< March 25	March 27 >

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

The result was Speedy Deleted per G7 (One author who blanked page). UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 03:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cytonix[edit]

prod removed, concerns were of g11 and notability. Neutral on this article, procedural nom. Torchwood Who? (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Par being the original PROD'er. Company seems to fail Notability guidelines. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 23:01, 26 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 train wreck. This AfD is only two days old, but it is evident that there is no way that consensus can be determined from it. The nominator's first contribution was to start this discussion, and virtually all of the participants have few or no edits outside this topic. Accordingly, I am closing this discussion and relisting it. Blueboy 96 17:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peucinian Society[edit]

Peucinian Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) The article on the Peucinian Society does not meet Wikipedia standards: In that the "Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline." Were the peucinian society among the "nation's foremost literary societies" then perhaps it would warrant a page, but in actuality it is a newly revitalized and obscure student club at a very small liberal arts college. The Society is unfortunaely not one of the among the "nation's foremost literary societies" and thus does not warrant inclusion in Wikipedia.Furthermore the article violates a number of wikipedia guidlines:

Lack of Neutrality
Questionable Clarity
Factual Errors

Thus I recommend that the article be deleted. (Cowan50 (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC))— Cowan50 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

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

Keep I live in Sydney, Australia and am a life-long devotee of Henry Longfellow and his work. In reading his literature, memoirs and biographies, I have encountered the Peucinian Society on several occasions. Thus, I would submit not only does the Wikipedia page meet the “relevant notability standard” but it should in no way even be ‘’’considered’’’ for deletion. I remain completely befuddled as to the supposed grounds for deletion; nonetheless, I would much prefer to discuss what I know about the society. In my opinion, the Peucinian Society is just as, if not more, essential than Longfellow’s entry itself inasmuch as the society had such profound and lasting effect on so many of America’s most influential writers and statesmen. I have come across numerous sources that verify the society’s existence in 20th century and am more than willing to go back through my research in order to provide these to Wikipedia, if it so desires. It should be noted that I am not familiar with the contemporary membership of the society, but I am convinced that this is an extremely exciting and informative entry. Therefore, I must vote emphatically and unequivocally for this entry to be ‘’’preserved’’’.Miltiades58 (talk) 05:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Miltiades Harris— Miltiades58 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KeepIt should be kept for the following reasons: I think my arguments would be much more persuasive if I conceded my right to anonymity. My name is David Klingman, PhD and I am an historian living in New Orleans, LA. I recently have held posts at Tulane University and Louisiana State University, focusing on 20th Century U.S. History, U.S. Labor and Race Relations, U.S. Culture and Music, Louisiana History and Latin American History. At the risk of sounding pretentious, I consider myself a leading authority on literary societies and their effect on the development of the nation’s elite colleges. The Peucinian Society is doubtless one of considerable importance that did in fact endure in the 20th century. Having studied these associations for the better half of my academic career, I find the claim that this society is an obscure club to be entirely erroneous. Contrary to what the previous entry alleges, the society did not cease to exist in the late 19th century; it simply divorced itself from Bowdoin College and continued to flourish with chapters in Brunswick, Portland and Harpswell. Furthermore, after reading the article, I simply do not view it as an “advertisement;” there seems to be sufficient number of citations, and the majority of the article concentrates on the history, which could not be presented more accurately. Given my expertise, I feel impelled to correct the record and recommend that this page be kept.

I think Wikipedia would be doing its readers a great disservice in deleting this page. This is my life’s work. Readers ought to be aware of the illustrious history of this association and other similar bodies. 129.81.64.172 (talk) 05:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)David Klingman— 129.81.64.172 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete for two reasons. First, the article is an advertisement, not an encyclopedia-entry: hence its consistently biased point of view and its numerous factual misrepresentations. Second, despite its longeur, the article lacks substance. Here's a flavor of the bias and inaccuracies:

(1) "In the late nineteenth century, the Peucinian Society went through a relative period of dormancy [sic], erroneously considered, even by the college itself, to be completely defunct. It continued to persist throughout the 20th Century..."

The sources that purport to support this claim are: (a) "College Literary Societies: Their Contribution to Higher Education in the United States, 1815-1876" and (b) "Joshua Chamberlain: The Soldier and the Man." But Chamberlain only attended Bowdoin from 1848 and 1852, and was its president from 1871 - 1883. He died in 1914. It is thus doubtful that his biography gives evidence that the Peucinian Society existed throughout the 20th Century. It is even more unlikely that "College Literary Societies: Their Contribution to Higher Education in the United States, 1815-1876" confirms (1). There are, moreover, very good reasons to think that the Society went "completely defunct" in the early 1880s, viz. the Bowdoin College archive's assertion that this is the case and the fact that there exist no Peucinian Society records from after 1877. (1) is simply false.

(2) "The Peucinian Society is one of the nation's foremost literary societies and the oldest student organization at Bowdoin College."

But given, as the foregoing discussion makes clear, that the Society ceased to exist c. 1880 and was only recently reestablished, (2) is misleading. If a group of my American buddies and I started emulating the practices of a bronze age Druid Cult, you would rightly deny my claims to being the oldest religion in the United States. Similarly, if we met to discuss the drafting of the United States Constitution and called ourselves the "Second Continental Congress" it would not follow that we were the nation's premier legislative body. What both of these actions would entail is that my buddies and I were attemping to self-promote. (2) is false and biased.

(3) "In 1880 the libraries of the Peucinian Society and its former rival, the Athenean Society [sic], were merged, after which the two societies officially became one and has [sic] endured under the name 'The Peucinian Society.'"

It is true that the Athenaean and Peucinian Societies merged their libraries in 1880. Unfortunately, it is also true, as evidenced by my analysis of (1), that the two societies went defunct in 1880. And this supports a radically different interpretation of the merger; the Peucinian Society and the Athenean Society didn't merge in order to unite their two traditions. Rather, the merger marked the end of both Societies. Thus the suggestion, made in (3) and elsewhere in the entry, that the two Societies were oncetime rivals who became allies is wrong. Instead, the Bowdoin archives get it right: "After a period of relative dormancy, the surviving libraries of the Peucinian and Athenaean societies were merged in 1880. Following this, the Peucinian Society was considered officially defunct." What happened to the Peucinian and Athenaean Societies is something analogous to if the libraries of two distinct political parties in the Confederate States of America were merged after the civil war. Surely, we wouldn't want to say of the two parties that they "officially became one" - they were rivals to the end! (3) is thus misleading, and it seems clear that the reason it is included in the entry is in order to promote the prestige of (a.k.a. advertise) the organization. Here is how the Peucinian Society's Wikipedia entry uses this deception to misleadingly enhance the reputation of Peucinian:

(4) "Famous alumni of the Peucinian and Athenean [sic] tradition include...Nathaniel Hawthorne, 19th century American novelist and short story writer."

Hawthorne attended Bowdoin from 1821 - 1825, during which time he was a member of the Athenaean Society. Also, during that time, the Athenaeans and the Peucinians supported different candidates in the incredibly contentious Presidential election of 1824. As Peter Balakian, a Hawthorne historian, puts it: "Of the college's two literary societies, the Athenian [sic] Society to which Hawthorne belonged was the more liberal and democratic; its members were Jacksonians who rejected the conservative traditions of their New England forefathers. Its rival, the Peucinian Society, was composed of a more scholarly constituency (of which Longfellow was a member)..." It should also be noted that Hawthorne died sixteen years before the Peucinian and Athenaean libraries merged, rendering the Peucinian Society's claim on his membership all the more farcical. The most important point, however, is that (3) and (4) indicate that the Wikipedia entry for the Peucinian Society is an elaborate set-up; misrecognitions are inserted one place only to support falsities introduced elsewhere. I repeat: an advertisement, not a piece of scholarly research.

(5) "The Peucinian Society is comprised of the most intellectually enthusiastic minds within the Bowdoin community."

Even were this true, it is quasi-normative wishy-washiness that has no business in an encyclopedia. Insofar as they can, however, signs point to its being false. Specifically, the article cites, as evidence of (5)'s truth, the Catalogue of the members of the Peucinian Society (read: the CURRENT catalogue of members of the Peucinian Society). Unfortunately, the only remotely objective way to test whether the current Peucinian Society roster comprises the "most intellectually enthusiastic minds within the Bowdoin community" is to cross-check it with the Deans List...

To round out this line of criticism, I should be clear that (1) - (5) serve merely to give a FLAVOR of the article's polemical quality. Deleting these passages will not fix the entry, and any impartial reviewer will recognize that the article's tone and style are inappropriate throughout.

I also noted that the article lacks substance. However (and this is further support of my point re: bias and inaccuracy), the article attempts to conceal its vapidity through the liberal use of fluff (e.g. "Meetings of the Peucinian were held in alphabetical rotation in our private rooms. Contributions were levied on neighboring rooms for tables and chairs, and members gathered around the tables"). Cutting through all of this we are left with an entry that is half about a literary society, at a small liberal arts college, that has been defunct since the 1880s, and half about a newly established society that has usurped the older society's name and, with considerable distortions, its history. If there is a worthy Wikipedia entry here, it can only be got at by starting afresh. 22:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC) WilliamPitts— Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamPitts (talk • contribs) 14:02, 27 March 2008— WilliamPitts (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Arbitrary section break[edit]

Update: check out the discussion page on the article: Talk:Peucinian Society. There is clearly no consensus on the facts surrounding this "society". Furthering the argument that this article be deleted. (Cowan50 (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC))— Cowan50 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Numerous citations have been added since those criticisms were made. The convoluted language has been revised as well. This should be noted as a reason to keep the entry.139.140.166.28 (talk) 04:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)— 139.140.166.28 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Whoever added the below comment from the IP address 139.140.194.233, needs to sign in as a registered user in order to vote in this discussion, and sign the comment under their user name. See the guidelines on how to discuss Articles for Deletion - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. (Cowan50 (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC))— Cowan50 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
"Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith."Wikipedia:Articles for deletion Hence, given that my comments are in good faith, I do not need to be a registered user to "vote."

On the issue of voting: "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments."Wikipedia:Articles for deletion 139.140.194.233 (talk) 04:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)— 139.140.194.233 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

"Start your comments or recommendations on a new bulleted line (that is, starting with *), and sign them by adding ~~~~ to the end. If you are responding to another editor, put your comment directly below theirs, making sure it is indented (using multiple *s)." it's not that you can't make comments, but you must sign them regardless. (Cowan50 (talk) 00:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC))— Cowan50 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KeepWhile the article demands a certain degree of editing and revision, it undoubtably deserves to be included in Wikipedia and consequently should not be deleted. The history of the Society and the prominence of many of its former members are of pertinent historical interest to both Bowdoin College and the heritage of the United States. Peucinian's place as one of the oldest literary societies rightfully denote its "foremost" status and its inclusion in this encyclopedia. Numerous other "obscure" literary societies at other elite American colleges maintain entries in Wikipedia. For example, the Jefferson Literary and Debating Society at the University of Virginia has an article, and the Peucinian entry is consistent with its format.Jefferson Literary and Debating Society It should be noted that, at present, there is no recommendation for deletion on the Jefferson entry. Finally, the Society's article adds to important body of knowledge on collegiate literary societies in the United States, often a prime breeding ground for influential politicians, writers and thinkers. It would do a profound disservice to this community to delete from it one of its oldest and foremost members. Thus I recommend that the article be preserved. 139.140.194.233 (talk) 04:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)— 139.140.194.233 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment This AFD has been added to the Organizational AFD category. -Optigan13 (talk) 06:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article do has a lot of issues, mostly concerning to WP:NPOV, but it does not fail any of the guidelines showed on the nomination. Just a fast check at google returns a lot of hits, even if we take off all the wikipedia ones. Samuel Sol (talk) 12:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons to preserve: I would like to refute two claims against the author of this page, although I admit my surprise at and failure to comprehend the vehemence with which these people are opposing this article’s preservation. One can only hope that they are equally passionate in their assault upon other literary societies. Indeed, I cannot help but question their motives, as they continue to make blatant personal attacks on the society’s members, addressing them with disturbing and unspeakable phrases, surely injuring their own credibility and character. Nevertheless, while I regard the first two points of their most recent entry as completely absurd, I am obliged to offer a response for the sake of history and dignity. Let me state, first, that the citations posted on the article are absolutely accurate. The offensive allegations are no more than personal attacks. For, having argued that there are insufficient citations, when they are presented with proper citations, they proceeed to question the accuracy of these. Yet, in respect of the first book, Joshua Chamberlain: The Soldier and the Man, while it is true that Chamberlain passed away in 1914, the author discusses Peucinian in great detail, in fact stating that the Society continued to thrive into the 20th century. By the same token, another publication, College Literary Societies: Their Contribution to Higher Education in the United States, 1815-1876, in the passages which discusses the association in a number of passages, once again clearly stating that the society persisted beyond the 19th century. I can only, therefore, attribute the careless and uncritical assertions to the fact that these ignorant attacks were based solely on the title that presupposes a of 1876. Nevertheless, are they so ignorant as to suppose that the author cannot include statements beyond this date in his book? It has been repeatedly emphasized, time and again, by faculty and students alike, that there is ample evidence of the society persisting independently of the college and thriving for many decades without collegiate affiliation. This claim has also been supported by several local historians in Maine. As for the comparisons to the Druid Cult and the Continental Congress,” I would contend that, since the society’s dormancy in the 20th century was so brief and each of its original traditions has been carefully preserved, these analogies are completely false. Indeed, if one belonged to an institution that emerged from the Druid Cult, restoring it after only a couple decades of dormancy and meticulously preserving its original constitution and substantive traditions, then one does in fact have the right to claim succession to that historical association. Therefore, the comparison is specious insofar as the Druid Cult is much older and has had no period of “dormancy.” Regardless, the article cannot be deleted, if only because the Peucinian Society was founded just eleven years after the establishment of Bowdoin College itself, and thus remains historically synonymous with the very inception of Bowdoin. Finally, once again, I am deeply offended by the claim that this article is merely a ploy for “self promotion.” The author has made every effort conform to Wikipedia policies in crafting an article that is both informative to readers about an historical organization that has engaged some of the most potent literary and political minds in American history. This cannot be dismissed as bias; it is fact.Emily444 (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Emily444 — Emily444 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TH3 (Short Film Series)[edit]

The purpose of this article seems to be to promote a non-notable film (if it does in fact exist). 'Notability' and 'proposed deletion' tags were removed. Author has stated that information is "first-hand", which would appear to be an admission of original research and a conflict of interest. Signalhead (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Either a hoax or extremely non-notable. Google can't find anything for "th3" & "RubberBand Productions" [1]. PC78 (talk) 00:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes, RubberBand Productions is a very small, independant company without a webpage. All movies that RBP has made thus far have been not-for-profit and for the sake of gaining populartity, and a wikipedia article seems like one of the best ways to get the name across. I assure you, this is not a hoax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.47.39 (talk) 02:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well! It maybe a hoax, it may not be a hoax.....it should simply be deleted from Wikipedia. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The user who created the page is User:RubberBandProductions and is blocked indefinitely for username violation. JeremyMcCracken (talk) 04:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. Author cannot remove speedy deletion tags. JuJube (talk) 04:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 05:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as self-admitted spam -- Whpq (talk) 12:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? you have no right, not to meantion no proof, to block RubberBand Productions from wikipedia. Wikipedia is supposed to be a symbol of democracy - by the people, for the people, and by taking away my right to edit articles, you take away my freedom of speech. There is no proof that you can possibly have that states that RubberBand Productions or TH3 do not exist. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia that is constantly updating itself. If you let any other film be published, you should let mine. If this continues, I will contact the media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.43.49 (talk) 13:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put, Wikipedia doesn't list everything that exists everywhere; businesses have to be big enough to have an article. As for the user, they were blocked because user names can't be an advertisement. They have the option to request a name change and keep editing. JeremyMcCracken (talk) 16:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is being pedantic, but being "big enough" is not the criteria. A company can be small and WP:notable. -- Whpq (talk) 16:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see how the TH3 article can possibly be bias. I mean, its reporting on a series of films, right? What's so wrong? It's not hurting anyone at all, and its reporting information regarding an independant film company, something that needs publicity anyway. This is not to say that its an advertisment though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.104.121 (talk) 20:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Whpq, that's what I meant; my brain just didn't come up with the right word. It's true that it doesn't hurt anyone; however, to make sure that Wikipedia doesn't fill with advertisements and articles that people write about themselves, guidelines were set that content has to meet to be included. This is called notability and the policy is at WP:Notability. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; it's designed to report on what is already popular, important, etc., not to create publicity. JeremyMcCracken (talk) 20:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, promotional without independent sources attributing notability. Wikipedia is not for "getting the name across", even for non-profits. We're an encyclopedia, not a press agent. --Dhartung | Talk 21:26, 27 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), given nearly unanimous keep suggestions. The possibility that sockpuppets ares involved in editing the articles has no relevance to whether or not the topics are notable enough for an encyclopedia article. "per nom" !vote disregarded.Skomorokh 17:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bratz (video game)[edit]

Non-notable video game. Page created by known sockpuppet. See these SSP reports:

Primary sockpuppets involved Buckcherry91, Princess34, Dream180, Shawty18, Bratz12, Braves3005, Evil3005, Doctor35 Strongsauce (talk) 23:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all non-notable and pages created by known group of sockpuppets

Delete all Strongsauce has already given enough reasons why these pages should be deleted. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all These are listed on Bratz; they're not notable outside being, well, a list on the Bratz article. JeremyMcCracken (talk) 04:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Articles made by abusive sockpuppets should be deleted. But if these are real video games published and sold in stores, why shouldn't they have their own articles? JuJube (talk) 04:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and improve. AFD is not for cleanup. I found reviews for:
Bratz (video game) [2] [3]
Bratz: Rock Angelz (video game) [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
Bratz: Forever Diamondz (video game) [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]
Bratz: The Movie (video game) [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]
Bratz 4 Real [21] [22]
Bratz Super Babyz (video game) [23] [24]

Professional reviews for Bratz Babyz (video game) are harder to come by, but that's consistent for a game intended for young girls. It could probably be merged into Bratz Babyz. Next time consider adding tags to the articles before nominating for deletion and making a good faith effort to look for sources. Look for sources on Game Rankings and Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes and Google and don't make others do it for you. --Pixelface (talk) 05:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pixelface (talk) 05:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per Pixelface. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They can't be non-notable if they're covered by multiple reliable sources. Regardless of these socks' actions, these video games have as much right to be here as any others released on consoles and covered by game journos. Someone another 05:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Some of the games, namely the last two of the list, are obviously notable. I encourage the nominator to make a narrower nomination. User:Krator (t c) 08:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If they've been reviewed by independent third-party sources, they're both verifiable and notable enough for inclusion. If enough content cannot be found for each individual game to make a solid article then a merge may be suitable. But then again, AfD isn't cleanup as people keep reminding me. Gazimoff (talk) 08:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pixelface. It's quite obvious that they're notable. Also, large blanket nominations like this one are generally considered bad form. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 10:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is the only grounds for notability in Wikipedia being able to prove the game exists? I am asking in honesty as while pixelface does provide several links to aggregate scoring sites Gamerankings and Metacritic, does having one or two reviews make the game notable? I did indeed look at a couple of these reviews before nominating these articles for deletion mainly because there are so very few reviews for these games and most of these sites that review them are not all that notable (sans IGN/Gamespot and a few others). Since Metacritic itself says it tries to cover every single game released in the US/UK, can inclusion into Metacritic be used as a judge of whether the game is notable? Gamerankings also awards 250 points for every article you can add about the game, encouraging their userbase to submit sites that have a review.

IMDb lists nearly every single movie that has been made but I doubt that Wikipedia lists every single movie in the IMDb database. However you will always be able to find reviews somewhere of any of these said movies. I think that argument can be applied to videogames mainly because most of the videogames released are of very low shovelware quality.

Looking through that list pixelface provides for the two video game aggregators,
Bratz (video game) 1 review from Nintendo Power.
Bratz: Rock Angelz (video game) [25]IGN, Gaming Age, GotNext (Notable?) / [26] IGN, Gamezone / [27] GamingTrend, DS-x2 (Notable?) / [28] Lots of reviews so only PS2 game is notable???
Bratz: Forever Diamondz (video game) GameVortex (Notable?), AceGamez (Notable?), Digital Entertainment News. (Notable?)
Bratz: The Movie (video game) GameZone, GameVortex, IGN
Bratz 4 Real IGN, Cubed3 (notable?), Pocket Gamers UK
Bratz Super Babyz (video game) IGN, GameZone (notable?)
I also have to question how notable these video games are if the movie/video that they are based on are not notable enough to have their own Wikipedia entry. Bratz: Rock Angelz, Bratz: Forever Diamondz redirects to Bratz, Bratz Super Babyz redirects to itself Bratz Super Babyz (video game). However I suppose the ones related to Bratz: The Movie, Bratz: The Movie (video game) and Bratz 4 Real could avoid deletion and instead be merged into Bratz: The Movie . I also want to point out that IGN seems to have enough resources to review every single game that they get from publishers. /// Strongsauce (talk) 13:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the films they're based on are notable (they probably are anyway) is a separate issue. The games are separate products and stand or fall on their own merits. I should hope IGN review a lot of games, if we can't get reliable sources to write articles we might as well all pack up and go home. Notability means being the subject of multiple, reliable, in-depth sources. If a game is being reviewed then it's the subject of the source, unless that review is like one of GamesMaster's 6-to-a-page jobbies then it's in-depth, many of the names above are reliable sources. Let's look at them:

Bratz: Rock Angelz (video game) IGN, GameZone = reliable sources. The rest? Doesn't matter, to be dealt with as clean-up. Notable.
Bratz 4 Real IGN, Pocket Gamer. reliable. Notable.
Bratz: The Movie (video game) GameZone, IGN. Reliable. Notable.
Bratz Super Babyz (video game) GameZone, IGN. Reliable. Notable.

Leaves us with:

Bratz (video game) [29] for the PS2 is reviewed by GameZone and IGN, again. Notable.
Bratz: Forever Diamondz (video game) [30] IGN Review (DS version), Digital Entertainment News [31] review (DS version). DEN seems reliable enough, as do several of the other sources mentioned above.

