (talk) 00:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

check my references, but critics is maybe a wrong word to describe general people discussion, although if some of them really are critics. And yes, the search result on google didn't gave so many hits, which I became quite surprise about, theirfor I wrote this article about Calavari because I think he is an interesting character, and yes, I have actual meet him in real life and acctualy own a painting made by him, I have put alot of time into this article, although I clearly send out the wrong message, I don't know what vanity mean, but I could probably guess, or the meaning of "attack page". anyway. It's not deletion of this article need, it's the grammar and correction of my bad english language, and even change the word "critics" to something else, I don't know how I could get references to all the critics, they are probably more unknown then Vincent Calavari.

Novell73 (talk) 01:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)novell73[reply]

- Comment look at WP:RS, WP:N, and WP:BLP. Especially with the comments about things like his sexuality, you need to show that others have commented on him in newspapers, magazines, journals, etc.--that others have taken notice of him and written these things and that they're not solely your opinion. JJL (talk) 02:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 04:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please see also the following four articles on his paintings:

Adrienne Painting
Angelica painting
Amorette painting
Allegria painting

I declined speedy deletion requests on two of these as they did not fit the speedy deletion criteria, but if the artist's article is deleted then I think these should be, as well. At the least, unless a lot more sourcing and information can be found for these paintings, I think they should be merged with the artist's article. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okey, I could probably try to find comments about him in magazines, newspapers or journals, I guess I can stop by the local library to search in the archive to see if I could find anything, and if I found something... should I add the source to the reference section? (so you and others could verify) or should I wait?

Novell73 (talk) 11:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)novell73[reply]

- Comment please do add sources if you have them. JJL (talk) 13:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The current source is an omnibus citation, and the article is highly intrusive, personal, and spurious looking. The artist does not appear to have wide fame or note. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another "artists directory" entry, problem being, Wikipedia is not an artist directory. Primary editor should take note of that. Also, unless this guy has a twin brother, Damion Calavari should be added to this discussion/deletion. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The funny thing is that the original version of that article [64] gives Damion a 1984 birthdate and, as reference, a book first published in 1965, as did Vincent's article until the primary editor obviously thought better of it [65].--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as NN. By the way, an Amazon online reader search of the English version of Mel Gooding's book (the Swedish translation is listed as a source) yields no references: [66]. The index doesn't list the artist either.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN. Him, his twin brother Damion, and the paintings too. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete as NN. Please don't waste our time with this sort of unreferenced contributions. / Mats Halldin (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fuego (Spanish Version)[edit]

Duplicates content found at the Fuego (The Cheetah Girls song) article. Most content has also been removed. PROD was contested by page author. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects are cheap. --Canley (talk) 00:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect, it's more-or-less that already - just mention who did the Spanish version on the main article and you're done. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE --Duennschiss (talk) 09:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would you care to comment on why? AfD is more than just a vote. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 12:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'll comment on why: is the redirect useful? No. Is someone going to be typing in "Fuego (Spanish Version)" in hopes of finding what the redirect would be to? No. Is there some vital reason to preserve the work of the editor in history? No. Is there some part of the present article that is useful or explanatory? No. At present, it has no context and no description or explanation (hence the "it's almost there now" -- almost as empty as a redirect). I cannot see any reason to make this a redirect, and it's clearly a violation of deletion guidelines. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, this is not at all a likely search term and there's no reason for it to be left as a redirect. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Agree that redirect is pointless per the reasons Utgard Loki gives. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was a WP:SNOW redirect to the band's page. Non-admin closure. --Auto ^{(talk / contribs)} 16:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Light[edit]

Completely non-notable singer. Fairly sure that he fails WP:BIO, even though he's a part of the band which has a page - not convinced he's notable enough on his own. Porterjoh (talk) 23:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also On investigation, none of the other band members have a page. Don't see why this guy's any different. Porterjoh (talk) 11:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also also, that doesn't really matter, just so you know. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 12:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Apologies, didn't know. Porterjoh (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, happens rather a lot, actually. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Android Lust per WP:MUSIC. The band appears roughly notable, and it's this guy's only real claim to notability. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 12:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per User:Hersfold's arguments.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 13:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per User:Hersfold, the band has previously passed notability but this band member does not have notability of his own - Dumelow (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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