So in short, we're looking at 5 definitely notable games and one almost certainly notable game. Someone another 14:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that makes these video games notable then I will Withdraw my nomination. Strongsauce (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - They have established notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup, and thanks to Pixelface for finding the sources. — brighterorange (talk) 12:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ChangLimbang (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC) — ChangLimbang (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep all - I may abhor the Bratz toy line, but the games do meet any notability requirements. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See, I would have thought somebody called Dread Lord CyberSkull would be a huge Bratz fan. Just goes to show that you shouldn't stereotype people. Everyking (talk) 07:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, notable. Everyking (talk) 07:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 03:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toobs[edit]

Smacks of spam, no verifiable references. We could stubbify to just the "company" section, but most of it reads like an advertisement... Tan | 39 23:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, and the only EL/reference is the company's website. JeremyMcCracken (talk) 04:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete having read the article, I'm not sure of what it is... except for spam.Balloonman (talk) 07:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominationandi064 ^{T . C} 15:19, 29 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. Singu larity 06:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cockblocking[edit]

Non notable term Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination non notable term. AlbinoFerret (talk) 00:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. No mention of roosters either. --Starionwolf (talk) 01:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable term. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR from the didn't-get-laid-blame-someone-else contingent Plutonium27 (talk) 03:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Stupid slang made by stupid kids should be deleted, stupid. ^_^ JuJube (talk) 04:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism; per WP:NOT#DICT #2 JeremyMcCracken (talk) 04:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not that neo a neologism; it's in Cassell's Dictionary of Slang which lists it as first reported in the 1980s. It would be a valid entry in Wiktionary, and indeed is there (Wikt:Cockblock). However, I don't see an encyclopedia entry here, and nothing here is useful to move to Wiktionary, so delete it. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, undoubtedly an WP:INTERESTING type of behavior, but (at least under this name) there are too few sources for an article beyond a dictionary definition. --Dhartung | Talk 21:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination andi064 ^{T . C} 15:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of reliable sources, which are especially needed here. Biruitorul (talk) 22:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Seduction community. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:07, 31 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 as G4. Nothing has changed since the original AfD and later recreations. I have protected the page and will unprotect if sourced, encyclopaedic material can be produced. However, any recreation would be better done under the original title for consistency. TerriersFan (talk) 04:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now That's What I Call Music Vol. 70[edit]

Very little information. It possibly fails WP:CRYSTAL, depending on your point of view of that policy and the article in question. Article can be re-created once more information is known. My vote: ~~Delete~~ Speedy Delete after reading below comments. TheProf - T / C 23:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: already been through AFD twice as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Now That's What I Call Music! 70 (U.K. series) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Now That's What I Call Music! 70 (U.K. series) (2nd nomination), and both times snowball speedy closed for this very reason. This article only exists because the other title is protected; I'd propose protecting this too. Kinitawowi (talk) 23:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per first two AfD's. PC78 (talk) 00:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as recreated material. Protect this title too; as with the others can be recreated if and when a release occurs. I don't have the time or patience to look right now, but if the same editor(s) are recreating the articles, a warning is in order, too (or at least a friendly). 23skidoo (talk) 02:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as consensus can change and per this. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, per the previous AfDs. NTWICM volumes 1-69 all have articles as well, so this should eventually; however, there's no citation as to its date of release. If there were, I'd say keep and tag as an upcoming album, but without it we can't be sure it will ever exist. JeremyMcCracken (talk) 04:39, 27 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 23:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wizard People, Dear Readers[edit]

This article is a massive amount of original research, with 3 real references that are already in the article it is mentioned in, Parodies of Harry Potter. It is not nearly notable enough to have its own article, the reliable sources put it as a section in the parody article, so this should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nah, notability is established in reliable sources. Also a notable author. Voretus (talk) 07:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've never read a Harry Potter book or seen a movie. I know nothing about Harry Potter, but I found this article interesting, notable, and well-written. Most substantial claims are well-sourced (for instance, the New York Times). There's a fascinating legal argument in the "Presentations" section, concerning whether or not the "use of appropriated plot, characters and themes interlaced with humor constituted a separate work of art in its own right." It's not clear to me at all how this article fails notability. DOSGuy (talk) 17:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a fairly well written article with established notability, as well as being about one of the more notable and somewhat controversial parodies. Skyknyt (talk) 04:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is one of the more notable Harry Potter parodies out there, and at its time it sparked some actual discussion on what constitutes the right to use stuff for parody. It would be an absolute shame if someone looking to improve their Wikipedia track record limited this to one sentence in the HP parody wiki just because they don't consider this notable. ahnonamis (talk) 02:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.147.171.168 (talk) [reply]
Keep ChangLimbang (talk) 21:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd heard a great deal about this... whatever it is, well before reading the article. It's a legitimately famous parody and certainly deserves its own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.151.41.27 (talk) 22:53, 29 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. Toddst1 (talk) 16:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Godspy[edit]

WP:NN webzine. The only valid sources are primary - all other sources failed verification. More info on Talk: Godspy. Toddst1 (talk) 23:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP This nomination is completely without merit. The nominator falsely states that the sources failed verification merely because they could not be found on the internet. They are in fact valid cites establishing notability. In fact one of the articles on the subject is in a column called "New & Notable". Most online versions of papers do not keep their archives of old articles available online. The nominator has not even bothered to check news databases or take a trip to the library. The site has been covered in the Seattle Times, The Houston Chronicle, the Dallas Morning News, and New Jersey's The Record, just to name a few. It also has numerous persons of note writing for it, many of whom have their own articles. See the article's talk page and the site itself. Moreover, this nomination is premature. It was only created hours ago. Additional time is appropriate to further establish notability. A google hits search returns 30,700 results for Godspy - a good indication of notability. Mamalujo (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; sourcing appears adequate to demonstrate relevance. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I nominated the old article for CSD, mainly due to the lack of any other source then its own website. Since the sourcing problem is solved, i dont see any rule that the article fails to meet at this time. My only negative comment would be the kind of large percentage of the text being "Advertising Quotes" such as: "ideas and experiences that reveal God’s presence in the world.". Personally i prefer articles to consist of more NPOV text, but thats just me. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 08:09, 27 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 23:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual predator[edit]

This article violates WP:DICT. It should be deleted and redirected to "child sexual abuse". The term "sexual predator" is a politically loaded colloquialism, and not an official definition you would find in any medical, scientific, or legal publication. This article cites no sources whatsoever showing that a scholarly usage of this term exists. The fact that some mainstream tabloids and politicians use the term "sexual predator" is not a sufficient criterion for inclusion.

A few analogies: The colloquial term "freetard" is frequently used by mainstream media such as The Register. If Wikipedia doesn't allow an article on "freetard" then it shouldn't allow one on "sexual predator" either. If we keep this we may as well create articles on other Daily Mail lingo such as "eurocrat", "lycra lout", "benefit scrounger" etc. See Talk:Sexual predator where deletion has already been discussed. Cambrasa (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have a few problems with the proposed rationale for deletion. First of all, not having an article on one topic does not mean we must not have one on this. Instead of just posting WP:WAX I might also elaborate that Dateline is a little more prestigious than The Register, which is described as an "opinion website" in addition to whatever else it does. Being a politically loaded term does not disqualify it from being on Wikipedia, nor is a lack of "scholarly" references, since notability does, in fact, stem from the fact that something has been noted in well-known sources (e.g., mainstream media, not limited to tabloids). The concept of a sexual predator, finally, is absolutely not synonymous with a perpetrator of childhood sexual abuse, since a predator may not limit the scope of his/her victims to children; this would be an improper redirect. ◄Zahakiel ► 23:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I wish there was no need for an article on this subject, one needs to exist. The term is not limited to those that attack children so I'm not sure a merge to child sexual abuse would be best. Removing the article will not stop this activity from happening, if it did, I would say delete it in a second. AlbinoFerret (talk) 00:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A viable topic, and the article is more than just a dicdef. There is also some pretty good potential for expansion -- and the stereotypical dicdef article doesn't offer this opportunity. 23skidoo (talk) 02:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sexual predator =/= child sexual abuse, why would all sexual predators be after children anyway? 70.51.8.129 (talk) 04:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I see over 2,400 hits on Google Scholar and over 750 on Google Books. And I can't say I've ever heard of the terms "freetard", "eurocrat", "lycra lout", or "benefit scrounger" — although if Google Scholar or Google Books turned up some valid sources I'd say keep those too. --Pixelface (talk) 04:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are other articles that cover this information in a non-definitional way, no need for duplication. By the way, Google searches mean nothing, so please stop posting them.Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is patently false. Those aren't regular Google searches. Those are sources that can be used to write the article. You know...those "sources" everyone talks about? --Pixelface (talk) 04:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's just ... wrong. A regular gsearch means nothing, no, but a search of articles from scholarly journals and books do. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 10:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, they mean absolutely nothing. The reference to the name sexual predator could be just the word, or a whole peer reviewed look at the subject, but you have no idea when you just post google searches like that. Most of the time, if you actually look through them, they are vacant of any substantive references, so that is why we don't count google searches. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Where I live (Ohio, USA) this is an official term used in the sex offender registration process, as the article mentions (offenders are labeled as "offender" or "predator" based on the nature of the crime). It's worthy of expansion. JeremyMcCracken (talk) 04:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - adequately sourced, and an official description in some cases. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. In my state, this is the official terminology that is used to describe the perpetrators of certain criminal acts. The government does not use any of the other terms that you have discussed (nor have I heard any of them before, which doesn't mean anything in and of itself, but it does help establish that the term is used), and numerous scholarly papers and books that have been listed higher up include the term. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 10:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW is falling, I do believe. (jarbarf) (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is also a term used in Georgia (the US state, not the country) law, and is different from a sex offender (see http://rules.sos.state.ga.us/docs/594/1/04.pdf) The rationale for deletion seems to be placing the term "sexual predator" on the same level of notability as "freetard" simply because they are both colloquial terms used in the media, which doesn't really follow. Ketsuekigata (talk) 02:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Sexual predator is legally defined in a number of jurisdictions, and has a distinct definition from similar terms, such as "sex offender". It's a term that will definitely be searched for, and there's plenty to say on the subject. I think we can probably close this one early. DOSGuy (talk) 17:27, 28 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 23:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plan of Attack (mod)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

No independent references since its nomination over a year ago. Although it was a finalist for the 2006 IGF Modding Competition, this is not a claim to notability (WP:N makes no mention of competitions, but I would usually accept winners of awards to have some claim.) No sign of this PC Gamer article; in any case, multiple coverage is preferred. Marasmusine (talk) 23:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I believe being a finalist at the 10th Independent Games Festival is evidence of notability. It lost out to Dystopia, but I would still consider the mod notable. It's been covered by three German gaming magazines: PC Action[32] [33], PC Games [34], and GameStar [35]. Here is a profile on SteamGames.com. --Pixelface (talk) 05:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Reliable sources have covered it, nothing else to say here. User:Krator (t c) 08:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination! I had seen the quotes on the game's website but simply couldn't find the actual magazine articles anywhere and was beginning to have my doubts. We need to get those sources integrated into the article (and not dumped into a list of external links). Thanks, Marasmusine (talk) 08:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While not all mods are notable, I believe this one is above the line. Suggest speedy closure as the nominator has also withdrawn. (jarbarf) (talk) 16:48, 27 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. bibliomaniac 15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 03:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Xiangen Hu[edit]

The speedy for the nomination (under A3) was declined and I was recommended by the reviewing admin to expand the article. I did so, but found little to no claim of notability for its subject. Note that this is not a deletion under A7, as I did not create the article, but rather expanded it and did not find a claim for notability. The article has also been tagged with ((Template:Autobio)) because the subject (?) appears to have created the article. GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 22:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF #3, Google Scholar turns up a few widely-cited papers by this professor,[36] including a 1994 paper cited by 71 other papers. Subject matter seems notable, although the article in its current state doesn't appear to do him justice. I don't understand the subject matter even remotely, so I can't volunteer to fill in the gaps. Neil916 (Talk) 07:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ChangLimbang (talk) 21:10, 29 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. Wizardman 14:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William L. Durkin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Completing unfinished nom for SilkTork (talk · contribs). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC) (Incomplete Twinkle and EC) Contested merge to Howard_Hughes#Near-fatal_crash_of_the_XF-11. This was the subject of a keep AfD in 2006 which was before the WP:BIO1E guideline was written. Since 2006 the consensus has grown that articles on individuals known for only one event should be written only where the notability of the individual has grown larger than mere association with the event. Otherwise the individual should be written about within the article on the event itself. It is proper that Durkin gets a mention in the Howard Hughes article, however his life beyond that event has been rather ordinary. He gets very few mentions on a Google search, and those mentions, like this and this are as footnotes to the event. He is known for rescuing a notable man, but as notability is not inherited, consensus has been that that alone should not be reason enough for a standalone article. Remove and redirect to Howard_Hughes#Near-fatal_crash_of_the_XF-11)) SilkTork *^YES! 22:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. per thoughts on original AfD debate - "It is a good read, merits attention, and adds to the overall picture. Redirecting it to the Hughes page confuses the bold line between the two." Check-Six (talk) 04:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ChangLimbang (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC) — ChangLimbang (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete/Merge No independent notability. This is as clear an application of this criterion as possible.DGG (talk) 00:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable for historical self-evident reasons. Evidence is what the man did. Will be a solid link to the county and other articles. Luigibob (talk) 05:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As good as any other article... Felis Sapien (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, This about an act that occured over 50 years ago, it was discussed in 2006, at that time there was only the nomininator of the article that thought the article should be deleted. Nothing has changed in 2 years. Why waste our time with an article that was so well discussed two years ago? If it was a close vote or more then one person thought it should of been removed, ok lets bring it up again, but to bring it up for another Afd is in my humble opinion a waste of time. Callelinea (talk) 03:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 03:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Margit Eklund[edit]

Non-notable actress. One of a series of articles created by user on his non-notable production company. Fails WP:BIO, WP:COI. Redfarmer (talk) 09:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 18:32, 11 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, Redfarmer (talk) 10:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:48, 16 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, Redfarmer (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources thus is not notable. The article appears to have been cribbed entirely from IMDB, which may be a copyright problem (as well as using an unreliable source). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:01, 21 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, Redfarmer (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Although I managed to get some hits, two of them are in a foreign language and the rest point to either Wikipedia or do not have enough notability to be of any use. Wikipedia has many strict policies on biographies and one of them points to an article's verifiability. That said, I say delete. Cheers, Zacharycrimsonwolf 13:14, 28 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, default to keep. Wizardman 14:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Cappuccino[edit]

This article fails notability requirements. Andrew Cappuccino is "famous" for one thing: He was one of the physicians involved in treating a spectacular spine injury for a professional athlete.

The article does not meet any of the basic notability requirements in WP:BIO: He, himself, has not been the subject of published secondary source material. He has won no important awards. He has not (yet, at least) made a "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his field." He's just a nice person who is doing a new-ish style of back surgery and happened to get a famous client.

For the purposes of Wikipedia's notability requirements, the coverage of his famous client is irrelevant: Notability is not inherited. Cappuccino can be (and is) mentioned in the article about the athlete and his injury. The mere fact that he was a surgeon for a celebrity does not mean that the surgeon is independently notable (and independent notability is what we require for independent articles).

In academic terms, he's published a handful of papers. Or -- his name is on about a dozen published papers, and except for the most recent, there are always at least five authors, and his name is never listed as either of the two most important authors. This argues against him meeting Wikipedia's notability requirements on the basis of his publications. He does not qualify under WP:PROF.

The Google News refs, when you exclude the one famous client, are remarkably unimportant: He talked about a surgery technique at an investor reception. One of his patients sued someone else. He got his name in the local paper for some charity work -- two normal fundraisers (bleachers at the local football field and Second Harvest food bank) and one surgery on a Russian girl. Just for a little perspective, I ran the same search with my own name and found a handful of references to myself. I don't consider being quoted in articles on the wire services to actually make me notable, however.

This was nominated for ((prod)) a few days ago; one editor thought that it should go through AfD. I think that the article should be deleted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Reasons for deletion have gotten no stronger, and in contrast I've become more confident that this person is notable, and not just in the moment. Antelan ^talk 12:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC) Comment: While his academic work may not be notable, he may be notable as a personage for the Everett case. Antelan ^talk 23:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is his "major claim to fame," I wanted to address this specifically: As I understand the invalid criteria and WP:NOTINHERITED guidelines, that makes him eligible for mention in the Everett article, not notable in his own right. That is, Wikipedia would include the event and mention him in any articles about the event, but not have biographies on the individual people who happened to be involved in a notable event. Of course, if most editors interpret these rules differently, or if most editors believe that having one celebrity patient makes him a suitable subject for his own article, then I can live with that outcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm not sure of it myself; hence the comment rather than !vote. The thing is, this was one event, but news coverage still continues - and not just for the event itself, but for Cappuccino's use of the technique. This is why I'm not ready to support or oppose a delete - hopefully, someone with intricate knowledge like DGG will come by and give his thorough opinion. Antelan ^talk 05:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete if failsWP:PROF, then fails WP:ONEEVENT. I would like to be convinced otherwise. Mitico (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure He may in fact satisfy WP:PROF as a notable medical researcher, even absent the Everett story. I looked up GoogleScholar and he does have a number of reasonably highly cited scholarly articles, with citation hits of 79, 58, 36, 30. The WP article for him also mentions some honors, albeit not major ones, like the "Health Care Hero 2005" (which, incidentally, precedes the Everett story by a few years). Based on the WP article material and the info on his web site, one could possibly make the case that he has been a significant innovator in the area of disc replacement. So, as I said, he might satisfy WP:PROF, but I am not sure about it and would like to hear from people more familiar with the standards in the medical research area. Nsk92 (talk) 11:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ChangLimbang (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable apart from the sport. Personally, I think the sports part is quite enough, but it just adds to the public knowledge of him. The publications and the citations of him make notability just as frany other biomedical professional. But I have yet to analyze the actual publication record. DGG (talk) 02:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because while the subject may be notable no editor has stepped forward to bring the article up to minimum criteria. --Una Smith (talk) 02:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and under what policy does this delete reason fall? DGG (talk) 05:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the first tag on the article talk page, linking to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. --Una Smith (talk) 14:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts on this approach are on the talk page. Antelan ^talk 12:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:ONEEVENT. JFW | T@lk 17:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep primarily based on the sports medicine, supplemented by some overall notability as a medical scientist--only 8 peer reviewed papers in Web of Science, but citation of , respectively, 50, 34, 39 for the top 3 are mildly significant--he does seem to be a leading figure in a particular niche area of spinal surgery--added to the significant role in sports, and i think it is just enough--it is reasonable that someone might look for information about him in an encyclopedia. . DGG (talk) 05:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 08:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

South park animals[edit]

In-universe list for which I can see no use. Was tagged for speedy, but does not meet any of the criteria. J Milburn (talk) 22:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indiscriminate and unsourced information, full of original research ("Kevin may or may not be an animal"), difficult to verify, in-universe... you name it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fancruft. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Cruft" is never a good argument per Wikipedia:ITSCRUFT, [37], and Wikipedia:Cruftcruft. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Original research. Cambrasa (talk) 00:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above. --Starionwolf (talk) 01:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- per votes are generally considered weak. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as acceptable and discrminate spinoff article and subarticle of notable franchise that can easily be verfied. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research, fancruft, indiscriminate list. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 04:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 04:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move to South Park animals (note capitalization) Appears to be in the vein of South Park characters; the tone is a bit OR-ish (e.g. Kevin), but episodes of the show itself could be used as sources for most of it. JeremyMcCracken (talk) 04:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TenPoundHammer. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR. -WarthogDemon 04:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - original research, little context and no sources. Think outside the box 14:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, no context or reliable third party publications about the subject. (jarbarf) (talk) 16:48, 27 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. Has already appeared to be userfied. Wizardman 14:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Journalistic Fraud (2003 book)[edit]

Unreferenced article of a book that clearly fails WP:BK, having no reviews or independent coverage. Amazon.com reviews do not count...

Delete as nominator. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Move to Creator's Userspace I found a review http://www.bookreporter.com/reviews/0785261044.asp that may be acceptable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnabdas (talk • contribs)

Bookreporter.com fails both WP:RS and WP:BK itself. It is not published, and the "reviews" are no more than member-submitted reviews. We need multiple non-trivial treatments of the subject in published works. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right on that, I didn't realize it was just people putting up stuff like on Amazon. Media Matters has criticized the book., if that counts? Arnabdas (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that counts as a review, or as multiple treatments. So are you striking your keep then? ;-) /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am. You're right on with the policies and the MM link is not a review. I am going to suggest this be moved into the creators userspace since he obviously worked hard on it. Let him keep it around and should policies change later, or he find reviews on it, we can move it back at that time. I do think that the review policy wikipedia has gives a disadvantage to conservative books simply because most review publicans push neo-liberal ideology and therefore will not review any book critical of it...despite the book's success in sales. However, it's policy now thus we need to follow it according to how it is now. I will send the author a personal message requesting he move this to his userspace. Let's give him a week to move it before it gets deleted. As someone whose own work has been deleted after painstaking efforts to make it good, I sympathize with the guy. When my own work was deleted it made me discouraged in posting to wikipedia and we as editors definitely do not want to contribute to that. Arnabdas (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the creator would like to preserve a copy off-site we can certainly make his work available to him, but I don't think this book is going to become notable anytime soon, and as such we really don't use userspace to host articles that should otherwise be deleted. Either way, good discussion. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The discussion below indicates that the topic fails the verifiability requirements. --jonny-m t 02:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voice of a Tortured Skull[edit]

Article fails WP:V. Although it is listed as a demo in many print sources, there is no evidence to suggest that it ever existed. The band's official website does not list it, although it is otherwise extremely comprehesive with regard to demos, compilations and other appearances. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can anyone do a search of non-English sites? --Shark face 217 03:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have continued to look but still am unable to find a reliable source to prove that this demo ever existed. If the band do not acknowledge that it ever existed, despite listing all of their other demo recordings and the like on their official website, surely this is an open and shut case? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:35, 26 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, Davewild (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of WP:V means it also fails WP:N Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Google finds some instances of it on music download sites, at least attributing it to Mayhem from 1985 or 86. This doesn't assert notability, of course. JeremyMcCracken (talk) 05:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Google searches do not in and of themselves establish WP:V. But the above poster is also correct that notability has not been established either. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As good as any other article... Felis Sapien (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The issue at stake here is not the quality of the article but whether the article itself ever actually existed. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 02:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mayhem (band) - trivial coverage PhilKnight (talk) 23:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 03:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Watcha Gonna Do With It - Single[edit]

Does not assert significance; no notability. Article exists only as an advertisement (cites availability on commercial sites). Taroaldo (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No assertion of notability. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possibly Speedy delete. The article doesn't cite any notability about the song. And knowing the band's music, there was nothing notable about the single; it doesn't warrant an article. --JamieS93 15:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 14:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SubCulture (webcomic)[edit]

Doesn't seem to be a notable comic; the sources are pretty much marginal at best. Also likely COI given page author's name. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:COI / WP:N. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Between the critical acclaim and the webcomic being rooted in a book, I'd judge this to be notable enough. The page needs a little editing & polishing, but it's worth keeping. 66.71.100.36 (talk) 06:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability. 'Critical aclaim' is not a criteria for notability and the 'critical aclaim' this article alleges comes from unverifiable/unreliable/self published sources of no authority so should largely be discounted. The webcomic being rooted in a book is of no consequence either. Fails WP:WEB --neonwhite user page talk 19:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The serious WP:COI issues aside, there is no assertion of notability. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 22:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. --jonny-m t 02:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

navicat[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article was created by the company who develop this software. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not for marketing purposes... Frap (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Blatant adspam. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Every one can post wiki to let public to gain more knowledge. If that wiki will be deleted, then all other wiki should also be deleted. The lost is just for public?

Also-delete-them? Example:

So, I think we should keep all of them including Navicat. - Kenneth. Lv.heaven ( t / c ) — Lv.heaven (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Difference is that those articles where created by independent people who thought they were worthy for inclusion. navicat article was created by the developers of the software to free advertisement here to sell their shareware product. You cant be serious to to claim we should delete Microsoft Access which is done by worlds biggest software company and compare it to navicat who nobody heard of. -- Frap (talk) 02:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Google News results might help determining the notability. utcursch | talk 04:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I previously removed the spam from this article (it was very spammy) and reduced it to a decent enough stub, if lacking in third party sources to prove notability. In its current state, keep - especially considering the number of sources Utcursch's search shows up. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 08:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is just like other common free software article. I think it's not commercial content. I found lots of similar software product articles from wiki site that no one will suggest to delete. I feel strange. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.73.23.137 (talk) 16:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles weren't created by their developers. This guy obviously puts his shareware software article here, so it can help him sell his software. -- Frap (talk) 02:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am a new Navicat user and find this Navicat wiki article from google. It's a notable software and I am suprised that someone tries to attack and delete this article. The article is natural and I find no reason to delete it from wiki. There's no strong point at all. User: chli168 —Preceding comment was added at 02:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ChangLimbang (talk) 21:12, 29 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. When it's SNOWing outside, it's suggested you put some clothes on, lest you get frostbite somewhere nasty :) krimpet ✽ 19:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of non-pornographic films featuring nudity[edit]

Where to start. I guess we could go with WP:NOT#INFO, except that most of this doesn't make it as far as being information, since it's merely opinion. The degree of detail is absurd in many cases, plus of course there is no objective definition of "featuring". Whereas nudity in mainstream films may once have been unusual it is now commonplace. One might as well have list of non-millinery films featuring hats. But to be honest the main problem is that this is really a list of films to wank to if you are too young or too embarrassed to rent proper porn and haven't yet found the internet. If kept, can we nominate this article for the bad sex awards? Guy (Help!) 21:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This will be too large to maintain, but JzG said it the best. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - delete. DS (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indiscriminate information, hard to source/verify, no clear source for "featuring". As the length of the list shows, nudity in films is pretty commonplace now. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but In one explicit sequence, she lies on a bed and masturbates her hirsute labial folds to orgasm while reciting (Molly Bloom's famous erotic soliloquy from Ulysses). She strokes and penetrates her labia majora with her fingers. Flanagan urinates into chamber pot with her pubis exposed is kind of special, don't you think? Guy (Help!) 21:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) I saved this whole "special" list to my hard drive. No, really. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not Mr. Skin. Probably a good list, but not for this venue. Nate • (chatter) 21:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow, where to start... It can never be comprehensive, it has ill defined criteria, it is basically a how-to guide for finding the genital/age group you desire your nudity in... this is so far from an encyclopedic article it should not be here. _(1 == 2)^Until 22:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all above. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete impossible to maintain and very incomplete. No encyclopedic value worth affecting Mr.Skin's bottom line. Horrorshowj (talk) 22:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can we put a check box behind each film so I can keep track of what I've missed? ... please? Delete and put some clothes on, for pete's sake... Tony Fox (arf!) 22:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Way too broad a criteria. There are literally thousands of films that contain nudity in them to some degree, and that's another problem as it requires an NPOV-violating judgement call on that. Is the view of a woman's bare back considered nudity? A fleeting glimpse of a butt? In some countries the exposure of a female face on film constitutes nudity. Forget it - unmaintainable. 23skidoo (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on! I haven't made a note of them all yet....... There, that's done. Now then - Delete! SilkTork *^YES! 23:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as its missing the timestamps in the movies so I can fast-forward. Mr.Z-man 23:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restrict to cases of nudity of a degree that is not commonplace.--Patrick (talk) 00:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And that will be a hard line to define. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Get Deleted, come on baby make it hot. JuJube (talk) 04:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as discriminate and verifiable list. Also, the article is only a month old. As Wikipedia:There is no deadline, we should Wikipedia:Give an article a chance. The topic even seems to have been the subject of published sources. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With what criteria? Any film that isn't porn with nudity? That must be over 10,000 films, the page can only hold 2 megs. _(1 == 2)^Until 05:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It can always be broken down into multiple articles or converted into a category. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So something like List of non-pornographic films featuring nudity (A through C) or List of non-pornographic films featuring nudity (Breasts through Buttox)? _(1 == 2)^Until 06:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly unencyclopedic, and not even useful as lots of other websites have this content and screenshots. Or so I'm told. --Nick Dowling (talk) 06:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow... Her full-frontal nudity is frankly presented with particular emphasis on her lean, waifish upper torso, curvaceous mesomorphic hips and thick, dark pubic and underarm hair. While doubtless a valuable resource for teenagers whose mothers have installed web filters, it's about as unencyclopaedic as it gets. WP:NOT#DIR probably covers it, but maybe we need to add WP:NOT#MRSKIN to make sure. Plus the fair use policy wouldn't allow screenshots, which is what we really want in an article like this. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 08:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: To be fair, I think the article's salacious description of the nudity in the film version of 1984, which you quote above, is simply an attempt to reinforce one of Orwell's themes in the novel: that the free expression of sexuality is fundamentally at odds with totalitarianism. Not to mention with web filters. :) MastCell ^Talk 19:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would the article's definition cover: scenes of childbirth (that baby hasn't got any clothes on!) or cadaveric preparation or Adam and Eve or non-porn films about porn or strategicallly arranged jewelry/fans/boas/hands/blah or animation/GGI or man/machine hybrids (like a travelling Terminator or Robocop and a can of WD40)? See where this is going? Someone has too much time in on their hands. Plutonium27 (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even with massive cleanup and strict enforcement of WP:V, this is an ever-growing, unbounded list based upon two terms lacking strict enough definition to avoid original research. As mentioned above, the definition of nudity varies by culture and time period. How much skin is needed to qualify? Do only certain parts apply? What about poses and camera angles designed to conceal different regions? As for pornography, do we use the Miller test, the Hicklin test, or Potter Stewart's "I know it when I see it"? --Allen3 ^talk 16:35, 27 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. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steffen Gielen[edit]

He has published only one article. --Ephraim33 (talk) 15:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could just get some citations and merge it with Mayhew Prize?-Koji Dude ^{(Contributions)} 16:32, 20 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, Espresso Addict (talk) 21:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Only two preprints in ArXiv (both joint, and not clear if either one has been published), no citations of his work yet. Clearly, not a notable academic yet and manifestly fails WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 22:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete I don't see notability following from Mayhew Prize, and don't think merging this into that will improve it either. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Still a graduate student. The prize is to the top undergraduate student of the year in Applied Mathematics at Cambridge, many of whom probably do go on to become notable, but we have in general not considered prizes at this academic stage as notabilie in themselves. DGG (talk) 17:52, 30 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. Wizardman 14:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Medallion (Prince of Persia)[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just a massive in -universe repetition of the plot sections of the Prince of Persia game articles. It is therefore duplicative and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a gameguide. I'll change my not-vote if somebody can find some sources. Blast Ulna (talk) 01:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Those damn Chaos Emeralds this is not. JuJube (talk) 04:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 06:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything notable into Prince of Persia(series article, needs renaming), as the concept apparently spans more than one game in the series. Delete the rest. Gazimoff (talk) 08:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the series article. Picking the bones out of what goes where is going to take a lot more time than the duration of an AFD, but this is exactly the kind of material which can be given a place within a series article, that's what they're for. Currently the series article is a repeat of plot elements from individual games, by the time that's trimmed or removed there's plenty of room for things like this. Someone another 13:17, 27 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. Wizardman 14:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sands of Time[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just a massive in -universe repetition of the plot sections of the Prince of Persia game articles. It is therefore duplicative and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a gameguide. I'll change my not-vote if somebody can find some sources. Blast Ulna (talk) 01:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace with the dab page Why would this have ever been primary topic anyway? 70.51.8.129 (talk) 04:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ain't got no time for youuuuu. Delete JuJube (talk) 04:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 06:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything notable into Prince of Persia(series article, needs renaming), as the concept apparently spans more than one game in the series. Delete the rest.Gazimoff (talk) 08:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the series article. Picking the bones out of what goes where is going to take a lot more time than the duration of an AFD, but this is exactly the kind of material which can be given a place within a series article, that's what they're for. Currently the series article is a repeat of plot elements from individual games, by the time that's trimmed or removed there's plenty of room for things like this. (Copied rationale). Someone another 13:18, 27 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 23:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anind Dey[edit]

Article tagged by User:Curiosor with the following edit summary: "AfD: Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anind DeyThis article should be deleted because the person does meet the general notability guidelines." I'm just finishing it. Jobjörn (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Top results on google scholar: 997 citations, 837 citations, 837 citations, 525 citations, 465 citations, 188, 193... need I go on? Jfire (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. No, no need to go on. Really. Jobjörn (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Huge number of citations, clearly passes WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 22:08, 28 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. Wizardman 14:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Panthers-Falcons rivalry[edit]

No refs for a start. But even if it did this really isn't a notable rivalry. Buc (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It needs refs, but it is definitely notable as they're divisional and regional rivals, and any game they play is amplified by the media to the level of Cleveland/Pittsburgh or Green Bay/Chicago. Sourcing is needed but I know that this is a building rivalry. Nate • (chatter) 21:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The difference with the two rivalries you listed is that they have been playing each other for over 70 years. The two team in this rivalry have only been playing each other for 12 years. Buc (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced original research. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Hoobobba (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any two teams that play each other can be considered to have a rivalry. What makes these two different? Without sources that say the rivalry is above and beyond the usual, this article and all other such articles should be deleted and stay deleted. Blast Ulna (talk) 01:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As good as any other article... Felis Sapien (talk) 20:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What!? with no refs? Buc (talk) 13:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep (non-admin closure). WilliamH (talk) 17:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rolf Holmström[edit]

Not notable, apparently not professional (or not indicated) Meldshal42_{Comments and Suggestions}^{My Contributions} 20:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Allsvenskan is the highest level of Swedish football. DarkAudit (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:ATHLETE and per DarkAudit: Allsvenskan is linked in the article - I respectfully suggest that a quick check of that (at the very least) ought to have been made before this nom was. Plutonium27 (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I apologize, I am not familiar with Swedish football. Meldshal42_{Comments and Suggestions}^{My Contributions} 01:08, 29 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 23:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edward McSweegan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Was up for deletion last year as a result of the previous version being a BLP violation. Article was kept after I found sources to establish notability, and the dodgy edits were oversighted. However today, I got an email from Dr. McSweegan demanding that the article be deleted, as he seems to think even the cleaned-up version constitutes stalking and harassment. Subject meets WP:N--question here is whether it's marginal enough that it should be deleted per his request. Procedural nomination, I have no opinion. Blueboy 96 20:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ugh. I feel for all that Blueboy96 and the subject have dealt with here. Still, whatever the issues may have been previously, the subject is notable under WP guidelines. I also think that his notability is beyond that magic line at which his article can be deleted at his request. Notability is not temporary, and the treatment given to the subject by major sources like this- and there are plenty of others as reflected in the article or via a quick search - is too much to ignore. The problem then becomes whether this is a WP:BLP-mandated deletion. I conclude that at this time it is not. Oversighting would appear to have kept the worst of the problem in check, although I do see that there were some attempts to reintroduce material on the article's talk page. Semi-protection of both pages may be appropriate if there is a problem with anonymous editor adding unsourced POV-pushing material, which will make it relatively easy in the event it becomes necessary to sanction editors. Xymmax (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject keeps running for the spotlight, then crying that he can't see because it's too bright. We went through this a year ago; I stubbed the article to almost zilch, and an admin deleted all previous versions. The subject is whining that he can't control his public image anymore, not unlike numerous other malingerers who 'demand' we remove them. Works for the government, in a post of some responsibility, where he goes and gets press by speaking out, then writes books and promotes them, gets senators talking about him in public and private, writes for Salon.com, and so on? He meets notability. (Personal attack removed) ThuranX (talk) 22:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable scientist, involved in a long term public controversy due to the NIH benching. Passes notability easily, several reliable sources used for references. Horrorshowj (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- beyond the borderline that gives the subject a voice in deciding whether he should have an article or not. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 03:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as others above, I feel that Edward McSweegan has become a public figure and deletion of his article is not warranted. HOWEVER, I don't feel that saying that he should just shut the fuck up is appropriate, and urge User:ThuranX to retract that. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Horrorshowj, clearly a notable scientist and public figure. (jarbarf) (talk) 16:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per my comment last time around. The article has one or two apparent inaccuracies but I don't currently have time to work on it. Agree semi-protection might be warranted. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite. The article does indeed have some POV problems. But he's notable enough that it should be kept.DGG (talk) 17:48, 30 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 transwiki and delete. I've gone ahead and deleted the article for the time being; whoever would like to transwiki the content should feel free to post a note on my talk page. I'll be more than happy to restore it in their userspace so it can be transwikied. --jonny-m t 03:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nations of Ace Combat[edit]

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sourcing, and is just an in-universe repetition of information in the plot and setting sections of the Ace Combat articles. As such, it is duplicative of those articles and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwikify As the article creator, I cannot quite render an unbiased opinion, but I can explain why the article in question was created. First of all, the original Ace Combat-related articles were created in a kind of ad-hoc fashion, with various fans creating pages at will, often with little content and no verification. As the series continued to expand, it became clear to me that this was going to be a problem, as games kept coming out people would keep creating new articles with little centralization or unifying style and direction. Indeed, many of these individual articles were marked for deletion. Considering that this series is still going strong and thus had more to add in the future, I felt it was necessary to centralize this information so it could be more easily controlled as it was added (please see my original proposal and justifications here.) Thus I merged many of the Ace Combat articles into a few large articles. Unfortunately, these articles proved too large and unwieldy, so they had to be split again. However, my arguments for a centralized structure still were valid, so the split was along different lines from the merge. I certainly understand your desire to delete the article here, but I do not necessarily feel that is something that should be done speedily. I would certainly approve of transwikifying this information, if a destination wiki could be found. - Fearless Son (talk) 23:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete from Wikipedia. suggest we give Fearless Son time to transwiki to "AceWiki, the Encyclopedia on everything Ace Combat". Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify sounds like a good idea. nneonneo (talk) 02:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 06:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and delete It's nice work but if it's not covered in depth in secondary sources then it's not suitable for WP, however it would be a real shame to waste. Someoneanother 21:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The wikia site has articles for individual nations but seemingly no umbrella article, this would make a useful addition to the site. Someone another 21:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The discussion below appears to have been subject to significant sock/meat puppetry--I'll file a request for checkuser this afternoon for confirmation--and so I've discounted all but the original arguments presented by that user. After doing so, it is clear that the consensus is to delete based on a lack of significant coverage in unrelated sources. --jonny-m t 03:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Emile[edit]

Insufficient notability: despite apparent coverage in one notable media outlets (CTV), most coverage seems to be of the human interest story type and not related to music notability. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can this article be edited to be conserved? What souceing would preserve it. please. Thanks. --Ilecity (talk) 19:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that it can be. The singer hasn't yet done anything that meets our notability guidelines for music. Singers are usually considered notable if they've charted a single, released multiple major-label albums, or have otherwise gained significant mainstream media attention (i.e. not just one CTV source). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with you if it were not for the fact that artist Mr. Emile works with other artists listed on wikipedia that have not released single on a major label as singers.--Ilecity (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just working with other notable artists doesn't make you notable themselves. Also, please read WP:WAX -- existence of similar pages doesn't justify the existence of one page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this artist is on the margins of notability. We could wait a year or two to see if he develops a broader reputation and then revisit this. I'm putting this article on my watch list to track it. Mattnad (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the music notability guidelines. Don't think he's there yet. Mattnad (talk) 21:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ten Pound. I read what you suggested. Can you look back at the article and tell me if you still feel it needs to be deleted. It seems to be in line with the report and various articles.--Ilecity (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it may be accurate but it still fails notability criteria. There is nothing in the article that says that he's done anything noteworthy, it just gives some vague biographical info. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well !vote, eh? Delete The article doesn't assert notability in any way, and the singer seems to fail WP:MUSIC in every way. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets Basic criteria of WP:BIO. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DoubleBlue. I also added an additional reference from the Montreal Gazette. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Seems to not meet WP:NOTABILITY, among others. I don't think that being a cancer survivor (while amazing and wondering) is inherently notable. --Shark face 217 04:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Though I agree with your second statement, to avoid personal bias, I check and see that he has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, thus he is notable and, more importantly, a Verifiable, NPOV, NOR article can be written. DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based on notability guidelines for music, he's not there yet. Sure being known for surviving cancer is nice, but there are probably thousands of people who have had news coverage about that. Being mentioned in the press as part of a human interest story is not on its own enough. Per WP:MUSIC, he'll need to achieve relevant milestones before an article is justified.Mattnad (talk) 12:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on notability guidelines for music he Meets Basic criteria of WP:BIO. He has a Verifiable, Verifiable, NPOV, NORso the article must stay. Surviving cancer is not his major claim. The news story is as much music critique of a developing star as it is a human interest piece. The CTV piece coupled with the reference articles in Montreal Gazette & The Concordian Concordia suggest he is a pioneer and innovator that region. Relevant references exist, though milestones are not yet listed.(See DoubleBlue & Paul Erik) --MotionMan45 (talk) 18:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"developing star"? Well, that remains to be seen. There could be that potential, and you might be a fan, but we ought to be more neutral in our assessments here. Mattnad (talk) 13:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on notability guidelines. I added an additional reference from the Montreal Community Contact. Whether or not he may or may not be a star, his story is well documented -- unique, verifiable and notable.--Whordwind (talk) 17:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seriously, I have more press and I'm not even trying to be a big rapper. I wouldn't dream of having a wikipedia article until I had achieved significantly more press than what's been added to the article. Emile looks like a smalltime, local guy who's trying to bootstrap his rep via wikipedia. He isn't covered in the usual music data sources like www.allmusic.com. Also, to the admin who reviews this, looks like there are a few new wikipedians who have only this article to their credit voting here. Bruno23 (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's irrelevant whether you dream of having a wiki article or not. It's also irrelevant whether the voters are new users. Wikipedia is not a beuarocracatic hierarchy, its a factual database & encyclopedia. It belongs the world, it is current and it is free. Rhetoric and slander are really not appreciated. Neutrality is much appreciated. If you feel this person does not meet WP:BIO or has no verifiable sources, please offer and a well structure and intelligent argument based upon the rules of Wikipedia. If you have notable sources and are a notable individual, please create a page. The same logic applies for you: read WP:WAX. Thank You.Whordwind (talk) 03:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Easy there. Please see wp:civil. I think his point is that there's a threshold that Emile hasn't met. Also an observation that new editors have been focusing on this article may be an oblique reference to a coordinated campaign for the Emile article. See sock and meat puppetry. Mattnad (talk) 12:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense Mattnad. Still the sock Sock puppetry would only be an issue if the arguments were erroneous. They don't seem to be. Its seem Bruno is the 'Un-Civil' one. Look at his user page.70.82.224.27 (talk) 12:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppetry is actually a pretty serious issue for Wikipedia. Although you may agree with the arguments in favor of keeping the article, since this is a quasi vote, it could be a problem (if there's genuine sock-puppetry). I think what we have here is a difference of opinion on whether any news coverage means someone is notable. Some feel there's enough here, others don't, so the opinions on both sides matter. As for Bruno23, well, his talk page doesn't say a lot about his civility. It shows others being uncivil to him. I did look at his contributions and they seem like they're more or less in line with wp:civil.Mattnad (talk) 13:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He might not be big but he Meets Basic criteria of WP:BIO for sure. His Stiory and style are notable.99.243.219.77 (talk) 05:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fearless Son, if you'd like a copy of the wikimarkup text after deletion, feel free to email me and I will provide you with a copy of the deleted text. Keegan^talk 07:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History in Ace Combat[edit]

This article asserts zero notability through multiple reliable sources, and is an in-universe repetition of the plot of Ace Combat and other games plot sections. It is therefore totally duplicative and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as cruft. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwikify As the article creator, I cannot quite render an unbiased opinion, but I can explain why the article in question was created. First of all, the original Ace Combat-related articles were created in a kind of ad-hoc fashion, with various fans creating pages at will, often with little content and no verification. As the series continued to expand, it became clear to me that this was going to be a problem, as games kept coming out people would keep creating new articles with little centralization or unifying style and direction. Indeed, many of these individual articles were marked for deletion. Considering that this series is still going strong and thus had more to add in the future, I felt it was necessary to centralize this information so it could be more easily controlled as it was added (please see my original proposal and justifications here.) Thus I merged many of the Ace Combat articles into a few large articles. Unfortunately, these articles proved too large and unwieldy, so they had to be split again. However, my arguments for a centralized structure still were valid, so the split was along different lines from the merge. This article in particular was a split from the Nations and Organizations of Ace Combat article (now Nations of Ace Combat article,) the idea was that many of the articles about the individual nations contained redundant information and could be shaved off into its own article where it could be cleaned up. That article is this one. I certainly understand your desire to delete the article here, but I do not necessarily feel that is something that should be done speedily. I would certainly approve of transwikifying this information, if a destination wiki could be found. - Fearless Son (talk) 23:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete from Wikipedia. suggest we give Fearless Son time to transwiki to "AceWiki, the Encyclopedia on everything Ace Combat". Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 06:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and delete as with the nations article. Someone another 21:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keegan^talk 07:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cyriak[edit]

A non-notable web producer. Jmlk 1 7 04:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A self-employed person who I am sure does a good job, but all references are the subject's creations. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well written article, mentioned on BBC, and Wired. 68.94.20.199 (talk) 23:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You have a point there, and I retract my comment that all the references were the subjects creations. (Clearly I didn't read through the references thoroughly enough.) Still, I am not entirely sure if those brief mentions in a BBC program qualify for notability. Then again, I'm not entirely sure that it doesn't. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:06, 25 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) 19:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The only one of the sources that seems to meet the reliable sources guideline is the short BBC piece; I'd really like to see at least one other significant source. The Wired ref seems kind of trivial to me, and doesn't really discuss him in a way that would verify much in the article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Short article, but seems to tick enough boxes to swing my vote. Just passes notability thanks to the BBC work and interview. 80.177.11.120 (talk) 03:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Not to affect my vote, but just noticed from checking his animation mix that I have seen his gifs used as avatars in countless forums. Means nothing I know, but interesting to finally find out where they came from...80.177.11.120 (talk) 03:21, 30 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 G11 by user:Blueboy96, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

King team[edit]

Delete as non-notable work of fiction. Google search for "King Team" "Andrew McAllister" only shows Wikipedia page. Speedy tag and prod tag removed. ... discospinster _talk 19:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible delete. This is an unpublished and unfinished work of fiction by an utterly non-notable author. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:FICTION. Macy (talk) 19:54, 26 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 for a merge, there is too much information to warrant a history merge for a brief entry. Keegan^talk 07:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Assisted Biologically Augmented Lifeform[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just an in-universe plot repetition of plot section information from the Command and Conquer series article and the game articles. It is therefore duplicative, has no non-plot information, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's still a major character and there's a decent amount of information on him here. Geshpenst (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 06:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I found nothing on Google News, Books or Scholar. AnteaterZot (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How about game reviews? --Pixelface (talk) 11:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do you have any? AnteaterZot (talk) 01:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reviews for games in the Tiberian series? Here's a few: [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] --Pixelface (talk) 02:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Begrudging delete I'm a massive fan of everything C&C, so would love to vote keep here, but ultimately the only truly iconic character from the series out of universe is Kane. CABAL was only a main character in the expansion pack of a one game, and a minor character in the main game. Merits an entry in Nod characters of Command & Conquer but not an independant articleCaissa's DeathAngel (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Nod characters of Command & Conquer, per CDA. Someone another 22:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the Nod characters of Command & Conquer per Caissa & Someone. More references wouldn't hurt either. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 11:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the C&C task force really need to get their heads round referencing, this is hardly going to be the only XFD for their articles if that doesn't happen unfortunately.Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 21:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Keegan^talk 07:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous characters of Command & Conquer[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and by its own definition is "miscellaneous", which could be easily interpreted as "non-notable". Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep/Merge In a sense this is essentially a "list of characters" page, and those are acceptable for inclusion here, but as Judgesurreal777 notes there are no sources given for the information in the article. In a broad sense this would be the C&C game manuals, but I suppose the community would appreciate inline citations with their references, and at the moment my eyes hurt to much to stare at the screen for hours to add inline citations. Some of the information could be merged, I suppose, but I am not sure where it would best be presented. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its not the lack of citation of the game manual as much as citation of interviews by those who created these characters, or a few video game reviewers talking about their opinions of these characters. That would establish notability in the sense I mean, and at least then we would focus on merger and not deletion. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 06:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As good as any other article... Felis Sapien (talk) 20:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand Sources definitely need to be found, and pretty soon, but as I do think sources can be found for certainly some of them in video game reviews etc that a couple of months should be given in order to allow said expansion. This is the least notable of the C&C articles except for CABAL which is also up for deletion (my response being merge to Nod characters) so if in a couple of months nothing is found I'll support deletion. At the same time however I do think the C&C task force would appreciate a couple of months to find sources. Sometimes XFD provides the necessary impetus for a mass improvement, if it doesn't then delete at the next review. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 01:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Locating engine[edit]

I find this article very confusing. It seems somewhat ethereal and far removed from the real world of GPS devices. It starts by mentioning "some suppliers" - suppliers of what? The sentence "the tendency to apply for patent rights on applied mathematics where time is a parameter leads to closing the books on algorithms" reads like original research. So I wonder whether the whole article is. It forms something of a walled garden along with Real time locating and Real time locating standards but those two articles seem to have seemed attention from other editors. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is a little confusing because English isn't the author's native language. A more serious problem is that there are no sources. I've asked Niemeyerstein to look for some, and I also posted a message at WT:WPM yesterday asking for help, since this article is fundamentally about applied math. I didn't find the sentence above confusing; it seems to be stating something I've heard often, that IP law is inhibiting research into algorithms. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 02:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You are just as confusing as Niemeyerstein - I was not aware that there was any legislation regarding the internet protocol (IP) and what has it got to do with this topic? (OK, you mean intellectual property - but that highlights the problem: the article is written for a specialised audience rather than for a general enyclopedia.) -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the part in the core content policies about deleting articles intended for a specialized audience, can you point that out? Let's see if we can save this article and find some sources. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 12:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I take that back, you are quite right. The article is written for a specialized audience, and that needs to be fixed. You didn't say it was meant for a specialized audience, which is fine, as long as we can prove notability. Again, I have no problem with AfD, it may be hard to find sources and show notability. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 18:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A quick skim of the article talks about the kinds of topics and issues one deals with in GPS systems (I once coded a driver for a GPS chipset). Best of my understanding, a similar set of concerns are dealt with in locating cell phones so that emergency/911 responders can be directed to the cell-phone owner. There are also obvious spy/surveillance applications. I believe the general principles also apply in robotics, e.g. both the robocup soccer matches, as well as the 2005 DARPA grand challenge motor vehicle race. What the overlap is between these technologies, and this article, I cannot say, but it does seem to provide some sort of generic overview of the topic. linas (talk) 03:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with a condition. Okay, thanks for that, Linas. I wish I could help find sources, but I wouldn't know where to look. If no sources can be found in 5 days, I'm fine with this article being deleted, and I hope Niemeyerstein will copy it and keep working on it. If two or more sources can be found, I'd like for the author to have more time to work on this. He's working on several articles, he seems to know what he's talking about, the general topic (which this math supports) is notable and becoming more so, and we haven't found anyone else yet who can write this article. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 04:17, 27 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. Wizardman 14:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Historical anomalies in Blackadder[edit]

This seems to be an exercise in original research.
It seems destined to become listcruft, even if not quite there yet.
A large part of the humour in the series is in the form of deliberate anachronism; this article's explaining on each point that yes, this is a joke, or no, in the authoritative opinion of Wikipedians, this was an unintended inaccuracy, seems unnecessarily tedious.
A note on the page for the series or the episodes that the historical accuracy is not that faithful, with one or two examples, would probably serve as well.

Pseudomonas_(talk) 19:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC) Pseudomonas_(talk) 19:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unencyclopedic, unreferenced, original research. It isn't as if Blackadder was supposed to be a documentary, anyway. Better suited to a Blackadder fansite.--Michig (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Amusing, but delete. Pure original research, alas, and Wikipedia just isn't the right forum for it. Creator should consider putting it on her personal web site instead, as I think it's cool. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No references, not asserts notability. Macy (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I guess I have to agree, but it would be great on a different website. George (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The series is an excellent one but it has a number of historical inaccuracies that can easily lead unsuspecting viewers to think are correct. Wikipedia is a great place to keep this sort of thing, since anyone curious about the subject is likely to look it up here. I certainly enjoyed reading the list of errors. Peyre (talk) 22:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unencyclopedic, and half the examples of "anomalies" seem to just be failing to get the joke (echoing Pseudomonas' third point). Klausness (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR and unencyclopedic. Interesting and well written if wierdly pedantic but better somewhere else. Nick Connolly (talk) 01:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as it is OR, but can we not find somewhere to transwiki it? A lot of work has gone into it and it is interesting. --Bduke (talk) 06:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it's rare that one sees such a well-worked example of Failing To Get The Joke. Unless that earnest tone is indeed the joke. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Nothing to do with not getting jokes. The series uses historical context, and the anachronism often is the joke. No OR required: most of the historical anomalies are pretty blatant. An interesting and useful resource. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 09:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And for a followup: List of anachronisms in The Flintstones? ;-) But seriously, it'd be much better to make sure the articles on the series were written in such a way that made clear that it's not a documentary - then on the occasion that a real historical person or event were referred to, this could be discussed and linked to in the page for that episode. Pseudomonas_(talk) 12:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge per nom (4) and above. Crufty WP:OR. Assertions as to the quality of the series and of the article's writing/evident efforts are entirely incidental. Plutonium27 (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge to individual articles on series, probably. As a whole would be perfect for the Blackadder Wikia. --Dhartung | Talk 21:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Do any of you read history? This is an historical article and informs any user. BTW, Tom Hanks won WWII all by himself.--andreasegde (talk) 01:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, keep, I've changed my mind - it's useful. George C 18:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I found it educational both from a history POV and from the POV of the series. Matt Deres (talk) 03:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It gives perspective for an important TV programme. Charlycrash (talk) 20:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Request Could the 'keep' voters address the question of whether any reliable sources are discussing the historical accuracy of Blackadder in a significant way, so we can be sure we're not violating No Original Research, one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interesting and worth a read, but as clear an example of original research you're ever likely to find. I'm afraid that "being useful" and "educational" doesn't negate this. Original Research does not belong on WP, it's a basic policy. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, having read it all now, I retract that "interesting and worth a read". Why is there no mention that Rowan Atkinson was born in 1955, and so couldn't have met Elizabeth I? Seriously, 90% of the article suffocates the humour of the subject under crushing pedantry. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not think NOR applies here. In this case, OR would involve comparing the two things (historic versus televised details) and arriving at something else, like a theme or purpose or some other conclusion. It's not OR to mention that Sir Francis Drake wasn't executed by Queen Lizzie, nor is it OR to mention that that "fact" is mentioned in "Head"; that's all this article does. OR would require synthesizing both bits and arriving at something else, something original. Matt Deres (talk) 23:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Stating that "Blackadder shows X" is not original research, and neither is stating that "the historical fact is Y". But the article is using statements like this to form a synthesis of published material serving to advance a position – namely that Blackadder contains numerous "historical anomalies". EALacey (talk) 21:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The premise of the series is that it is a secret history. Being such, I think it's entirely natural and encyclopedic to list how the series deviates from accepted history. I could well have missed it, but I don't think the article rates the number of anachronisms and other inaccuracies as "numerous" or otherwise, it simply lists them and the evaluation is left to the reader. I've seen such lists on the internet since at least 1997 and recall seeing them on gopher servers before my school switched to the web, so while I have no idea if discussions about Blackadder's historicity have taken place in any kind of reputable books or magazines, it's a topic that's been tackled several times (albeit often in an amateurish way) on the internet. I'm not involved with the article in any way and I'm not going to weep and gnash my teeth if it gets deleted, but I can't fathom calling a topic "original research" when I've been reading similar lists for more than a decade. Matt Deres (talk) 13:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As good as any other article... Felis Sapien (talk) 21:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, default to keep. Wizardman 14:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sue Ulu[edit]

This unreferenced biography was blanked by User:Banderon with the note, "removed at the request of Sue Ulu". That user presumably doesn't know that blanking is not deletion, but shall we help him/her out by discussing the deletion of this article? As it is, I'd support deletion on the grounds that she is of dubious notability. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unreferenced, no mention of notability, and blanked, supposedly under the request of the subject. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 21:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any particular reason we know that it's at the subject's request that the page was blanked? I do see an edit by User:Sulu.1 removing references to being in the Navy, but I'm hard pressed to determine whether we might not be dealing with simple vandalism. Still, after reviewing every version in the article history, it appears that the article has managed to struggle through life from 2006 until now without being encumbered by even one source. Accordingly, I agree - delete. Xymmax (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She seems to be a fairly well known and prolific voice actor, so I would lean towards having an article on her. Problem is it's unsourced, and I'm not finding anything useful about her no matter how well reviewed her work has been.Horrorshowj (talk) 23:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sue Ulu has has several significant voice acting roles in Dirty Pair Flash, Devil Hunter Yohko 5, and most significantly of all, major roles in Sorcerer Hunters (Big Momma) and Neon Genesis Evangelion (Dr. Ritsuko Akagi). These all meets the criteria listed at WP:BIO#Entertainers. I've restored most of the article, minus the trivia, and expanded her filmology to include all of her works as listed at IMDB and ANN to demonstrate her notability. There is enough there for a stub, which is what the current article is now. I would actually assume that the blanking of the article is vandalism as it was the editor's only edits on Wikipedia. --Farix (Talk) 10:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is there don't seem to be any reliable sources about her to verify the article information. IMDB isn't usable for biographical information due to being largely fan submitted. Horrorshowj (talk) 11:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TV, film, or OVA credits aren't reliable sources? That's a first. IMDB and ANN are just convenient ways of citing the credits all at once without having to reference the credits for every film, TV series, or OVA she has had a part in. But it has been verified that she has voiced several significant roles which allow her to pass WP:BIO. So a stub with her filmology is permissible. --Farix (Talk) 14:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given the the notablity of some of her roles. I would like to have something more reliable as to that the subject has requested deletion of the article. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She has notable voice acting roles, and unless we have evidence that the existence of a Wikipedia page is somehow actively harming her, her opinion on it is not particularly relevant. --erachima formerly tjstrf 02:04, 30 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. Wizardman 14:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of programming languages by category[edit]

This is a list of programming languages by category, which is better served by actual categories. This was suggested on the article's talk page here. We already have a list of programming languages in alphabetical, chronological, and generational order. I don't think a categorical list adds anything over this and the categories (see Category:Programming languages). swa q 18:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - there's no annotation here, and hence no advantage over categories. If anything, this is inferior to categories, as it's really easy for a standalone list (like this one) to be overlooked when articles are added. Same logic probably applies to Alphabetical list of programming languages, incidentally - both lists were created way back in 2001 and 2002, before categories were available. Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - I agree with Zetawoof. --Allan McInnes (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Categories suffice. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CLN. Klausness (talk) 00:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is already a list by name. What part of the categorical list is an advantage over categories that isn't covered in the alphabetical, chronological, or generational lists? swa q 02:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's human-readable, unlike a category, which requires lots of navigation and a lot of ugliness. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 10:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG Keep. My normal test for something like this is to see if I can find information in the category as easily as I can in the list. That was not the case here, and if I didn't have a background in CS, I probably wouldn't have been able to do it at all. Apart from the dichotomy in navigability, it's important to remember our guidelines regarding redundancy in categories and lists (emphasis mine):"Developers of these redundant systems should not compete against each other in a destructive manner, such as by nominating the work of their competitors to be deleted because they overlap. Doing so may disrupt browsing by users who prefer the list system. Also, lists may be enhanced with features not available to categories, but building a rudimentary list of links is a necessary first step in the construction of an enhanced list -- deleting link lists wastes these building blocks, and unnecessarily pressures list builders into providing a larger initial commitment of effort whenever they wish to create a new list, which may be felt as a disincentive. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 10:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Celarnor's comments just above. In essence, the information may be redundant, but the presentation seems not to be. ChuckEsterbrook (talk) 18:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Many of the categories are inaccurate, misleading, or pure opinion; almost all are uncited; some are pure marketing terms with no basis in computer science research (e.g. "fourth-generation languages"). Basically this is an utter disorderly hodge-podge with no real chance of becoming orderly. As a result, it is not, and cannot become, more informative than misinformative to the reader. --FOo (talk) 07:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth generation languages very much have a basis in computer science. Plus we have an article (Fourth-generation programming language) and an accompanying category for it. The problems you seem to have with the articles are ones to solve by improvement, not deletion. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dealing with accuracy problems is a editorial dispute only. DGG (talk) 02:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but probably deserves a major overhaul. There's a page on web browsers somewhere where browsers are categorised using colours and tables with notes and sources. This might be trickier to do for programming languages because there are so many of them, but I agree that the objections are editorial not fundamental. Like a stub, this page has potential, the fact that it hasn't reached that potential yet shouldn't be grounds for deletion. 09:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.200.148 (talk)

- It'd be difficult to impossible to come up with something similar for programming languages. Unlike web browsers, different programming languages generally have radically different feature sets which can't be accurately compared on a "checklist" basis. (As a thought experiment: what features would be listed?) Moreover, the possibility of a feature-based comparison of programming languages isn't really relevant here - what's being discussed is the existing list-by-category, and whether it's necessary. Zetawoof_(ζ) 10:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Yeah, it doesn't work that way. Web browsers have standards they can adhere to, and things such as tabbing and caching are fairly common things to compare them to one another with. Programming languages are an array of tools that do things quite different from one another most of the time; including all possible 'features' would result in each feature being shared by one or two languages only. The existing list is by the family of programming languages that it is in, which is exactly how it should be kept. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 11:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This list has annotations and as such it can offer more than a category. Sometimes, categories and lists can coexist, both being useful in different ways. I think this is such a case. --Itub (talk) 15:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is something one would expect in specialist encyclopedia on computer science. Wikipedia aims to be both a general and a specialist encyclopedia. --Firefly322 (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This list can be added-to, in one place. That serializability makes it more manageable than a tree of items which must be visted, one article at a time. Thus this list is more manageable if single editors are involved. If a team of editors were to agree handle articles in parallel, then the tree of items would be doable, but not until we have reached that scale of cooperation. To assume otherwise would be to kill the concept at the outset. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 00:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (jarbarf) (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nerdcore Rising: The Movie[edit]

Movie is name "Nerdcore Rising" on IMDB, not "Nerdcore Rising: The Movie". Page by other name already exists. Steve Stair (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to Nerdcore Rising (film) which appears to be the same content plus an infobox. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per the Hammer. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:45, 26 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. Wizardman 14:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Kanning[edit]

As it stands there are no significant reliable sources and no way to create and article with meaningful content with verifiable information. Notability was called into question and a request was put forward to provide sources. None have been forthcoming. The only sources to date have either been from those that fail the criteria set forth in wikipedia for reliable sources or ones that provide trivial references to the subject (one only had him in a caption of a photo). Only one source is both reliable and non-trivial and is a short article about attempting to trespass at an airport. Per basic wikipedia policy and particularly policy on biographies of living persons this article should be deleted. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have not been able to locate much of anything on this individual that would rate an article. I googled him and I see no links to anything that I recognized as a reliable source. I am willing to be persuaded otherwise if there's enough material out there that I missed. Famspear (talk) 19:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article from The Wire (a weekly newspaper published in Portsmouth, New Hampshire) discusses the airport incident (among other things), and counts as a reliable source. So does the USA Today article. I think notability is established. ----Eastmain (talk) 21:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 21:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 21:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The person who is proposing this AfD deleted some reliable (and some less-reliable) sources from the article prior to issuing this claim (see the page's discussion page). One of the sources he deleted was a Boston Phoenix article[49] that starts off describing his airport protest and includes the following quote which speaks to his (admittedly limited) notoriety and notability:

In most places, Kanning would be dismissed as an extremist. But here at PorcFest 2005, he was a celebrity and a hero.

Some of the other sources that were deleted were used to provide additional background information about Kanning's protests, or to back up statements about them that are not actually matters of any real-world accuracy dispute; the controversy over the reliability of these sources therefore seems pedantic and manufactured. -Moorlock (talk) 22:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other places Kanning's protests have been covered include the Concord Monitor (e.g. 17 Jan 2007, 5 June 2005, 7 June 2005) and New Hampshire Business Review (e.g. 9 June 2006, 24 June 2005) -Moorlock (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A few stunts does not notability make. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Kittybrewster ☎ 09:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not WP:N protestor with isolated minor coverage in local weeklies. Not exactly at the Fred Phelps/Fathers For Justice level. Plutonium27 (talk) 17:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability as an activist needs more than this. --Dhartung | Talk 21:38, 27 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. Wizardman 14:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LondonSays[edit]

NN "think tank" fails notability guidelines for organizations. The few Google hits I get are blog entries. Prod removed by an IP. - IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nuetral This article does meet Wikipedia's criteria, but I do feel a little weak about it. It may fail WP:NOTE.--RyRy5 talk 18:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Seems like a fairly recent and unknown organisation, however it's backed by a few high notability individuals in London. Cambrasa (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks reliable independant sourcing to verify notability. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources. Very few Google results, no Google news results. -Icewedge (talk) 01:53, 27 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. Seeing the distribution of keeps and deletes there is a consensus for the latter. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Big O and Dukes[edit]

Non notable local radio show. No significant history. Not syndicated.Rtphokie (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I'm neutral regarding this AFD. However, the show appears to be fairly well known in the Washington D.C. Metro area, beginning on WHFS before moving to WJFK-FM. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 19:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete since the article has no references to reliable secondary sources to prove notability. The article also needs extensive re-writing to make it less of a fan-page and more of an encyclopedia article but that's outside the scope of this nomination. If proper sourcing could be found, I'd move instead to keep this article (and then push for a major overhaul). - Dravecky (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since I've found a couple of articles that mention the show and the hosts, albeit in the context of a focus on their then-new co-host (and eventual replacement) Ed Norris. Also, the article has been overhauled to be far more encyclopedic. - Dravecky (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Page should not be deleted, references should be used, but most content only references to the show itself, the show appears to be fairly well known in the Washington D.C. Metro area, beginning on WHFS before moving to WJFK-FM also the show is one of the top 100 downloaded podcasts off of ITunes, so must have some national recognition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mot520b (talk • contribs) 21:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment They have also been on the air in Baltimore and phoenix, so it is not just a local radio show as you claim. I also agree that the article needs re-writing.
Comment Maybe someone with a knowledge of the current DC radio market should be the oberstuermfuehrer of this movement to delete. Big O and Dukes replaced Opie and Anthony... you may have heard of them? (also beat their ratings in DC) Notable? Not syndicated? With listeners in Canada, Australia, and Arizona, syndication hardly matters, except in terms of Arbitron. If only secondary sources can be used (and the show itself is certainly a primary source) then quotes from the Constitution, Bible, and Koran are out of bounds, unless someone somewhere else has already quoted it. The logic here is: you can use a quote if you're the SECOND person quoting it, but not if you're the First. That makes no sense at all. Wikipedia gives nerds a bad name.
Comment - hard to make the case for notability when the top google hits are the wikipedia article itself, the show's myspace page.--Rtphokie (talk) 11:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Try googling any notable person or celebrity and the Wikipedia page will show up as one of the top hits. The show is trying to skew towards a younger audience than the other JFK shows, so it makes sense that they would want to take advantage of current social networking trends, including Myspace. DaltonAmes (talk) 02:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - sorry, didn't realize it was googlepedia.org Maybe someone with a knowledge of the current DC radio market should be the oberstuermfuehrer of this movement to delete. 08:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)08:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)08:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)08:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)216.49.77.67 (talk) 08:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC) L'il Douchebag[reply]
Comment - While these references are nice, they still don't establish notability. The Sun article does establish that the show exists and that they've had some notorious guests. The Burke Connection is a couple steps above a high school newspaper. These local radio show articles are not encyclopedic and focus on repositories for inside jokes and minutia.--Rtphokie (talk) 12:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do i add a reference? - unsigned

*Weak keep While it's true the article is not perfect and lacks sources at this point that doesn't mean it can't become a better article. I'm sure if the proper resources were found, we could get it up to a good article. Milonica (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I'm all for keeping this article if it can be improved with reliable sources that establish notability. That hasn't happened and I dont see any indication that it can happen.--Rtphokie (talk) 17:12, 25 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, Davewild (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Washington DC is the #9 radio market(out of 302) in the US based on Arbitron rankings (@arbitron.com). Check Radio and Records and you will see that WJFK is the top "talk radio"-only station in the DC market. --DaltonAmes (talk) 06:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: I believe R&R lists WJFK as the top talk-radio-only station in the DC market because WJFK is the only station that has continuous local programming from 5 am to 7 pm. Since there's not much competition in that market, no wonder it's number one. WJFK has become what it is today and is known for one show and one show only, Don and Mike. Big O and Dukes are simply riding on their coattails. My two cents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.219.74 (talk) 22:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While these are fine arguments for why WJFK-FM is notable, but noone is questioning that. We still need to locate non-trivial sources that establish the notability of this radio show.--Rtphokie (talk) 02:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - My preceding comments were arguments for deleting the Big O and Dukes page, and for disproving WJFK's supposed notability. The point I was trying to make was that, since there is very little competition in the DC market for continuous, local programming, mags will be biased when rating WJFK. Yes, of course, WJFK will be number one, because they don't have any competitors. —71.178.231.204 (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As per Deletion review - Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 26#Big O and Dukes (closed) - non admin closure of AFD has been overturned and AFD has been relisted in order to form a consensus. Davewild (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have changed my mind, Drave is right, delete! Milonica (talk) 20:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks non-trivial sourcing (WP:N). Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Dravecky and several other users have been doing a good job trying to gather some references and clean it up, but there is an anonymous user who wants to keep the article, and he's giving everyone else a hard time. Dravecky and the other users are so frustrated with this anonymous user that they are "half-tempted to flip to "delete" just to be rid of the article and its attendant headaches." Lacks non-trivial sourcing (WP:N). Read the talk page —Loaves (talk) 20:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacking notable references in compliance with wikipedias rules (WP:N). Loaves is right. There's this one anonymous user who's been giving us nothing but BS from the very beginning, and we've done nothing but try to help him out. —71.178.219.74 (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - wait, it gets better. 208.162.162.126 edited the original nomination. This is getting ridiculous. I wonder if the owners of this IP addresss, The Washington DC based Law Firm of Wiley Rein LLP know what their employees are doing on their free time. --Rtphokie (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sounds like someone has a lot of time on his hands. Sounds like a nipple-taper to me. Tape your nipples? Why don't you call the law firm and ask them? Because you're powerless. I'll show you in my next edit... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.77.67 (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Ah. So, the feast ... really is "runed."

Comment The guy who replied to my post above by saying that WJFK was known for "one show only" - Don and Mike, was obviously baised. The fact is that The Junkies have the top morning drive slot and therefore are the real #1 show on WJFK. Recently, Don announced he was leaving the show in May, and Dave Hughes of the popular DC radio blog DCRTV (dcrtv.com - 3/25/2008) wrote that "much is still up in the air regarding the Mike O'Meara show, which will debut in June on WJFK-FM following the late May retirement of Don Geronimo." in the past, Dave Hughes has also stated that Big O and Dukes are being groomed to replace Don and Mike. So, once again, I have to wonder what is really going on here? Is this deletion campaign the work of a bunch of Don and Mike fanboys who are pissed that their favorite show is going away, and they want to sabotage the future stars of the station? DaltonAmes (talk) 06:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm the guy who replied to your post above. I think my point is being totally misconstrued. My point was that folks were saying that Big O and Dukes were notable simply because they are associated with WJFK; and WJFK is notable. My point was that WJFK is not as notable as people would believe it is. I'm not a fan of any of these radio shows. I have no axe to grind, no leg to pull. I haven't even heard of Big O and Dukes until this debate started. However, just to set the record strait, I would seriously disagree with you that The Junkies were the real #1 slot. I guess it would depend on what you meant. Maybe The Junkies and Don and Mike are tied? The latest Talkers Magazine Heavy Hundred list of the most important talk show hosts lists Don and Mike as being number 66. The Junkies were number 100. But this is about [[Big O and Dukes]. Like I said earlier. You can't say they have notability by way of proxy, or simply by association.

Delete - This page absolutely should be deleted for any and every reason mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.77.67 (talk) 19:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article should not be deleted because some ass wants to vandalize it. also why is it up to traditional media to decide what is notable? i mean people can't decide what people think is notable? also we all found this article so we all must have heard of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.134.129.206 (talk) 01:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I know you're not talking about me, because why would I vote to delete (see above, Easy Reader Morgan_Freeman)an article that I want to vandalize? Esp. an article about a show I like and call regularly? I really don't think it should be deleted, but the people who want it deleted just may be the real asses. Try to focus, see the whole board... be easy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.77.67 (talk) 14:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 14:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kuss[edit]

nn Toronto TV weatherman. Was previously incorrectly nominated as part of a bulk AfD of CityTV articles. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable self promotion. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think it's actually self promotion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:13, 27 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. Wizardman 14:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creepypasta[edit]

Contested prod for a term even the article creator admits is a neologism. Sourcing consists of a news article that does not mention the term and a link to a web forum. Delete as per WP:V unless independent sources provided to establish verifiability. --Allen3 ^talk 18:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not place for silly 4chan's memes. Zero Kitsune (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing to suggest this is even slightly notable. -WarthogDemon 21:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a topic, Creepypasta forms the basis of an acceptable encyclopedic article. By the way, there is an encyclopic article about 4chan on Wikipedia. --Firefly322 (talk) 00:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge While the article in question, due to neologism, isn't appropriate for it's own article, I suggest we merge it with the 4chan article. That way we can keep the information. --Niyou77 (talk) 11:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism. Nabla (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 Speedy delete as copyvio/advertising by User:Eliz81. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BCC Research[edit]

No indication that this company has been recognized as notable by independent sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also including David Nydam, the company's president. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a copyvio of http://www.bccresearch.com/about.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whpq (talk • contribs)

And make it for both as the second article is a copyvio of http://www.bccresearch.com/about-experts.htm -- Whpq (talk) 18:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G12 both as copyvios of the links provided by Whpq, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:08, 26 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. Note that if references are found, that the article should be recreated. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Koli culture[edit]

Page is apparently entirely WP:OR, no real references. Tan | 39 17:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article looks to be by a new editor, nomination was made only 6 minutes after the first draft of the article. AlbinoFerret (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was doing new page patrol. Too much info and possible notability for a speedy, but there is nothing sourced in the article as it is. As I said, appears to be entirely original research. Tan | 39 18:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is a Kolis article. Perhaps the creator of the article can merge his article there as a culture section.--Lenticel ^(talk) 22:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I would agree, but there is zero verifiable information on this page. If you read the talk page, I offered to help, but the author either has no references or is unwilling to actually post them. Tan | 39 22:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see, should there be no improvement during the five day run of the Afd then we should redirect it to the parent article. The draft can be sandboxed as well per Blaxthos. I'll post this afd in WP:INDIA, maybe they could help--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Move to user's sandbox if necessary. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. It may be that the author has been working on the page since the AFD nomination, but it seems to me that there are more attempted references here than in the article on Kolis. Some are badly formatted wikilinks. Others are attempted offsite links to Flickr photos and other possibly unreliable sources. But despite the old saying (If at first you don't succeed, destroy the evidence you ever tried) instant perfection is not required. It still strikes me that this article tries to muster more evidence than the article in chief on Kolis currently contains. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would support this if the initiator was hanging in here - the impulse seems very worthy, but the execution has some way to go. I can't help because I don't know anything about Kolis. May I add, in parenthesis, this note to myself: I find nominations like this being made after just 6 minutes utterly disgusting, and I really must find the energy to raise the issue of out of control cowboy deletion enthusiasts in the appropriate place.--Geronimo20 (talk) 10:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why or how a personal attack on a nominator is in anyway helpful Geronimo20. This article could've been speedy tagged as no context based on the article's condition at the time of nomination, and it would've likely been carried out by an admin. Bringing it to AfD instead at least was a good faith attempt to give it some time because it was a new editor. Your bad faith comment was completely unnecessary. The next time you have something to note to yourself, in parenthesis (sic), I recommend you do it elsewhere. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been eight days since I nominated this for AfD. There are still zero actual references. If you look at the talk page of the article, I made a definite good-faith attempt to help the author add any references he had; there has been no real action. I still stand solidly by my delete nom (and recommend userfication). Tan | 39 16:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How can I add references like follows.

http://www.indiaprofile.com/lifestyle/kolis.htm http://theory.tifr.res.in/bombay/history/ethnic/koli.html http://theory.tifr.res.in/bombay/history/ http://annaparabrahma.blogspot.com/2006/10/chavlachi-roti.html http://www.everyculture.com/South-Asia/Koli.html http://www.indianetzone.com/9/koli_tribe.htm

This article may need modifications as per wiki standards. I am looking for help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkoli (talk • contribs) 09:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 06:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Jedi and Sith[edit]

Uncited in-universe trivia, plot summary and original research. --EEMIV (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nom says it all, this is in-universe trivia, overly-detailed plot summary, and original research. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unsourced and entirely in-universe, and original research. TJ Spyke 17:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to be an exact copy of other site [50], possible copyright problems as site is older. AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above Think outside the box 19:04, 26 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. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Norberto Puzzolo[edit]

nonencyclopedic, notability doubtful, self-promotion Andreas ^(T) 17:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 01:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is also a potential copyvio. See the talk page. Cbdorsett (talk) 04:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on copyvio grounds if applicable. Otherwise keep. Seems notable enough. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 21:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep if not a copyvio, otherwise delete. Only significant claim to notability is his presence in the Museo Nacional de Bellas Artes [National Museum of Fine Arts] and I wonder if that was a temporary exhibit or a part of the permanent collection.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 13:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not in permanent collection[51][52] Andreas ^(T) 15:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As good as any other article... Felis Sapien (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep (will be stronger if more stuff checks out) Googling brings up this Argentina arts beat website with reference to him in the "International Biennale of Buenos Aires" and another reference to him being exhibited in the "Museo Nacional de Bellas Artes"[53]. Won the Konex Foundation award[54] (don't know how significant it is). Spanish Wikipedia has a more extensive article[55], by the same editor, but seems to have many more check-a-ble details. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 06:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STAY at Lincoln[edit]

Hotel with no special claim to notability. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to have no notability.--Michig (talk) 17:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely not true. It is the only hotel located on the Lincoln Road pedestrian mall. Automobile traffic is currently being closed on the westward part of Lincoln Rd. It is also the only hotel on South Beach that uses furniture restored from the 1930s, in addition to other amenities.Quixote09 (talk) 18:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of those, however, meets notability guidelines on Wikipedia. The AmericInn motel that's a half-mile from my house is on the site of some old building from the 1800s, and is the only motel in what's otherwise a totally residential area. That doesn't make it notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN, just opened in 2008. KnightLago (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is absurd. Lincoln Road is an internationally-recognized tourist area. Some of the best restaurants, art galleries, and nightclubs in the world are located there. This hotel is a reflection of that (seeing as how it's the only hotel on the pedestrian mall). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quixote09 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 27 March 2008

If it really is notable, add some references to the article that show this notability. Klausness (talk) 11:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NN. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Klausness (talk) 11:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lincoln Road is notable, but the hotel isn't. There are approximately 100,000 hotels in South Beach (give or take a few), but only a few are notable in their own right. This isn't one of them. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I could not find any articles that would confirm to hotel's notability or uniqueness. Callelinea (talk) 17:05, 27 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. Wizardman 14:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barrie North[edit]

Non-notable author of technical manuals. No evidence of passing either WP:N or WP:BIO guidelines. All references are to self-published sites Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:54, 26 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. Wizardman 14:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween (demo)[edit]

fails WP:MUSIC; no charting or notable media coverage - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Still no reliable sources provided or found. Still not notable. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Already even done so as a PROD last month. Still fails to provide any reasonable notability. Jmlk 1 7 18:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. --Starionwolf (talk) 01:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I suppose it wouldn't be right for the King of Pumpkins not to support an article with "Halloween" in its title. Anyway, article does assert notability by indicating that it is the first demo of a recognizable band. A dogpile search seems to confirm the information in the article, too. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A dogpile search is not a reliable source. While it confirms that something exists with that title, we're talking about notability, which is something else entirely. WP:MUSIC#ALBUMS says unreleased albums (like this one) are generally not notable and requires substantial coverage in reliable sources, which this doesn't have. (...and no, I'm not against it because it's Fall-ish;) - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:29, 27 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, leaning towards keep due to reliable sources being provided. Wizardman 14:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Bowl (Green Bay)[edit]

Just a regular season game played in the snow where nothing notable happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bole2 (talk • contribs)

Procedurally finishing nom for Bole2 (talk · contribs); apparently Twinkle messed up. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are the criteria for deletion? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked the original nom what their criteria are. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable game, football is played in the snow quite regularly. Merge info into Green Bay Packers website if anything is important. AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing that makes this game individually notable; football's played in snow all the time (especially in Green Bay). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Only a small handful (< 5) of regular season Green Bay Packers games should have their own article. This is one of them. I live relatively near to Green Bay, and this one is extremely memorable despite the national media's incorrect characterization that many Green Bay football games have snow. The snowfall rate had to have been incredible if 2/3 of Green Bay's fans didn't go. It's arguably the teams third most famous game behind the Ice Bowl and 4th and 26. It was notable enough to be named, which is extremely rare. Royalbroil 18:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the proof that this game was named? I know of this game but have heard it refered to as the Snow Bowl. Buc (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, Buc? Games arent "named" by any official organization, they are just referred to as such for a while and then become known by that name. See Instant Replay Game, Fog Bowl, Ice Bowl, etc. All of the sources provided to you refer to it as the "Snow Bowl." No offense, but this nom is a joke. I suggest you withdraw it, as notability has been shown. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk contribs) 20:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The links you provided were for an article section (sounds like a good idea for this article) an un-referenced article and a disambiguation page. Buc (talk) 16:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my AfD skills are rusty - the articles that I start must be too solid because I don't participate here much. I realize that talk is cheap and that I need to backup my claims with some links.

Using google with the search terms "snow bowl" "green Bay" 1985 , I come up with the following in the first 20 results: this article, from a reliable source, with first hand quotes (plus it refers to the Wikipedia article!); a brief mention on how it impacted Carreker's career; this article uses the game as an example of the "Frozen Tundra", this author of the greatest games in team history mentions it with 2 other games. There should be ample information to expand this article. Royalbroil 19:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable game within history of the team, as confirmed by various news references. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to 1985_Green_Bay_Packers_season#Snow_Bowl. I've stricken my Keep vote and now suggest we add the citations to the mention already made at 1985_Green_Bay_Packers_season#Snow_Bowl. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - good stuff here at the AFD but the article needs further citation so could someone work on that please? Also, the title of the article is completely obscure to non-experts so that'll need to change too. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment while you guys fight amongst yourselves, I'd reiterate that you need to (a) rename this (a non expert would never find this, what does (Green Bay) mean to someone?) and (b) add more citations to article. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - See WP:DAB on why it is named Snow Bowl (Green Bay). There are multiple meanings of the term Snow Bowl, so disambiguation was needed. Royalbroil 22:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, yeah, but (Green Bay) means nothing to most people. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - How bout Snow Bowl (1985) or Snow Bowl (Green Bay Packers)? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 22:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I think either name is better than the current... (should it survive...!) The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        As you can see I moved it to Snow Bowl (1985). How does this affect the deletion process, does this page need to be moved too? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 22:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        This has got me thinking. "Snow Bowl" is clearly not an original title, it's a nickname really, is a nickname really a good title for an article? There are a lot of other articles on here with the same problem, I will look into this further once this nomination is over. Buc (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Completely notable game, very few NFL games actually have a nickname. Also, as posted above this article has been cited by a news source!!! Which means that it is being used as a reference, which should override everything here. I agree it needs some work, and I will try to work on it. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 19:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the Packers article, or to Alphonso Carreker's article. Although it's apparently a fond memory from 20 years ago, this game is among the least notable of the many "Snow Bowls" that have been played in NFL history. From what I can tell, Lee Remmell reminisced about it in a 2005 article on the packers.com website as part of a story about great Packers-Bucs games. The article itself doesn't show anything special about the game, and it doesn't seem to have . Given that it was a matchup between the 5-7 Packers and the 2-10 Bucs, it appears to have been the highlight of an otherwise dismal season for the Pack. Mandsford (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The notability is not from the game itself, nor is it directly from the snow itself. It is the fact that 30000 fans who had tickets to the game did not show up, the most in Packers history (and if I am not mistaken, the most in the NFL). This is because of the huge amount of snow that Green Bay received (which although is common in Green Bay, it is not common to get huge blizzards on gameday during the regular season). Also, the fact that the Wikipedia article is being used by a media source shows that it is useful to our readers, which is the most important fact we need to remember here. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 20:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and this is only one of two NFL games known as the Snow Bowl, so I dont get the all the Snow Bowl games played comment. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 20:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine you're thinking about the 2002 Raiders-Patriots playoff, but there have been other games that someone has dubbed "The Snow Bowl", such as the 1948 NFL championship, two recent games (Bills-Browns and Packers-Seahawks), and a 1984 game when the Packers played at Denver. It's not that unusual a term. Mandsford (talk) 00:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ummmmm ok, well then yeah Id say a lot more games have been dubbed "A Snow Bowl," but that is not what I am talking about. I'm talking about games that are termed as the Snow Bowl and have received significant coverage being called by that name. Comparing games, and saying "Jeez this is a "Snow Bowl" is a lot different from saying a game is "the Snow Bowl." I know for a fact that the Packers-Seahawks game was only mentioned as a Snow Bowl and had a lot to do with the fact that there were comparisons with the game we are actually talking about (again showing how this is notable). Do you at least see why this game is notable (what I explained up there, that the game is more notable for the effects of the snow, and not so much the snow itself). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 02:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with 1985 Green Bay_Packers season I'm not sure if I can do this having nominated it to be deleted but this does sound like a better idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bole2 (talk • contribs)
- You are permitted to change to merge. This discussion is taking place to decide the future of the content in this article. Note that User:Bole2 signs as "Buc". Royalbroil 18:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hmm. I think it passes WP:N, seems fine to me. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 21:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 21:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Gregory Triplets[edit]

Fails WP:BIO - specifically Entertainers, the section for models, which advises that they need to have had "significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions", "a large fan base or a significant "cult" following" or "made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment". None of these appear to apply. Contested Prod. Possible self-promotion. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 13:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep marginally notable per Google, e.g. [56], [57]. JJL (talk) 13:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UKScreen is not a reliable source - as shown here, it's a self-written directory which costs the Triplets £15 a year. The Talent magazine is a more interesting source, though that doesn't confirm the criteria in Entertainers. SilkTork *^YES! 22:54, 18 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, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:02, 26 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) 01:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Tony Fox (arf!) 19:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 20:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite Article would be fine with a rewrite. archanamiya · talk 20:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BIO per the nominator. I see no secondary or tertiary coverage of this group [58]. The above diffs that were provided are not reliable indepedent sources. Here too [59]. I see myspace, blogspots, trivial mentions. Perhaps ethnicnow.com is somewhat reliable, but I feel it's marginal. By itself, it just doesn't do the trick. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 20:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 14:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shamla District[edit]

I created this article by seeing the red links in List of cities and towns in Bangladesh. But there is no hint in google search [60]. Even no hint in Banglapedia [61]. Banglapedia has all Bangladesh related entries. I am confused over existence of this place. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think we can safely say that this place doesn't exist. A Google search for "Shamla District" gets nothing. For comparison, picking a few real districts at random, these [62] [63] [64] get thousands of hits. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:05, 27 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) 03:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The knocknobbler[edit]

Dicdef without possibility for expansion. Has been transwikied to Wiktionary. Taroaldo (talk) 16:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This title has had previous lives as Knocknobbler and The Knocknobbler. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, it was deleted a few days ago as blatant advertising. At that time the article promoted a book titled The Knocknobbler. -- Taroaldo (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. Same creator? - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown. However Chateauchaos's account was created on March 24, 2008, and it does seem like an odd coincidence that such an archaic term has appeared as an article twice within days. --- Taroaldo (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: yes, same creator: Chateauchaos (talk · contribs), who has a book to promote: The Knocknobbler, or the Dog Catcher of Worcester by Bernard Cartwright. The first versions of this were directly about the book. Chateauchaos also created an article Dog warden which defined the term but then mentioned the book. The book plug was removed but twice replaced; the article has now been turned to a redirect. No doubt if this article stays the book plug will shortly be added. JohnCD (talk)

Delete per WP:NOT a dictionary... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dicdef and likely target for spam additions - see above. JohnCD (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:56, 26 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. Singu larity 06:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

E. B. Green[edit]

I've searched high and low to verify this product and these claims. I can't find a thing. It is either a hoax, extremely obscure or miswritten. Kingturtle (talk) 16:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An article about stolen duct tape? Seriously? I have absconded with some unbelievably superior office pens; let me get that article started... - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's not a hoax per :[65], however, I don't think it's particularly notable. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 16:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not A7 eligible, may or may not be a hoax, and not nonsense. Only barely makes past getting speedied. That's not enough to keep this. DarkAudit (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - maybe it should just be renamed "EB Green Tape". That actually gets 50+ google hits. Kingturtle (talk) 16:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think that it's that notable enough. So sorry to the user that created this but DELETEMarkreidyhp 17:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Following up on Wisdom89's google link it is evident it may not be a hoax, but I must also agree there does not seem to be enough notability to warrant an article. Shallon Michaels (talk) 17:23, 26 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. Tikiwont (talk) 08:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota Thoroughbreds[edit]

Per WP:ATHLETE, team and its members are not at a sufficiently notable level to be included in Wikipedia. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. —Djsasso (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per WP:ATHLETE. --Eastlygod (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATHLETE. The introduction itself reveals that the articles fails to meet this notability criteria. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 16:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Thoroughbreds have a history of sending many players to play in Division I college hockey. As far as "highest level" for players, they had three ex-players named to the National Olympic Teams: Jenny Potter (USA), Molly Engstrom (USA), Nikola Holmes (Sweden). Limasbravo (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also for thirteen years, with the excpetion of two of those years, ex-Thoroughbreds have been selected to their country's national teams. They've also had players on NCAA Division I national championship teams: http://www.mnthoroughbreds.com/history Limasbravo (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply What ex-Thoroughbred players have gone on to do since leaving the team have noting to do with the notability of the team in general. My school Athletic squad for example had two ex competitors go on to be Olympic athletes, but the school team still does not warrant an article. The team itself has to be notable, not the players on it. --Eastlygod (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry, but WP:ATHLETE puts strict limits on which amateur teams are considered notable, and the main thing, besides having "competed at the highest level of amateur sports" is that secondary sources are required. I can see where this particular team would like to recruit additional talented players, but Wikipedia is not the place to do it. Mandsford (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Not sure why you would think this is a recruiting ploy, other than you're making a wild guess. I'm not affiliated with them at all. I've known no one who has played, worked, or been part of the club at all. This was to add them to the list of Minnesota sports teams. Limasbravo (talk) 15:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (per WP:ATHLETE) and Suggestion. I do think the content is notable, but not in a team way. The team definitely has some notable content. It may be suitable to put the content into other articles. Is there a 'Sport in Minnesota' or 'Hockey in Minnesota' article, or another that is suitable? Alaney2k (talk) 14:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Reply** There is a Sports in Minnesota page. Limasbravo (talk) 16:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The team itself is not notable. Just because players from the team have gone on to play for notable teams does not make the team itself notable. Notability is not inheirited. -Djsasso (talk) 15:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ccwaters (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability. Flibirigit (talk) 17:10, 27 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:SNOW. Nick (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Malone[edit]

A poorly sourced article about a marginally notable living person. Further, according to an email from the subject (OTRS) the article and the sources are incorrect and overstate his role on some projects and he is uncomfortable with having so much of his personal information here. Given the WP:BLP concerns, the marginal notability of a non-public figure, the inadequate sourcing to unreliable sources, and the factual inaccuracy in the article, the best solution here is deletion. Mr.Z-man 16:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poorly sourced insufficient notability; presumed inaccuracy. Per nom. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Marginal notability. Can be deleted by admin per WP:BLP. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced biography, used in the past for POV-pushing, just what we don't need. Guy (Help!) 17:29, 30 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 as hoax by user:John Reaves, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asafedi[edit]

Possible hoax -- I cannot get any Ghits on the key terms or names used in the article. ukexpat (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a hoax -- the nation guild of Brtion has confermed this country, and the names and terms are in Traluvian, and it was in contact with the U. S.A. forern relations—Preceding unsigned comment added by Asafedi (talk • contribs) 12:02, 26 March 2008

Definitely a hoax. Trash it as total crap. JuJube (talk) 16:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Undefined -- the article is incomplete, we should hold off the deletion until then —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asafedi (talk • contribs) 12:13, 26 March 2008~~

Speedy delete. Hoax. The tragedy is that Google has already seen it. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Spam, Vandalism, Hoax, whatever you want to call it. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - WP:HOAX per [66]. So tagged. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 16:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above as hoax, so tagged. Utter lack of sources seems to indicate that this is Hoaxalicious™. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:41, 26 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 as copyvio of this page.

Brush with greatness teeth[edit]

Delete: Essay-like article, should be deleted per WP:NOT#OR. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Current contents off-topic. Subject itself appears to be a nn charity. --Dweller (talk) 15:46, 26 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. Wizardman 14:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Ruff Colachal[edit]

No strong evidence of notability. Assertions of notability by writing controversially in international media unverified. Dweller (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. --Salih (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having checked with JNU where he claims to work, there is NO SUCH PERSON there. So this person is a hoax and apropriate action maybe taken in the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.1.52.48 (talk) 08:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete He is real enough, though probably not important . Wordpress, in a reprint fromMiddle East Online, [67] lists him as "Dr. Abdul Ruff Colachal; Research Scholar, School of International Studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi." so I would not really expect to see him listed on the faculty of this distinguished institution--and he is not [68]. DGG (talk) 18:00, 30 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 and cleanup. Marked for cleanup. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hardline (subculture)[edit]

Article possibly a non-notable subject, seems to be wholey original research and has been marked unsourced for some time. neonwhite user page talk 15:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is completely original research. Let's not host someone's school thesis. ;-) Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hardline was a notable subsection of straightedge, and is fairly well defined. There's a reasonable amount of coverage in reliable sources, ~~which I'll add when I have the time this weekend.~~ There's little, if anything, in the article that can't be backed up with reliable sources. Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tthe sources will need to be provided here. Promises are not good enough for an afd. --neonwhite user page talk 00:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking anyone to take my word for it. If there are insufficient refs to RS at the end of the debate, it gets deleted. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out I couldn't keep my promise to add refs - I'm out of time. Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources need sorting out (I'll see if I can find some) but as a subculture its notable alright. IMO it doesn't read like "someone's school project" - its written rather too well for that - even if articles on contemporary youth culture (especially of the US-originated floppy-fringe personal politics class) may prima facie appear so to some (too often me, I confess, but not this time. I'm sure I read something about this in one of the Sunday broadsheets). Plutonium27 (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As written, the article needs a ton of work and sourcing, but the phenomenon described is a real one, and is notable. Yilloslime (t) 20:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not knowing the procedure, I posted my thoughts on the discussion page. To reiterate, I came across this article during some research of my own, and I found it useful and informative, and it linked in with other stuff about straight edge which I found by googling. Gwaka Lumpa (talk) 15:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to existing article. Non-admin close. KTC (talk) 16:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Politicians of the Third Reich[edit]

Delete: Redundant to the articles List of Nazi Party leaders and officials and List of SS personnel. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to List of Nazi Party leaders and officials. KnightLago (talk) 15:49, 26 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. Wizardman 20:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Think Floyd[edit]

Pink Floyd tribute band tagged as non-notable for a year and as an advertisement since December. Procedural nomination; prod was removed by anon ip with no explanation. —BradV 15:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability. Does not even contain an assertion of notability.--Michig (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Bradv15 and Michig Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 16:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:MUSIC per [69] and [70], [71]—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisdom89 (talk • contribs) Changed to delete per below. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 02:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. 1 and 2 just look like regurgitations of promotional news releases for their gigs. 3 is a fan review, not a professional BBC review.--Michig (talk) 17:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm guessing Think Floyd USA have the 'USA' bit at the end because they're a different band.--Michig (talk) 17:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but they may be the same as it's an American tribute band. Not really sure though. I'll revisit my vote after I look for more sources. Thanks. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 17:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article here is about a British tribute band.--Michig (talk) 17:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC and lacks WP:RS Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although I have not looked at the page in a while and had missed the concerns over style - which I agree needs sorting out. This is one of a number of pages related to Pink Floyd tribute bands but the only one proposed for deletion - Either keep and sort out the content or look to delete all tribute band content (for all bands) for consistency!Jschwa1 (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The status of other articles has little bearing on the status of this particular article. The presence of coverage in reliable sources, rather than a surface similarity to other articles, is the main criterion for determining the notability of a subject. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:02, 29 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. Wizardman 14:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jana Kramer[edit]

No vote. The article was 'prod'ed as a nonnnotable actress. Judging from imdb profile, IMO it is borderline case which cannot be decided by 1-2 persons. `'Míkka >t 15:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient notable presence found. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 16:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As an actress, she just doesn't quite meet WP:BIO. [72] is the only news worthy thing I found, and it's quite unremarkable. Everything else is just blogspot and imbd etc..etc. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 16:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In the article, the main claim to notability is her appearance in Click, where she received 19th billing.[73] That is not enough of a claim to notability for me.--FreeKresge (talk) 16:30, 27 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. Indeed, no content. The text was: "New business is what most companies want lots more of all the time. Companies like Retriever New Business are expert in cold calling, networking, sales training and other skills that help companies oped doors and win new business" `'Míkka >t 15:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New business[edit]

Delete: This article does not make any sense. Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:31, 26 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 Closed as keep. Procedural listing; no delete votes. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Modernista![edit]

No opinion The article was tagged "prod" as a nonnotable advertising agencey. But this company is it not a mom-and-pop business. Requires broader discussion. `'Míkka >t 15:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article has an active listing on the Deletion Review Page. TimBlount (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm. Not sure how this should be handled. This is technically a recreation of deleted content, but the deleted content was apparently vandalism of a valid article. This sourced article about a non-consumer business does seem to make a reasonable case for notability. The consensus on WP:DR seems to be to keep the unvandalized version and restore its history. I tend to agree. While it's there, it probably shouldn't also be here. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 16:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, very notable ad company. Their connection to the Hummer ads is well-documented on Google news [74] [75]. Corvus cornix_talk 20:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Documented and covered in reliable sources such as the NY times and Wall Street Journal. Meets WP:ORG with aplomb. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 21:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - very notable company. They did the RED adds among others, lots of well known big name stuff, International as well. Article is well documented. Middle Aged (talk) 03:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep - what the do with there website and this article is not the same. The article is fine and the company is not obscure --Walter (talk) 09:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The deletion review has been closed (overturning the speedy deletion). The article content and its history have already been restored, with the article listed here, so this AfD may take it's course.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:49, 27 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 Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kelv[edit]

Bedroom musician who falls well short of the WP:MUSIC criteria. Michig (talk) 14:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 16:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Individual just simply does not meet WP:MUSIC. Also the relation doesn't come into play as notability is not inherited. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 17:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article pretty much self-explanatory re lack of notability per WP:MUSIC Plutonium27 (talk) 18:00, 27 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. Tikiwont (talk) 08:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sue Moorcroft[edit]

fails WP:BIO with one non-notable book, no awards, and no references found for claims of publishing in national media outlets - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one novel does not bestow notability. Dreamspy (talk) 15:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thanks for listing here Cobaltbluetony. Currently the article presents no compelling notability, but if the journalism (or the novel) racked up RS coverage and someone adds it, I'd be happy to change my mind. --Dweller (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN. Search of NY Times and Google yielded nothing to establish N. KnightLago (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. --Starionwolf (talk) 01:07, 27 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: merge suggestions are not subject of AfD. Article kept, tagged for merging. `'Míkka >t 15:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Binghamton University Events Center[edit]

non-notable, merge with State University of New York at Binghamton Wsanders (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —Wsanders (talk) 19:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:47, 26 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 and redirect title to The Process (Memphis Bleek album). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hustla[edit]

One song is not notable enough for an article. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 20:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep, optionally merege into album. `'Míkka >t 15:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 16:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to parent album. WP:MUSIC songs - no notability on its own. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 16:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Wisdom89--Rtphokie (talk) 20:35, 27 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 Redirecting per nominator. DJRafe, welcome to Wikipedia! If you ever need any assistance (with redirects or anything else, please feel free to ask on my talkpage!. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Il Trionfo del Tempo e Disinganno[edit]

The main article on The Triumph of Time and Truth already has a section on the earliest version of the oratorio with this title. Thus this entry with the Italian title is redundant, in my opinion. DJRafe (talk) 05:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this article can be simply redirected to The Triumph of Time and Truth; incidentally, the title is wrong: it should be "il trionfo del tempo e del disinganno". Tizio 15:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with a redirect link. Sorry also that I didn't list it correctly (new at this, naturally). Permission to redirect? DJRafe (talk) 03:36, 27 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), WilliamH (talk) 20:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse non-admin closure as keep. --jonny-m t 02:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indradyumna Swami[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Guru advertisemet with no reliable third party sources. Article is an advertisement for a non notable. Also, does not meet the standards of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Guru advertisemet with no reliable third party sources. Article is an advertisement for a non notable. Also, does not meet the standards of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Advertisements can be edited out of the article on the notable person.[76] [77]Wikidās ॐ Thanks 19:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteGuru advertisemet with no reliable third party sources. Article is an advertisement for a non notable. Also, does not meet the standards of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Thanks.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 05:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep sources seem to denote limited degree of notability Dreamspy (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't see why this has been nominated for deletion again, so shortly after the last time? Indradyumna Swami is a spiritual leader within ISKCON. As a sanyassi (Swami) and leader, Indrayumna Swami is highly notable amongst ISKCON members [78]. He has played a very active role in the movement since the early 1970's. There are approximately 70 official Swami's in ISKCON, of which Indrayumna Swami is one of the most wel known. An article written about him appeared in Back to Godhead, the official ISKCON magazine at this link. See also official list of ISKCON Sannyasis (or Swamis) from 2007, which includes Indraymuna Swami. Regards Gouranga(UK) (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The artile above is written by the author, he contributed to the magazine about himself. It is not a reliable source. Also, as far as notability, he is not a member of ISKCON's Governing Body Commission. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - the article is about a relatively non-notable (see WP:NOTE) ISKCON guru and missionary - not on any major governing body, and a source we have about him (the above-mentioned article) contains self-published material. Needs more proof of notability before I change my vote to keep. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 23:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He has been verified to be one of 78 officially recognised Swamis in ISKCON, which would put him roughly on the same level of importance as Catholic or Anglican bishops, who are usually considered to be notable by virtue of their position. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Same reason as last time "I would say that we have articles on the leadership of other religious groups, and that ISKCON are sufficiently well known -- and their swamis are sufficiently small in number and sufficiently important in their religion -- to justify notability." Cannot understand logic for renomination either, other than simply not liking the outcome the last time round, which is not really a good enough justification. --SJK (talk) 06:56, 29 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 23:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Baglow[edit]

Delete - Clearly non-notable Happylabel (talk)

Strong keep. Multiple appearances on more than one notable British television show; meets WP:BIO. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per comment by CobaltBlueTony Dreamspy (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 16:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per [79], while there is some trivial stuff, there are also some noteworthy mentions: Boltonnews and BBC. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 16:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ChangLimbang (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The article needs expansion and more sources, but at this point, there's a reasonable assertion of notability. —C.Fred (talk) 21:24, 29 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 redirected to List of books portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents by User:Peregrine Fisher. Non-admin closure. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of books featuring pedophilia[edit]

This article was created by me. It was a fork (unintentionally created) and the content has been merged into List of books portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents Tony (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete/redirect does this need an afd? It isn't contested to my knowledge and should just be redirected tot he new target. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please carry on. I've never done this before.Tony (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Tony[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:48, 26 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. Wizardman 14:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of films featuring pedophilia[edit]

This article duplicated the article Pedophilia in films. It was a fork created inadvertantly by me.Tony (talk) 17:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Tony[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after merging any new content that isn't already in the other article. I might have just gone and speedied it, but there have been numerous contributions to the article by others, so before deleting per the article creator's request, pleaase take a few minutes to ensure no legitimate information is lost in the process. 23skidoo (talk) 16:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 16:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

&Delete as an article WP:FORK. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 16:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of films portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents. - 21:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MyL (programming language)[edit]

Delete. There is no indication that this programming language is notable. I can't find anything. Google search for MyL Moreira does not come up with anything interesting. Author removed prod, and also removed ((notability)) tag. ... discospinster _talk 13:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The SourceForge project was created two days ago, and the project page on another site (CodePlex) was created in February. This all makes me kind of dubious of the claim that the language was created four years ago. The stats on both pages, however, suggest strongly that this is not a widely-used or a popular language. Zetawoof_(ζ) 22:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. --Starionwolf (talk) 01:08, 27 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. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sacinandana Swami[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Guru advertisemet with no reliable third party sources. Article is an advertisement for a non notable. Also, does not meet the standards of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Guru advertisemet with no reliable third party sources. Article is an advertisement for a non notable. Also, does not meet the standards of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Guru advertisemet with no reliable third party sources. Article is an advertisement for a non notable. Also, does not meet the standards of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Thanks.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 05:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I understand that you will now consider every guru for potential deletion, just because its guru advertisement. That is not a correct understanding. Before considering please note discussion under Wikipedia Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Hinduism/Vaishnavism Religious leaders and reliable sources: - appears to be an organised attempt by two individuals to remove certian individuals. Wikidās ॐ Thanks guys 08:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikidas, you know proper sources as you have done with Satsvarupa dasa Goswami. This article is not sourced with reliable sources, like Satsvarupa dasa Goswami. I am not against gurus, just unsourced articles. If you know of sources please provide them. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I guess the answer is simple. He has references in German and other european languages. I can look it into and find the English ones, but it is harder, since he is German. There are some references there, unlike for example Jayapataka Swami who does not have a single and still is not on this list, so there is something wrong.Wikidās ॐ Wrote this note at 18:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Google news search shows Jayapataka Swami to be a leader of ISKCON. A search for Sacinandana Swami reveals nothing. Thanks.Ism schism (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It must be an indian Google. Please find below references that comply with a conclusion that Sacinandana Swami is notable - includes all official ISKCON sites. I do not say that JPS is not, just a stange criteria is applied just to delete a gurus page. [80]-German Leader [81]EuroGBC site - leading teacher [82] Sacinandana Swami, initiating guru in ISKCON. Gayatri His book is the first reference on WIKI - Sacinandana Swami: The Gayatri Book., Vasati Verlag, 2005, ISBN 978-3-937238-05-0 [83] - Shown as a part of the selected notable ISKCON leaders list [84] is one of the main ISKCON gurus, [85] Honorable Speaker and Guest on The first Peace Summit in Croatia, Sri Swami Madhavananda World Peace Summit and the Message of Mahatma Gandhi, organised by Croatian Union of "Yoga In Daily Life", [86][87] VIHE speaker [88] Notable Harinama Leader, [89]Sacinandana Swami is teacher at the Vedanta Department of the Florida Vedic College and the European Academy for Vedic Sciences.[90]Notable kirtania [91] Prominnent guru, [92] Lecturer at Bhaktivedanta College [93] etc

I did not even start looking for book references. Note all of it is NOT his personal blog site. All of the above proves beyound any doubt that the individual is notable leader sannyasi teacher and prominent guru in ISKCON.

Its clearly a case of mistaken identity that your search did not reaveal it all. Im going to add all this references to the page.

I think you are just using a time when most of the devotees are in Vrindavana and thus can not comment on this.. (a wild guess).

Please note that the type of sources DO comply with the consensus of the discussion you yourself called for:

Discussions on notability criteria for ISKCON religious leaders  are located at: Wikipedia talk:Hinduism-related topics notice board, Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion, and Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). Ism schism (talk) 10:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[reply]

I call upon you to close this (2nd) Nomination.Wikidās ॐ 20:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced and unreferenced guru ad. Dreamspy (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Attached is a link to ISKCON's official list of Sannyasis (or Swamis) from 2007. Any persons on this list are of significant notability, especially so in regards to a handful of the most prominent gurus. Sacinanda Swami is one such guru on this ist. Above and beyond this, a Google search for Sacinananda Swami brings up over 11,000 hits. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge he gets many Google hits, but no Google news articles. He is a guru. He is a swami. Aside from these two features though he is not notable. He is not even a member of ISKCON's Governing Body Commission. Aside from the personal websites listed above, there still are no reliable sources as well. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are not personal sites - these are official sites: [94] Radhadesh - Bhaktivedanta College [95] VIHE [96]EAVS [97] Dandavats [98] Bhagavat [99]VNN, [100] Goloka Dhama temple and main ISKCON site: [101]

He even has his own WIKI Answers page - [102]

See also [103] Wikidās ॐ 20:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He has been verified to be one of 78 officially recognised Swamis in ISKCON, which would put him roughly on the same level of importance as Catholic or Anglican bishops, who are usually considered to be notable by virtue of their position. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I vote keep. Why? Probably because I am a partisan. I think that these articles should ideally have independent sources, but that it is better to have self sourced info articles than zero information on these people whom I like to read about and would be sad if Wikipedia deleted. David G Brault (talk) 17:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia keeps the pages for obscure, one minor hit wonder pop music singers (Luscious Jackson) or some small town with no stop light even (Mifflin, Pennsylvania), why not Maharaja's page? He's a writer, initiating spiritual master and lectures world wide. The fanboy aura of the page could be reduced. 75.91.80.24 (talk) 05:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I said the same thing last time, and I'll say it again: I would say that we have articles on the leadership of other religious groups, and that ISKCON are sufficiently well known -- and their swamis are sufficiently small in number and sufficiently important in their religion -- to justify notability. I also don't understand what was the justification for re-opening this AFD so soon after the previous one concluded in a keep. It is as if the nominator didn't like the outcome last time, and will try the process again and again until they get the outcome they want. --SJK (talk) 06:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that I am not a Hare Krishna, and I neither have any great sympathy nor antipathy towards their religion. But, I still think this article belongs in Wikipedia. --SJK (talk) 06:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We've generally made a distinction between a significant religious group's key leaders on the one hand, and ordinary clergy on the other. Being a founder or responsible for the governance of a religious group (such as being a member of the College of Cardinals or ISKON's Governing Body Commission is different from simply being a member of the clergy. Although ordination connotes a certain level of knowledge, piety, and respect, ordination alone does not generally imply notability in the sense meant by WP:BIO or reduce the need for reliable sources. Being on a list of ordained priests, rabbis, ministers, or imams would not be considered evidence of notability. It is not clear to me that being on a list of swamis is different. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swamis are little like cardinals who travel, and GBC is more like resident(if grihastha) or zonal(if swami) cardinals who manage money and man. But in his case he is notable among both types because he is an educator. Wikidās ॐ 16:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nonsense. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baloop[edit]

Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:N Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nonsense and I already added the CSD tag prior to the AfD being created. Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:34, 26 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 — fails notability guidelines. --Haemo (talk) 07:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Started the Fire (Famosiz song)[edit]

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

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

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

Non-notable song, by non-notable group. Cannot find any sources to verify info as well Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The single has just as much right to "live" as much as "George Bush Doesn't Care About Black People" by Legendary K.O. or 3OH!3 does. Just because a song is non-notable "this second" doesn't mean it is non-notable forever. I haven't created and article for the band, just this one song. I think it should remain where it is.--Gen. Quon (talk) 14:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If they are non-notable right now, then the article needs to be deleted. Wikipedia's not a crystal ball, and IF they become notable, then re-add the article. Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are plenty of artivles on wikipedia that aren't what you call hugely notable. I agree that wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, but the song is an extension of a parody as featured in the Office. That in its self is enough for it to be kept. The article is notable to many people, and is helpful and useful. Wikipedia's entire purpose is to unite the world in knowledge and by deleting a helpful page (to someone) like this, it is not only destroying wikipidia's reputation, but it is also probably making the writer lose faith in the power of wikipedia. As I've said above, I think the article should be kept.--76.246.176.32 (talk) 22:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per author's admission of nonnotability, above. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Famosiz may not be big nationally, but it is creating a sensation in its hometown and will soon expand to the national market. There are plenty of obscure bands on wikipedia, and just because they aren't Aerosmith doesn't mean Wikipedia users don't want to learn about them. Famosiz is an up and coming band that deserves a Wikipedia page for its influence on pop culture. As stated before, this article is a simple parody of a song prominently featured on the office. The band is a popular home-town attraction, and their popularity is growing. just because they're small doesn't mean nobody cares. They are important, since they have fullfilled the promise to put out a single.--65.68.97.195 (talk) 13:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC
Keep This page should be saved, if not for Famosiz' notability, then for the impact of this song. It is a parody and extension of a song prominintely featured on The Office.— Jerk Face McGee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep While Famosiz isn't exactly what you'd call a world-wide known band, I still belive this page should be kept. There are many other small bands here on Wikipedia, and I don't see why Famosiz can't be on here either. There is nothing offensive or false on this page, it is simply just information about a small town band called Famosiz. I happen to be a fan here in Ottawa, and there are many others in the area. Keep the page.--Free2liverandom (talk) 13:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)— Free2liverandom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete No significant third party coverage of the song or the group. -Nv8200p talk 03:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If we have to delete articles that contain lesser known songs or bands, then we would have to delete Cake, Blue Oyster Smash, Sweet Diss and the Comebacks, and 3OH!3. Give smaller bands a chance! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.68.97.195 (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Of the bands listed here that I could actually find on Wikipedia, they have references. This article does not and fails WP:V -Nv8200p talk 15:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, to be fair, I tried to add the bands MySpace and FaceBook accounts as references, but they kept being deleted. They are good sources though. The whole external links arguement should be discounted. I'll try something else though.--76.246.176.32 (talk) 23:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment MySpace and Facebook are NOT reliable sources however. Also the external link part of this can't be discounted, simply because there doesn't seem to be any other links to show how this band is notable, which is the main point of contention here. Wildthing61476 (talk) 11:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then "The Prodigy," a notable band from England should remove their MySpace, as should "Green Day," or "Weird Al" Yankovic, or "The Offspring," or "The Scantones," etc. You can't try and kill this will its young.--65.68.97.195 (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think what the problem is, is that people seemed to have lost track of the fact that this AfD is about the song, not the band. IMHO. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is this on iTunes? Is the label verified? If the answer is yes then this is another Indie band that deserves a page. Sorry that I don't have time to read the whole debate, I'm just a little short on time. --Iron Chef (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Does a song nessecarily be on iTunes to be legitimate? The label is true, I live in Ottawa and have seen it, but as for the iTunes part, what if the band doesn't want their music on iTunes?--65.68.97.195 (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The main issue with keeping this page seems to be notability. We have already presented numerous arguments concerning Famosiz' current notability, but if you need more confirmation, look no further than Garagebands.wikia.com. Famosiz is the featured band on that page, proving its fame and need for a wiki page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerk Face McGee (talk • contribs) 02:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus isn't so clear on Afro-Australian, and a second nomination of that article separately may be in order. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extended rationale: The keep side of the discussion show that the term is in use, by the Autralian government and otherwise. The arguments brought forward to delete often include the current article being in bad shape, which is fixable without deletion. The number of votes for keeping reflect this. I don't believe the second article in this same AfD has been fully discussed to consensus yet, and a new nomination on different grounds would be preferable, as the grounds for keeping/deleting the article differ from the arguments brought forward in the discussion on African Australian. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

African Australian[edit]

The article is a WP:SYNTH there is no term in use of African Australian, even the article states this;
There is no clear definition of what constitutes being an "African Australian" (or "Afro-Australian"). Along with indigenous Africans who were born in Africa, the term could encompass people as disparate as Caribbean British, African Americans or Cape Malays who with an African upbringing or family background have chosen Australia as their new home. The Australian Bureau of Statistics records people according to their birthplace and their self-described ancestry, although aggregated data for Africa is split between "Sub-Saharan" and "North Africa and the Middle East". Gnan garra 14:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Gnan garra 14:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That does not say there is no such term, it says the term is ill defined. In fact the term is widely used [104][105][106][107] [108][109] --neonwhite user page talk 15:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see deleting an entire article about Australians who can trace their ancestry to Africa, simply because the nominator disagrees with the word used. Mandsford (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont have a problem with the use of any term, provided the term is clearly defined by a WP:RS and the definition is the basis of the article. This has no such definition(even states that) and as such the inclusion of all groups is a WP:SYNTH. Defining terms with out WP:RS is also called primary research see WP:NOT#OR which says Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms... my emphasis added all of which adds up to the basis for the nomination. Gnan garra 13:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the article is a hodge-podge of terms, this is a content issue and not a deletion issue. The term is used reasonably widely to mean two different things. People from (or with recent ancestry from) the continent of Africa regardless of "race" (for lack of a better word). This would include North Africans of Arab or Berber descent, South Africans of European, Indian or Malay descent as well as black Africans who have migrated to Australia. The other use of the term is a cognate of the term African American in other words "citizens or residents of Australia who have origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa" whether or not they came here from Africa or not. This article at present conflates both terms and as such needs rewriting (and possibly the infobox removed as misleading) but the article surely has a place. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This discusses a subject that is worth discussing, even though its (final) content and name are matters that need to be debated. Obviously there are many nuances that may need to be covered, including the mixed african and european ancestory of many "white" South Africans.--Grahame (talk) 05:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article is more than just a hodge-podge, I don't think it can be rescued. We need to be more specific. Just because somebody is "black" and lives in Australia does not make them African Australian. Currently the article includes people born in the US, eg Marcia Hines, and Jamaica, for example Billy Blue. I have not heard the term used - rather we are more specific - for example Sudanese-Australian, Egyptian-Australian, South African-Australian, ... . At present it is misleading and wrong and I don't see any justification as to why it needs a place -= Africa is a big continent with many diverse people and I think they are more specific in their identification than to the continent at large when it comes to linking to their Australian identity.--Matilda ^talk 06:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Further Comment - the Australian Bureau of Statistics does not have a clear definition and the article itself states The Australian Bureau of Statistics records people according to their birthplace and their self-described ancestry, although aggregated data for Africa is split between "Sub-Saharan" and "North Africa and the Middle East". The Middle East is included! This is substantiated by ANCP Ancestry - 1st Release : A description of the coding using the Australian Standard Classification of Cultural and Ethnic Groups (ASCCEG) released October 2000. For reference on the talk page of this article I put down all the categories the ABS do do (275) When it comes to the aggregation per ABS 2901.0 you should note that for example 49 Other North African and Middle Eastern includes 4904 Iranian; 4905 Kurdish; 4906 Sudanese; 4907 Turkish - there is no way we would include Turkish Australians within the ambit of the ordinary person's understanding of African Australians even if we felt like being pragmatic. Similarly I find it rather weird that someone born in Jamaica, even if of African slave ancestry, is described as an African Australian from a time before Australia was a concept (ie Billy Blue - arrived Aus in 1801). We do not have an article on European Australian although we do have articles on American Australian or Asian Australian - also concepts relating to other continents. The American Australian article is a bit weird as it is also not clear in its definition referring rapidly to North America - somehow Australians from South America don't count for the purposes of Wikipedia!?! The article on Asian Australians I suspect is also somewhat flawed as not being tightly defined. I think it would be better altogether if we had an article on the Australian Standard Classification of Cultural and Ethnic Groups (ASCCEG) classifications linking to articles at any level of 2, 3 or 4 digit break down but not trying to aggregate beyond two digit classification. --Matilda ^talk 08:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, Australia was not a "concept" in 1801?? Not a political one, you mean. Johnbod (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- There are six links above with links to uses of the term above. That's some use of the term at least. The fact that the term is hard to define statistically is not a reason to delete, but simply a reason to use caution when using statistics in the article. Getting a little off the track, what term is used to link people such as Marcia Hines (from the US), George Gregan (born in Zambia), Andrew Symonds (born in London with an Afro-Caribbean father) Dorinda Hafner (born in Ghana) and Faustina Agolley (born in London with a Ghanain father). Is Indira Naidoo an Indian Australia, an African Australian, a South African Australian or possibly all three? Surely an article on these two discrete groups can be written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattinbgn (talk • contribs)

Why should we have a term that links Marcia Hines and George Gregan together with John Maxwell Coetzee? Do they link with a term - ie self-describe as African Australian - I don't believe so. Do we need to link them with a term? I can't see why.

The six links provided above do not in my mind provide any definition or authority for the use of the term. If you look at the content:

The first is AfricanOz, your African Australian online resource, with links and info on events, news, music, travel & more. This site is for everyone: whether you're of African heritage, have an interest in Africa, or you're simply browsing the web. So what ... Note also not a government website
The second is the African Australian Association ACT - not a government website. The associations aims include To promote a greater understanding of Africa, its cultures and heritage, in the community and membership is open to any individual (excluding non-Australians with diplomatic status) who supports the aims and objectives of the Association - they ask which country you are form but nothing more to help with he definition that I can see
Not sure what point the third link is making, it isn't a government link and discusses somebody who is described specifically as a member of the Sudan-born community in Australia - at the bottom are various links to various organisations but so what ...
The fourth link is a department of Immigration link advising of an organisation called African Australian Welfare Council of Victoria Inc but it makes no comment about the organisation and this link does not help with definition
The 5th link is a parliamentarian (NSW) describing her attendance at the eighth Annual African Australian Young Achievers Award ceremony - no definitional help and to my mind still so what when it comes to this article - it specifically refers several times to refugees from Sierra Leone
the 6th link refers us on to an African Australian Music Website and that website in turn Welcome[s us] to the World's Music in Australia - so what

With respect all User:Neon white appears to have done is googled the term and given us some links - none of these inform us or would help to develop the article and they are of dubious use when giving authority to the term. Since ABS doesn't count them (except when included with the middle-east) how are we going to define the term. I appreciate clean-up is not an argument for deletion, but it seems to me that this article comprises original research and not very good research at that. I support Gnangarra's view that the article is a WP:SYNTH - that there is no term in use of African Australian--Matilda ^talk 09:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I think we will have to agree to disagree here. I don't think the uses cited above can be dismissed so easily, nor do I think dismissing them establishes that the term is not used. Further, I don't see any reason that an article can't be written that covers the people listed above; i.e. people descended from indigenous sub-saharan africans regardless of the name of the article. It is at least as legitimate as Asian Australian or Anglo-Celtic Australian, other grab-bag groups. That they exist as a group was made obvious by the trials that Andrew Symonds went through in India this year where he was mocked as a monkey - a common racist epithet for people of African descent - regardless of the fact that he wasn't born in Africa, lived in Africa or had parents who lived in Africa. I don't see the point of denying that this group exists. Lastly, if there is any OR; remove it and stub the article. It still is not a reason to delete. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Symonds interestingly he doesnt call himself African, or even West Indian It is not an aspect of his heritage he has ever chosen to explore, for Symonds is fiercely proud of his Australian upbringing and identity[110] based on this he shouldn't be in the list. Gnan garra 11:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is self-identification the be-all and end-all and why does it trump documented fact? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what "the fact" is. Andrew Symonds was born in England. He has "West Indian blood in him"[111]. He was brought up in Australia from the age of 3 but not by his biological father.(same ref) I can't see the claim to documented fact that he is an African Australian. The fact that he was mocked by an ignorant and unruly crowd based on a common racist epithet does not make him African Australian. --Matilda ^talk 21:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no dispute by him, or anyone else, that his biological father is of Afro-Caribbean descent. That fact doesn't disappear somehow because he doesn't describe himself as such or identify as such and I remain puzzled as to why some here think it does. The term is used (and documented as used) to describe people such as Symonds by a range of people and as such is a valid topic for an article. Whether the government uses the term or not is a furphy, article titles on wikipedia don't require government sanction— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattinbgn (talk • contribs)

to derive African Australian from somebody whose biological father is of Afro-Caribbean descent and who grew up in Australia is original research unless substantiated by a reliable source - a google search of Symonds "african australian" doesn't come up with anything at the top that would meet WP:RS (top of the search results though is our own wikipedia article :-( ). Similarly neither Marcia Hines or Deni Hines came up with anything through Google. So I challenge anybody to come up with reliable sources, if no reliable sources then the article fails WP:V , WP:NOR and that is why Gnangarra has called for its deletion under WP:SYNTH. The article might not require government sanction, it does require wikipedia standards of verifiability to be met with no original research and the citing of reliable sources.--Matilda ^talk 22:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's a worthy discussion there *somewhere*, but it would require a sociology major to figure it out and I don't think ground breaking research on questionably grouped subjects is the role of Wikipedia. This article can't decide whether it's about African-American-Australians (who may have been born here), half-Jamaican Australians, South African (white) Australians or newer African migrants from Central and Eastern Africa. Sub topics such as Sudanese Australians, Kenyan Australians for example may be more suitable here. The three government links (4-6) that Neonwhite linked actually reference the proper names of organisations which have registered those names, it's not a "use" by the Government of the term. Orderinchaos 10:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Perry, Australian politician and minister, clearly states that the Annual African Australian Young Achievers Award is supported by the multicultural unit in the State office of the Department of Education and describes it as a means of recognising the achievements of young African Australians in various fields. in fact she uses the term 5 seperate times in her article. If the term is published on government websites then they are using the term. --neonwhite user page talk 19:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which Government agency uses the term, as opposed to referring to non-government organisations which use the term? Barbara Perry went to a ceremony in her electorate run by a non Government organisation which has in its title "African Australian". Based on her speech the organisation is focussing on refugees for Sierra Leone. I do not think that if Deni Hines got up and sang she would be part of the target group for this organisation, nor would the equivalent of a young Coetzee. I don't believe Perry's use of the term in this context helps to substantiate the claim - her speech is triggered by the function she just attended and appears to me to be no more than that.--Matilda ^talk 19:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The term is being used by a notable politician in a speach published on a government website, it is a verifiable source that completely substantiates that the term is in use together with the fact that there are at least three individual organisations that use the term and claim to represent the 'African Australian' communities. This clearly makes the subject notable. --neonwhite user page talk 21:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A minor politician received a free cup of tea and tries to prove her relevance to her constituents by getting up in parliament and talking about the event - does not make a subject notable.--Matilda ^talk 22:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A speech that is published by a verifiable source is valid for this use and proves the term exists and is in use by the communities themselves, politicians and journals, your personal opinion of the politician has no relevance at all. Further sources include the Journal of Pan African Studies[112] and the Journal of Culture and African Women Studies[113] --neonwhite user page talk 22:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While my personal opinion of the politician's notability may not have a bearing, my opinion of the notability of her speech does. I maintain that it is an incidental mention and gives not credibility to the notability of the topic. The matter did not concern her portfolios as minister and was in fact given before she was a minister. Hansard you will find is littered with such speeches about doings in the members electorate. There is a category for such speeches and this so categorised: Private Members Statements. Notability is not established by this isolated speech which in fact is referring to a non government organisation.

Notability is a policy that applies to wikipedia article, it does not in any way apply to the sources used in them. The term is used widely in a speach by a notable politician making the term clearly in use. --neonwhite user page talk 17:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article in the Journal of Pan African Studies discusses the problems of african identity: It is often acknowledged that African identities are “complex, contested and contingent,” and that these negotiations and contestations are conducted in many locations around the globe. Basically she interviewed 8 women and wrote it up. The common thing was Africa, but actually it isn't it is about race - she wouldn't have been researching the mother of a child of European appearance no matter how many generations of background she had in Africa. The researcher does not stick with the generalities though (I suggest you read the article not just google it) but rapidly provides details of the countries of the fathers of these children (for others following the debate the article is entitled Mothering Children of African Descent: Hopes, Fears and Strategies of White Birth Mothers.) She uses the term twice in the article - but I don't see her term as giving significance or definition to the concept other than the obvious people of African ancestry who are Australians - she does not use it as a defining term but rather a collective description which she abandons with more specific terminology later. The second article is by the same author and draws on the same research. In it I think she actually uses the term "non-African Australian" more often that "African Australian". Once again (she does use the word "white" as in "white husband" , "white Australian girlfriend " "white Australian woman", "white western woman", "black African and the white Anglo Saxon lady’s marriage" (in an interview quote) followed by "African/white marriages" in her text. She is discussing racial issues - perfectly legitimately in the context of the research - a minefield for an ill-defined topic on wikipedia. --Matilda ^talk 22:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing whatsoever to do with the use of the 'term'. Again your personal opinions of the subject matter is irrelevant to this discussion. The point is that the term is clearly used in relevant journals. --neonwhite user page talk 17:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neonwhite, it doesn't prove anything of the sort - it simply proves there's an organisation which has been allowed by the Business Names or Fair Trading place to register in that state. See my example further down (the Dole Bludgers one). Orderinchaos 23:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does, read the sources, it is conclusive, undeniable proof that the term in well used by journals, politicians and other organisations. --neonwhite user page talk 17:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Neonwhite - all sources cited use the term tangentially - none of them define it - one author even if in two journals, who does not define the term and rapidly moves on from teh terms does not equal undeniable proof that the term in well used by journals, a politician saying she attended a function organised by a charity does not equal the politician using the term, other organisations maybe but as per my reference to the African Australian Association ACT above; the associations aims fail to help to define the term as they include To promote a greater understanding of Africa, its cultures and heritage, in the community and membership is open to any individual (excluding non-Australians with diplomatic status) who supports the aims and objectives of the Association - they ask which country you are from but nothing more to help with he definition that I can see. I don't believe any of the other organisations define the term either. If there is no definition from a reliable source there should be no article--Matilda ^talk 20:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a valid Australian ethnic subgroup (or rather, group of subgroups), not dissimilar to Irish Australian or Anglo-Australian. The current poor state of the article, in particular the "list of African Australians", is in itself not a valid rationale for deletion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

The rationale for nomination was because the article is a WP:SYNTH not because of the list of whos included... which in itself should be subject WP:RS as required by WP:BLP any person listed without a suitable citation should be removed from the article. The combination of Sub-Saharan groups, Middle Eastern, European is the synthesis. Gnan garra 11:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the list will need to be cleaned out if the article is kept. However, I believe that "African Australian" is no more a synthesis than Anglo-Celtic Australian, and the fact that there are organisations describing themselves as "African Australian" per User:Neon_white's keep rationale above. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

maybe WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but interestingly the Anglo-Celtic Australian includes people from South Africa, the same peoples included into this article. Overall it does have some concerns but is defined by this sourced statement, Historian John Hirst wrote in 1994: "Mainstream Australian society was reduced to an ethnic group and given an ethnic name: Anglo-Celt." [7], it more appropriate to tag for cleanup/sourcing etc... Gnan garra 13:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No prejudice against recreation I don't feel like getting into this argument, but there's always the option of deleting and then creating a new article if reliable sources come along. Andjam (talk) 12:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above, legitimate term which is even used by Australian government agencies. (jarbarf) (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - which Government agency uses the term, as opposed to referring to non-government organisations which use the term?--Matilda ^talk 19:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesnt matter whether they are government, non-government or just supported by the government, the fact that the term is in use to refer to australians of african decent is what is important. --neonwhite user page talk 17:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment To create a more obvious example. Let's say I run the Dole Bludgers On Ya Bike Foundation, which is a fictional charity which helps disadvantaged young people get jobs in somewhat unorthodox ways. If the politician were to visit me or I was to get government funding, they would reference the name of my organisation in parliament and on their websites. That does not for a minute suggest they think unemployed people are dole bludgers, they are just referring to the name of my organisation. Orderinchaos 23:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE Afro-Australian included at this point as its a cut/paste WP:POVFORK of the nominated article, cut/paste creation is also a GNU license violation. Gnan garra 07:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but consider a rename/merge to the clearer 'Australians of African descent', and making the others into redirects. (We have done this with quite a few categories.) Occuli (talk) 13:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It would still be a WP:SYNTH] based on original research how ever it was named Gnan garra 17:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "African-A..." per keepers above. ~~Open to~~ Rename - I prefer 'Australians of African descent' for the category, and ~~maybe~~ the article too. Delete the POV fork per Gnangarra if the older is kept, otherwise merge to sort the history issue. Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How does renaming address the issue thats its undefined original research Gnan garra 17:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a content issue - you have failed to make the case that the subject is inherently NN. Johnbod (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I havent made any case based on notability what I have said is that the article is original research used to create a WP:SYNTH...from WP:SYNTH that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia by a contributor. From a notability question Wikipedia:N#Notability_requires_objective_evidence "If no reliable, third-party (in relation to the subject) sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." as yet no editor has provided a reliable source that has a definition of the term. Also in general terms WP:N says ..significant coverage in reliable sources... and it defines significant coverage with ...no original research is needed to extract the content.... So far this topic because of its lack of a definition has enable the creation of POVFORKS, at Afro-Australian and at Black Australian where it specifically excluded the common use of the term. Gnan garra 00:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating an argument doesn't increase its validity. Occuli (talk) 03:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah but its not a repeat of the same, its an answer in relation to the question on notability which it clearly doesnt comply with either. Rather than just vote "keep" provide sources that are reliable and verify the article Gnan garra 04:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Australian Bureau of Statistics, who are clearly an RS, have done tons of research, which is cited in the article. Arguments about the precise title, which are common, do not affect the validity of the article itself. Johnbod (talk) 04:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you requested lets look at the ABS sources and what they are actually contributing to the subject

this(ref #1) refers to two distinct statistical groups Sub-Saharan and North Africa & Middle East, no grouping of "African Australians".
this(ref #4) is raw data to which a person can perform set types of queries, where its used in the article for population density, the combination and presentation of the resultant figures is result of original research by the editor, not the conclusion of any ABS employees research.

These were the only ABS sources in the article, where are the tons of ABS research your referring to. Gnan garra 08:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Australian Bureau of Statistics codes Ancestry according to Australian Standard Classification of Cultural and Ethnic Groups (ASCCEG) classifications and their approach does not suit the article topic. If you accept their tons of research, you would have topics related to levels of coding in ASCCEG - not a combination of coding levels (ie to aggregate African-Australian you will need to go to the fourth digit level coding and create your own data by aggregating at the country level. Sounds like original research to me in the absence of any justification by a definition provided by a reliable source that any Australians identify by the continent they came from and not, for example, by race. I suspect west Africans would see limited connection with Coetzee or an Egyptian or someone originating from Morocco - my conclusions only but none that as far as I can see can be disputed by a reliable source with a firm definition that includes or excludes them. I note that African American defines its group as citizens or residents of the United States who have origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa. The article later mentions sub-Sahara. That is more akin incidentally to an ABS categorisation under ASCCEG at the 2 digit level but one which to date no one has come up with a reliable source to discuss as a definition covering "African-Australian". --Matilda ^talk 20:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I m with Occuli and Johnbod that the two pages Afro-Australian and African Australian should be one merged page entitled Australians of African descent (and that all similar pages refering to any (ethnic/national group of diaspora in any country) should be similarly named Mayumashu (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. —Matilda ^talk 20:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Actual ethnic subgroup of this nation. Badagnani (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response - could you cite a source for that please as that is the issue? --Matilda ^talk 20:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. —Matilda ^talk 20:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the ethnic group exists, and therefore is inherently notable. The two articles should be merged. Yahel Guhan 21:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments above. Noor Aalam (talk) 22:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep of "African Australians", and Strong Delete of "Afro Australians Of African Descent" and "Afro Australians". I have not heard seen the word "Afro Australian" being used in anything official.

It is counterproductive to add two levels of qualification (continent of birth and race) for a definition. Why should an British born Australian whose parents were Jamaican and ancestors came from West Africa be seen to have stronger claims to being "African" than a Malay South African or Arab Egyptian immigrant? Are we now going to have articles like Vietnamese French of Chinese Descent? _{(don't laugh - it is not in insubstantial number)} or White Australian botanists? Do we count persons of 50% African blood? as being "Afro Australians Of African Descent" _{(oh for pity's sake...)}.

I do not think we should start writing articles of ancestry trying to guess who is of "Afrian descent" based on crude racial grounds. It would be simpler, inclusive and just as accurate to base membership by having an ancestral or birth link to the continent. Besides the Australian Bureau of Statistics has no statistics on the number of "blacks", and there is no such thing as a stock-standard definition of what an African Australian is.

Kransky (talk) 11:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Google search shows 22,700 ghits [114]. There are many sources where the term is used [115], [116], [117]. [118]. Below are some sources which prove the term is used:
- Africanoz.com, an African Australian Online Resource
- African Australian Association.

Article needs rewriting and sourcing, not deletion. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 14:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Cuete[edit]

Doesn't appear to be a notable rapper; albums were released mostly on non-notable labels. No coverage in reliable sources; no chart singles; no evidence that they meet WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable rapper. Fails WP:MUSIC. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Dreamspy (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't seem to find independent sources that pass muster for this rapper. Not notable at this time. PHARMBOY (TALK) 18:26, 26 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) 22:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Live To Code[edit]

Identicle article I Live to Code blanked by author after I prod'd it, and recreated here which I take as a contestion. Article is not supported by independent references (WP:V), no real claim to notability (WP:N) and the tone suggests a possible WP:COI. Marasmusine (talk) 13:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up one day --neonwhite user page talk 15:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Spam for a TV show. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 22:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete per above --Starionwolf (talk) 01:10, 27 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. Wizardman 14:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Behind The West Coast[edit]

Doesn't appear to be a notable album, even if it is on a major label. The producer is a red link, and most of the artists don't have pages; no sources could be found attesting to this album's notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Have to agree that even the wikilinked articles are of dubious notability (up for AFD themselves) and no information can be found that would indicate notability. PHARMBOY (TALK) 18:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This fails WP:N and the only artist of notability on this album is a featured artist on a track by another non-notable artist. BigDunc (talk) 18:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 06:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shady Boy[edit]

Doesn't appear to be a notable musician; no valid sources could be found in a search -- no major label albums, no chart singles, etc. Listed per suggestion of Pharmboy (talk · contribs) (see my talk page). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable musician. No reliable source. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dreamspy (talk) 15:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very few references could be found, none seem to pass as reliable sources, mainly blogs and such. PHARMBOY (TALK) 18:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non Notable musician. BigDunc (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC and WP:V. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:05, 27 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. Singu larity 06:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheyenne Kimball's Untitled 2nd Studio Album[edit]

No reliable sources provided, none found. This article is one sentance about an album that won't be released and one sentance about an album that might be recorded to replace it, plus some vague "recorded" info. Nothing verifiable to merge, no justification to keep. Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Unreleased album, will likely never be released; only coverage is limited to vague info on a possible replacement album. Clearly fails notability guidelines for albums. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per above. User:TenPoundHammer and User:Mdsummermsw have given enough reason why this article should be deleted. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete I moved the article, originally titled "Purple Ink" to "Cheyenne Kimball's Untitled 2nd Studio Album" because there is absoultely NO PROOF that it's called "Purple Ink" so I hope some other user will provide some sources but there is no sources, I suggest deleting the article and maybe create a new one once there is proof about the album. calliegal_x (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Calliegal[reply]
Delete per above. Deb (talk) 17:37, 27 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 under criteria A7. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marasmusine (talk • contribs)

Pokemon Battle City[edit]

Delete: Falis WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:31, 26 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. Wizardman 15:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atif Khalid Butt[edit]

Twice speedied under A7, insufficient assertion of notability, authored by a user (User:Atifk.butt) whose name bears a suspicious resemblance to the subject. Skomorokh 13:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:COI Richard75 (talk) 13:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - WP:COI, no content, unreferenced, non-notable. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - totally not notable - just some guy. Dreamspy (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Butt No One comes every day. Gnninnnggh Plutonium27 (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The article definitely needs sources. Its author may not have made some grammatical errors that suggest he or she is not a native speaker of English. But I think the author should be offered the assumption of good faith. I think the suggestion of salting is premature. I think the potential exists that the author may been prevented from making a better case in the article. The article was nominated for deletion less than ten minutes after creation -- generally a bad sign in my judgment.

If Atif Butt had published one or more notable books, then they would merit coverage here, even if that book(s) was not published in English, correct? Similarly, if they had translated one or more notable English language books into Urdu, would not that too establish the value in covering him or her on the wikipedia? Geo Swan (talk) 22:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is entirely obvious - the fact is there is no evidence in the article of this possible notability. I could easily have nominated the article for a third A7 and had the author blocked, but chose this forum in order to allow editors to see if there is any justification in the creator's persistence. So if you are concerned we might be at risk of losing a worthy article, by all means go ahead and prove notability. Skomorokh 22:55, 31 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. Wizardman 15:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Important (album)[edit]

Unsourced album. Written as "upcoming", but set in the past, so no one cared enough to notice that it didn't happen. Kww (talk) 13:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet the notability guidelines for albums; hasn't been released and probably never will be, and is therefore unlikely to have received coverage in any reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "no onne cared enough to notice that it didn't happen". Classic! Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:22, 27 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 A3, non-admin close. Redfarmer (talk) 13:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikileafing[edit]

Neologism with no Ghits or Yhits. Fails WP:Neo and WP is not a dictionary. ukexpat (talk) 13:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Page was deleted just as AfD tag was placed; as a result, the only edit shown is the placement of AfD tag. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn, or whatever I have to do now that it was speedied. – ukexpat (talk) 13:07, 26 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. Singu larity 06:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Am Paula Campbell[edit]

AfDs for this article:

No sources, no dates. Deleted at previous AFD, and no clear reason for recreation. Kww (talk) 12:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unverifiable album that hasn't yet been released; I can't confirm the track listing or anything else about it. Also delete the single, as it hasn't been released yet and isn't the subject of any sources either. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete re-created content previously deleted. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:23, 27 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. Singu larity 06:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary women artists[edit]

Delete: There is no need for such a list. In this way nemerous such lists can be created starting with "Contemporary women...". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The title is very PoV, not to mention that the list ~~hasn't~~ has barely even been started yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
there is nothing much on contemporary art...so this is a list that should be built otherwise there is nothing substantial on contemporary art...this makes wikipedia incomprehensive on contemporary art - including contemporary women practitioners - the only thing i can find is an old article on the history of women artists...its possible in future it could be merged into one big comprehensive list of contemporary practitioners?...and yes youre right the list has only just begun... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humbridg (talk • contribs)

What defines "contemporary" and what defines "artist"? Those are the two main issues here -- without any set criterion, lists are far from comprehensive. If you just made this all women artists, then the list would be miles long if completed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

simply living notable female artists practising today....thats how ive defined contemporary for the purpose of encyclopedia...this is open obviously to interpretation! but i think a list cant harm but will only add! perhaps this should be said at top of list...living female artists??— Preceding unsigned comment added by Humbridg (talk • contribs)

Delete Beyond reasonable scope. Per WP:NOT, not a very discriminating list. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Blaxthos, who has said what I've been fumbling for in this space for best part of 15 mins. Also the comments above that contradict themselves over what is meant by contemporary in this instance give an ominous indication of how awkward the inclusion policy would be. The tea-leaves, they do not look good. Plutonium27 (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete --Starionwolf (talk) 01:11, 27 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 a7, webcontent, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ezylet[edit]

Delete: FailsWP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:32, 26 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. Wizardman 15:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

House Party (album)[edit]

No sources, no date, no confirmed tracks. WP:CRYSTAL violation Kww (talk) 12:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost no information exists on the album yet -- no verified tracks, cover art, etc., so it violates WP:CRYSTAL. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per the Hammer. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:26, 27 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 as blatant advertising. Spellcast (talk) 12:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zell-Lurie Institute[edit]

Delete: FailsWP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:28, 26 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. Wizardman 15:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mongoose Junction[edit]

Doesn't seem to be a notable shopping district; no coverage in reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't seem notable enough to warrant its own article. If anything, redirect to the sparse Cruz Bay article and merge some of that info in there, although I'm not even sure if that's appropriate. Gwynand (talk) 12:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I fail to see any content that couldn't be a sentence in Cruz Bay instead of its own article. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC) Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rikki Tikki Quikki Merge Cruz Bay - with links and all. Plutonium27 (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - unusual architecture[119] (possibly historic) and the fact thats its a rarity on the island for handling credit cards[120] Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 00:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. When did other places on the island stop taking credit cards? The fact that on most Caribbean islands the local stores don't accept them does not mean a place that does is notable. The tourist oriented businesses take the credit cards. The hole in the wall shops that rely on locals who don't have credit cards deal in cash. So this group of stores is not notable for anything, except for maybe a few really nice places to eat. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:30, 31 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.

ChannelJEPH[edit]

The result was Speedily deleted. - Fall en An gel 16:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:RS, and this is not suppose to even be a article, Poor Writting, no sources Fall en An gel 12:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this page should not be deleted because the online series it very successful and the fans might want to search it up — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bep-and-matt (talk • contribs)
Comment: - Fails WP:RS and WP:N and the only link is a youtube page? This should DEF. be deleted. Fall en An gel 12:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7 per ((db-web)), so tagged. I couldn't find any reliable third party sources to verify that this even exists, and no assertation of notability is made. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this page should be kept. I find this page interesting and I know people who will too. They already have fans who might want to know more about them
Lonelygirl15 and KateModern have pages about their show and it's not even real. And ChanelJeph also have a band called Tutti Fruity in their myspace link which is very interesting

Delete fails WP:RS and WP:N Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:49, 26 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. Wizardman 15:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Open Dream[edit]

Article originally was written in French and translated into current form. Show is allegedly on NBC and "premiered" on February 26, 2008, however this show did not air. Producers of show do not have the show listed in their IMDB profile, also link to IMDB goes to "Quarterlife". Probable hoax? Wildthing61476 (talk) 12:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax/non notable. Undeath (talk) 12:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the show now has it's premiere in "June 2008", perhaps WP:CRYSTAL applies here too? Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There was no hint of WP:CRYSTAL when I translated this article. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 21:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- However, I became suspicious about a French show that would bear such a name. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 21:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The item about the premiere was just added earlier today after the article had been translated. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:29, 26 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. Wizardman 15:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VGUI[edit]

I boldly redirected this article per WP:SNOW, but that was undone by another editor. This article is a technical component of a notable product, and does not deserve its own article. No sources have treated this component in a nontrivial way. The main article already treats the subject sufficiently. User:Krator (t c) 11:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Redirect to applicable article, but this component has no place as its own article. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge - Merge this with a GUI but it does not deserve to have it's own page. It could be considered advertising also. Lifelongpyro (talk) 01:57, 31 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. Singu larity 05:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Moreway[edit]

"Relatively unknown" poet and his poem. No references supplied, and I can find absolutely no trace - Google, Scholar, the British Library catalogue, the Oxford Companion to English Literature... I suspect this is a hoax, but if not, he comprehensively fails Notability (people). Either way, Delete both. Two more poems are threatened, presently red-links; if they appear I will add them to this AfD. JohnCD (talk) 11:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:V. Deor (talk) 11:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Deor. Fall en An gel 12:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Obvious hoax, I did same research yesterday. Tan | 39 13:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both - unable to overcome WP:V. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom. Dreamspy (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per above Cunard (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is n claim in the article that any of his poems were ever actually published. I am not prepared to say they are hoaxes, but they are clearly not notable. DGG (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The subject of the articles are not notable and there are no sources quotable. I see the only course to be deletion, so lets bring this AFD to completion. Think outside the box 14:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both for failing WP:N ArcAngel (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both per nom. Even if this person existed and the poem was written by him, it was unpublished so both fail the notability guidelines. Paul20070 (talk) 12:24, 30 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. Wizardman 15:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pentastar Alignment[edit]

AfDs for this article:

No significant edits in two+ months since no-consensus AfD; article remains in-universe plot summary. Previous AfD seems not to have prompted any push to improve the article. --EEMIV (talk) 11:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing more than detailed in-universe plot summary (and failure to improve after prev. AFD) == delete. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Still no assertion of notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability and no real world context. Jay32183 (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. nneonneo (talk) 02:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spellcast (talk) 12:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yetol[edit]

Non notable company, previously speedily deleted several times as non notable and spam. Torchwood Who? (talk) 09:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; Non-notable and seems to be original research. --HamatoKameko (talk) 10:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Deleted Several times because i was accused of writing about a website i am accused of owning, which is not the case.~~

I am a secondary source, originally i have not made this clear. I have collected this infomation from the websites owner. Yetol.com is a company, and even through not world wide known it is still a company. If you wish to observe the website go to www.yetol.com I am a writer/critic for a small website analysis company that rates new websites and publishes a history about them. Triippe (talk) 09:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's brand new and there are no independent attributions of notability. --Dhartung | Talk 10:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Somewhat non-notable. Alberon (talk) 11:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dont Delete It is notable, why are all you people so obsessive. Pete (talk) 11:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dont deleteit I think it is fairly notable. But these people arnt being obsessive Jake746 (talk) 11:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The closer of this AfD should note that the preceding two "don't delete" opinions were added, with falsified signatures, by Triippe, the article's creator. Deor (talk) 11:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I struck out the forged !votes. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability isn't a matter of opinion - see WP:WEB which requires that, for instance, "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." No such references are presented, and for a new company set up this month it's unlikely they could be. Wikipedia isn't the way to become well-known - you have to be well-known first. JohnCD (talk) 11:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just delete it. the whole page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Triippe (talk • contribs)

Delete - doesn't meet any notability criteria. Pseudomonas_(talk) 12:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just delete it, there is no article anymore

Triippe (talk) 12:11, 26 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 Speedily kept. Nomination withdrawn; no "delete" votes. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tamms Correctional Center[edit]

Fails WP:NOTE. CorenSearchBot has already tagged article for potential copyvio. Taroaldo (talk) 09:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of notability, I would call this clearly notable. It is a supermax security prison in Illinois', and houses the state's death chamber. But if there is a copyvio, then it needs to be deleted and recreated later. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have gone ahead and replaced the entire text with a stub article which is severely underdeveloped, but which should be valid. Keep.Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sjakkalle's WP:HEY. Supermax facilities are almost always going to be notable due to the notoriety of the prisoners. --Dhartung | Talk 10:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given the new text. Good work Sjakkalle. Tim (Xevious) (talk) 12:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable subject, copy-vio tanken care of.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per the lurking cube. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and suspect this may be a snowballer. I suspect that generically, prisons are very likely to be the subject of third party commentary in reliable sources, and therefore are probably inherently notable. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - clearly notable, and much better without the copyvio. KnightLago (talk) 14:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Upon further consideration, and given changes made up to now. --- Taroaldo (talk) 15:54, 26 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. Singu larity 05:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Freecms[edit]

Non-notable software. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Should be on company/developers' page per WP:PRODUCT, which in its self is likely to be unnotable and thus speedy deleted. Tiddly-Tom 19:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and advertisement. KTC (talk) 10:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I eat eggs and spamalot. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - possible advertisment --Starionwolf (talk) 01:12, 27 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. Singu larity 05:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Muriithi[edit]

Autobio of US-based Kenyan actor, journalist, photog, etc. Refs appear to be self-published. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This comment was left on my user page by 70.11.243.201 (talk · contribs), presumably from the same person as Bmjmureithi (talk · contribs), suggesting that many Kenyans have the same name and it is therefore not autobio. Thought I'd add that to the mix. I've left the autobio tag in place. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Deb (talk) 14:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; does not meet WP:BIO. Note that the "references" in the article are not coverage of the subject in the media, but are articles written by the subject which appeared in various non-notable online publications. --MCB (talk) 06:44, 26 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, Bduke (talk) 08:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails general WP:N requirements. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - probable vanity article created by anon editor who has only worked on this. Dreamspy (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete We totally disagree with your contention on this article on Ben Muriithi. We very strongly feel that what you describe as notability is very relative and you are using that to discriminate against third world celebrities. We feel that you don't have to appear in American or European papers to be considered notable. In fact it is very rude of you to refer to publications you know nothing about as non notable. We have also noted that you have included any Tom, Dick and Harry so long as they are American. This borders on racism.

Comment what total guff! There are articles on here about people from every race, colour and creed. This guy is simply not notable! Get over it. Dreamspy (talk) 23:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment have just noticed you have the same name as the subject of the article - total vanity article! Dreamspy (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retraction Okey, we have retracted the words that threaten legal action as we were not aware of the rule. However, we still feel that even though Ben Muriithi is from the third world, he should be included in Wikipedia. Please be fair. There aren't many publications in Kenya but I can assure you that he is very "notable".

One of the reasons for requiring notability is WP:V, our core policy on verifiability. We can only report facts that are available via reliable, verifiable sources. This holds doubly for articles about living persons - see WP:BLP. It does not matter why such sources are missing, only that they are missing. And please sign your talk page contributions, using for tildas (~~~~). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bmjmureithi‎, I think you should consider retracting your baseless accusation that this "borders on racism", which you also added to my talk page. WP tends to focus on North American and European places, events, and people, but I believe this reflects the interests of the contributors and the availability of verifiable sources, rather than any racial prejudice. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: ...per nom. Non-notable. seicer | talk | contribs 13:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, per nomination. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He does appear to be a journalist of some kind in Africa, but the sources are mostly articles written by him. Journalists aren't automatically considered notable if they write for significant sources; notability comes when significant sources write about a person, and I couldn't find much evidence that people are writing about Muriithi. The only source cited which writes about Murithi is an opinion piece which mentions him only briefly; none of the cited sources verify the information in the article. To the creator's accusations of racism, I can only respond by inviting them to read other articles nominated here for deletion, many of which are about white people from Western nations. I google-searched for Muriithi looking for better sources, but while it's true that it seems to be a not uncommon name, if he were truly notable, it seems that Ben Muriithi the journalist would probably appear more often in google searches than Ben Muriithi the tour guide or Ben Muriithi the high-school basketball player. I couldn't find any sources that would confirm notability. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. And spraying baseless, immature and provocative accusations about the place will NOT persuade otherwise. Plutonium27 (talk) 20:39, 27 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 already deleted. Zetawoof_(ζ) 08:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The showcase[edit]

Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:CORP. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. The nominator recreated the page with an AFD notice after it'd already been A7 deleted. Zetawoof_(ζ) 08:42, 26 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. Singu larity 05:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DreamGains[edit]

Unremarkable company. Blatant advertising. Appears to be WP:COI. Considered a CSD candidate. Taroaldo (talk) 07:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agreed, the article isn't sourced, says many positive(promotional) things about the company, lists that it may become great, etc. I see no reason to keep it, it doesn't even list notablity.— Dæ dαlus^{→quick link} / Improve 07:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Blatant advertising Dreamspy (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete for blatant advertising. nneonneo (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - advertising. --Starionwolf (talk) 01:13, 27 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 Non-Admin Closure. Tiddly-Tom 09:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WebB.C[edit]

Speedy declined. Slang word that has no references and not encyclopedic. Tan | 39 06:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete The speedy delete should have gone through. This piece of fluff was created by the same guy who "coined" the term. Get rid of it. --- Taroaldo (talk) 06:44, 26 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. — Scientizzle 16:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Electro-magnetic therapeutic system[edit]

Non-notable invention. Also not likely the most common use of the term, as a TENS would qualify as matching that name. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am the sole contributor to this page: In light of this... (Since no one has added anything constructive except for DEL, PROD, SPEEDY DEL (administrative things and templates) I ask that the content be moved and that the original title be deleted. So that I can continue working on it I ask that it be move to user:CyclePat/Rhumart. This idea is in line with Wikipedia's Policy of Speedy Deletion section G7... again, I ask that the page be Move to my user-page (to maintain my edit summary) and that the original page be deleted.--CyclePat (talk) 22:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Keep. Please see discussion on talk page regarding notability. The device is more commonly called Rhumart as clearly portrayed in the patents image section (which are b.t.w. also registered in Foreign Countries, which may explain your question of confusion regarding its difference of appearance from the US patent and the Canadian patent. Note: The inventors are Canadian, perhaps we could assume that their initial patent was filled here in Canada and subsequently, most likely with further clarity and developement, in other countries.) Furthermore I would like to point out that Wikipedia has a precedent for Water fuel cell (Meyer's water car invention) which is being kept. The consensus there is that, even though there exists other devices which are even called "Water fuel cell", they are not the same device. More specifically, Water fuel cell, unlike this article, actually has a conflict in the name because there are other devices that function differently or do something almost entirelly different then Meyer's Water Fuel but have the same name. In our case the "Electro-magnetic therapeutic system" is not at all the similar to the TENS device. (Maybe having something similar is the fact that they are both devices that claim to help in healing to human body... but how many such devices are there for that? And should we begin putting ECG ~~with EKG~~ (oops! I mean Defibrillation)? This nomination is not only premature but totally unwarranted given the fact that a PROD discussion was clearly on its ways to proving the fact that there are "other" external references (not just patents). Hence again, I believe this article should be kept and allowed the chance to explain, not only it's name but the various other names such as Rhumart or the US Patent name, or the various news articles (though I will translate from french) --CyclePat (talk) 06:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus there is that Meyer's device is notable, whether or not it works. The notability of this device is in question, whether or not it works.

The PROD discussion was by you, and didn't seem to me to be on its way anywhere.

And the US patent and Canadian patent do not seem to be on the same concept.

The French (language) news articles might provide the necessary evidence of notability. Then again, they might not.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please See WP:BEFORE, and WP:NOTABILITY, which I belief link somewhere to the idea that a subject doesn't necessarily have to be famous but simply need to have "external sources" 3rd party sources. If you take a look at Electromagnetic therapy you will notice a link to a peer-reviewed article which studied this device. Or simply take a look at google scholarly for Rhumart (as per the talk page of this article) --CyclePat (talk) 07:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the result is delete, consider userfying, as there is no real claim against this article except notability and possibly WP:NEO. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indicators of notability of this device. Primary sources only. Talk page discussion is blatantly speculative. --Dhartung | Talk 10:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not every patent is notable. This article tells us little more than some kind of electro-magnetic medical invention was patented. As such, it is profoundly deficient in both context, and is a very brief article without significant content, and is borderline speediable. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for all the reason covered by Smerdis. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent vereification of notability. `'Míkka >t 15:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lacks independent secondary-source coverage; patent applications are a primary source and are a notoriously poor substitute for secondary-source coverage and scientific information. It could be userfied temporarily to allow a search for secondary-source coverage. MastCell ^Talk 16:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please take note of the history section development (March 26^th 2008). It now demonstrates and contradicts most of your statements. Take for example the link with the Rhumart system which shows that the discussion on the talk page is no longer speculative. There will soon be another development for all the other device names which have been built by Dr. Drolet. Once this is complete I believe we will be able to see how this device was not only developed but how it has changed names throughout history and is now considered a device that has much "independent" secondary sources. Just to tease you on this, a now proven fact within the article, the Rhumart was the common name for this device and it has several independent 3rd party sources, one of which is actually peer-reviewed and is utlized in the article Electromagnetic therapy. --CyclePat (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC) Re-worded and posted --CyclePat (talk) 02:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
p.s.: This development of information will soon contradict Arthur Rubin's statement which allude to the fact that the US patents have no' relationship with the Canadian patents. --CyclePat (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

p.p.s.: I think there may actually be more 3rd party information on the inventor. Nevertheless:
Here you will find the Seattle Radio station KRWM 106.9FM-HD3, having done a full broadcast on the the Rhumart (In 2006).[121]

Here you will find that peer-reviewed article I was talking about.[122]

Here you will find a third a court trial... (hummm does this sound like Water fuel cell article) However in this case the trial appears to be for a patent infringement case. (Available on University of Montreal's, Honorable Lexum Law Database) [123] Apparently it made it to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC)(Unlike the almost unheard of Water Fuel Cell).(See reference from SCC here). Here you will find a french Abstract withing the lawyers journal (perhaps the superior court of Quebec?)[124]

Here you will find the device for sale on a website.[125] And on sale here at "l'Association des paraplégiques du Québec" (I think that's a reputable organisation!)

Here we go... I found it. Industry Canada's Listing for the company making the links to all the new names and the company "SEM Electronique" (that's french Quebec name! b.t.w. a 5 million dollar company). This page makes the link between the Ultimag.[126]

Here is a list of what appears to be peer-reviewed research, some of which deal with the Rhumart (the term appears about 5 times in this German study).[127]

Apparently here is that link to the US patent which is called Rhumart.[128]

Here is an article which talks about skepticism.[129](Google Translation to English)

Here is the World Intellectual Property Patent application.[130]

Here is a blog, actually spelling it out, that the machine is quite popular in Quebec. And attempting to compare to the Nikken machine.(interesting given the fact it was apparently invented there!)[131]

Here is a news article on a workshop for the Rhumart.[132]

This is a report from a hotel regarding business meeting held for/by Rhumart.[133]

Here is a biography of a news reporter who has supposedly written some articles on the "Rhumart affair?"[134] (Further research is needed to find the articles... humm... 3rd Party sources?)

I may be repeating myself here but here is a link to Gary Null's study on EMF pulsed products. He mentions the Rhumart in this pdf.[135]

I had to put this in (I'm not sure if I did yet...). Here is the US Patent.[136]

Here is a third party claim regarding a book by Dr. Drolet (or maybe two) that was to be "forth coming".[137]

Here is a story from a seller and how he sold 173 devices in Quebec (at 5477$ ea.). Though I doubt we can use this information as a direct citation I'm pretty sure it can be verified with the reliable patents. (As I did with the Rhumart name). In his story he indicates that one of the newer devices is called "Theramag". (note: Ultimag was also another name which I've proven with the aformentioned IC listing).[138]

And remember this is a device from the 1980's (let’s see you try and find information on the Sony Television from the 80s) Back then there was no real internet. I think we will find much document at the national archives (Canadian) in paper format. Why not just admit it... your vote for Delete is simply because you consider my almost mocking attitude towards the Speedy, Prod, etc... and/or Wikipedia process, as well as my methodology towards article to be offensive to your beliefs. No one likes to be proven wrong and I have done this in a strait forward and bordering WP:DICK attitude. Right? (nodding) Right! Again... (if I didn't say it, well then... here it is for the first time) Please don't kill the article in it's infancy. All it needs is a litle work to get all these sources properly formated per Wikipedia's guidelines of WP:CITE et all. I'm sure you can tell this article can expand to include what is necessary and address the aforementioned concerns. b.t.w.: What ever happened to WP:AGF and that I would eventually get all this information into the article. It's a sad day for Wikipedia if this is what most editors experience. --CyclePat (talk) 04:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

p.p.p.s: If you are thinking of doing a google search for Rhumart don't really bother since the above facts are pretty much a summary of the 145 hits on google which can be found here.(Ironically the last fact, the vendor who sold 173 units, I think, may prove to be the most useful for finding more resources) --CyclePat (talk) 04:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

summary of my comment: Maybe I could make this clearer. This device is quite notable within the Quebec region. There are 3rd party sources. Also, I'm indeferent if we call this article Dr. Drolet, Rhumart, etc... --CyclePat (talk) 06:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources listed above. Most of them don't confer notability, but the peer-reviewed article should be of particular note, as well as the news bits. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 10:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative !vote as nominator, Merge to electromagnetic therapy. Notability under the current name is questionable, as it's almost impossible to tell whether all the references given here (note, not in the article or the article talk page) refer to the same device. However, even if not notable in itself, the patents and some commentary seem suitable for that article, and the redirect could easily stand on its own, even if it were nothing to merge. The fact that the inventor is alive and currently marketing the devices means we need to be exceptionally careful to see if any of the references, even in peer-reviewed journals, are paid ads. I have not gone through the new list of two dozen references to check. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*"I disagree": In fact I believe if this AFD is ridiculous. However to simply build a straw man, or to prove a point I think we should nominate the different article, Electromagnetic therapy for AFD? (no I don't believe that... But if you think this article should be deleted then you must think the other does too? --CyclePat (talk) 06:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit obvious that this article should not and should never have been at this name. I still think the notable aspects of this article might be included in the other. I don't think the other article is sane, but it seems notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've recently updated the article and also notified (yesterday or the day before) most of the users that "voted" delete. Heck! The device is even noted in as a Legal Precedence from the Supreme Court of Canada as setting out the Canadian "test for patent infringement" and "the principales of purposive claim construction". How much more notable can you get? Surelly it's a notable subject! Thank you. --CyclePat (talk) 21:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete Based on the current version of the article, there is no indication the device itself is notable. There are no secondary sources. If the patent case is notable, the article about it would go under the name of the legal case. DGG (talk) 02:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. You may have missed the update I did... There is a wikipedia article related to this at Free World Trust v. Électro Santé Inc.. Anyways... Wikipedia:Notability set’s out the guidelines for Notability. A subject is presumed to be sufficiently notable if it meets the general notability guideline. Here is the test: Test 1: “If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable.” The question you must ask yourself is does this article have sources that are independant of the subject? If yes! Then it is notable... if no... then surelly it isn't. In this case, I've listed a bunch of sources which appear to be significant coverage in reliable sources. --CyclePat (talk) 05:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Please take a careful look at citations (endnote #1 in particular) of WP:N and then please try to explain why you would beleive "http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2000/2000scc66/2000scc66.html SCC Trail] would not be a notable? --CyclePat (talk) 06:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see above comment. I've asked that the page be userfied! --CyclePat (talk) 23:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent notability; the Canadian court case, on the other hand, is clearly notable and is covered in Free World Trust v. Électro Santé Inc. Any wikipedia reader /editor is of course free to create a local copy of the article on their computer. Abecedare (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment: I'm mad. And they say when you're emotional you sometimes do rash things. Well, I don't know if this is a good thing or not, but I do see what you guys are talking about as not being published in other sources. It appears most of the sources... I guess the court trial could even be deleted because it to was a process brough on by a non third party (self created news... right?). Kind of like if I go build a Water fuel cell and makes a press release... Or if you where some murderer and the only notability was your local newspaper (from the 1980s) and the Trial transcript that made it to the Supreme Court. I guess according to most of the above comments that would be "non notable" because frankly it's something you did yourself or brough on! (Let's agree to disagree on this!) Kind of like the idea that this invention was somehow the entire fault of the inventor and anything afterwards is more or less his own work! (To be honest I see what you are talking about in notability, and strongly believe that the SCC court is evidence of notability... as well as the news articles on the device at the National Archives Canada) Anyways.... I just put 4 days of work into this article, found some reputable sources, and you want to delete it!!! I say fine... let's delete it. (I've noted my objections (now stroken out with a line within this AFD) and I still don't see any good rebutals) But, again, that fine with me... Whatever Wikipedia's WP:CONCENSUS says... "Let us crucify it!" Anyways, what makes me mad is not the fact that I can't seem to explain all the existing notable sources or the existing news articles but the fact that you won't even have the decency to let me userfy this article. I put it to you that this is blatant harasment and goes against WIKIPEDIA's guidelines and the spirit of working together. Again, this article is solely my contribution (with the acception of I believe 4 editors that added templates SPEEDY, PROD, and DEL). All that work I've done deleted... NO NO! I think not... specially after insulting me with a speedy... going against the WP:AGF by allowing the article more than 20 minutes of existance prior to PROD, or DEL. The scrutiny here is discusting! I therefore ask one last time PLEASE USERFY to user:CyclePat/Rhumart that way all the hard work I've done (neetly logged dates and time) will be kept. Please move the page to my user page so I can work at finding What you guys consider notable. This will allow, specially after I've only had the chance to visit to the National Archives of Canada (Ottawa) by next month sometime, to easy figure out my way of thinking and how I was writting this article. I'll be able to see how I was proceeding... and continue the development in a similar logical fashion. Again, as stated above please userfy so the history and developement of the article won't be lost. (Please it would be the decent thing to do, so I can maintain my contribution history)(That's really the most annoying part about these Deletes). p.s.: I've also made a comment on the ANI board regarding this issue and how, since, I'm the primary author of the article, I should be permited to blanc the page and request a SPEEDY DELETE Under clause G7. --CyclePat (talk) 03:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger (sub-title for ease of editing)[edit]

Comment: Per WP:MERGE I've ben Bold and merged the content to Free World Trust v. Électro Santé Inc.. This discussion is pretty much useless now. Since now we are talking about the content of a diferent article. Please feel free to close this Afd. Also, per the subst:del template it is appropriate to remove the template from the page and merge. --CyclePat (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've even made a template to help the closing administrator... actually I've even placed it on the talk page.:

This article was nominated for deletion on 26 March 2008. The result of the discussion was inconclusive because the article was merged to Free World Trust v. Électro Santé Inc. under Wikipedia's guidelines of WP:BOLD and WP:MERGE.

--CyclePat (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: and I've reverted. Nothing in this article should be there, as the subject, proposed use, and proposed brand name, of the patented concept are all irrelevant to the court ruling. Leave AfD in place. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment:To clossing admin. Note discussion about merger at talk:Electro-magnetic therapeutic system#merger. Please note my appology regarding the Afd and merger I attempted to perform. Also please note how we are trying to build a concensus at Talk:Free World Trust v. Électro Santé Inc. to merge with either Electromagnetic Therapy or Free World Trust v. Électro Santé Inc.. Finally I would like to indicate that my comments on the talk page discuss if not rebut Arthurs claim that the patent and it's concept are irrelevant. In fact the information is even cited within the trial. Nevertheless, I'm most likely bias that is should be include... so please see the development of this discussion. --CyclePat (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Please note WP:ANI regarding user-fication. --CyclePat (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unlikely search term, not in itself a notable device. Guy (Help!) 16:31, 31 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 23:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sneha Anne Philip[edit]

Non-notable victim of the 9/11 attacks. She DID receive a bit of press coverage a while back, but not enough to establish any notability. Jmlk 1 7 06:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I think you should read the articles you tagged more clearly than you seem to have. "A bit" of press coverage? It was a cover story in New York magazine, followed up by coverage of the appeals court decision a few months ago in the New York Times. I think that's two instances of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources right there.

When I put this up for DYK and it ran on the main page, there was ample opportunity for the community to suggest that this was a non-notable individual. No one did at that time. Suddenly we want to delete this now?

The only reason I can see for this is as part and parcel of an understandable effort to clear out truly nn 9/11 victims. But it is important to note that she is not a confirmed 9/11 victim, just someone whose whereabouts have been unknown since the night before the attack and may have been near the towers. If we didn't have the 9/11 victims cat (and, if we're going to delete all these people we might as well just get rid of the category too, since it will be too small to justify, or a magnet for continued recreation of these articles, and there certainly aren't going to be anymore 9/11 victims), I doubt we'd be having this discussion as we have kept articles on any number of missing persons with much less notability claim than her, even post-disappearance. Only because four of five appellate judges decided, using logic that would get deleted here as speculation and OR, that she had to have been at the towers because she hasn't been seen anywhere since, is she in that category.

If we're keeping Abraham Zelmanowitz, with much less media coverage over a shorter period, and a similar claim to non-notability if he weren't a 9/11 victim, we can keep this one. Daniel Case (talk) 06:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This debate was speedily closed per WP:SNOW by Having a wonderful time (talk · contribs) but the close was reverted by me later (see history). Spebi (talk) 08:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - enough independent coverage to establish notability, in my opinion. Scog (talk) 09:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a notable mystery relating to 9/11, which received media coverage beginning immediately afterward and up to the recent decision to name her as a victim. --Dhartung | Talk 10:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep though I disagree with every victim having a page, I do not agree with the nom statement per Notability is not temporary, if she was notable then she is notable now. ^Khukri 14:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; while she would have remained in obscurity if it were not for 9/11 and the circumstances of her case, those circumstances have attracted way more notice than we need to justify an article. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:06, 27 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 23:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Donovan Joyce[edit]

Non-notable. There is no evidence to support his notability as a "best-selling author", as he only ever wrote one book, and that book has almost no relevant Google hits (see The Jesus Scroll AfD below. MSJapan (talk) 05:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unless a reason is provided to ignore the fact that the Australian Dictionary of Biography apparently has an article on this person [139]. An independent third-party biography in a source like that seems to ensure notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Prolific radiographor as can be seen by my (sourced) addition to the article. I have also added other sources per WP:N and flagged it for rescue. Fosnez (talk) 09:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources added establish notability. KnightLago (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per above, though I'd trim the massively long bullet list. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly notable based on the sources. Dreamspy (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article's starter - I obviously think the subject is notable and the references show it to be. Jack1956 (talk) 20:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this individual does appear to be notable, but not simply for his book The Jesus Scroll. I'd suggest that the book be merged into the article on the author, as the book does not appear to be independently notable. Wednesday Next (talk) 18:57, 27 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). WilliamH (talk) 14:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Jesus Scroll[edit]

There is no assertion of proper notability ("bestseller", "forerunner to Da Vinci Code") that is supported by any evidence whatsoever. If this book was such a bestseller, the WP article should not be the second hit after the Amazon listing (which states it was only, not "first" published in 1973) if it was such a big deal, followed by a bunch of blogs, with all significant hits < 20. Not only is the book discredited, but the lawsuit regarding the source of Da Vinci was brought by the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail which postdated this book by ten years. so the forerunner claim isn't supported either. The author article was created by the same person as created this article, and pretty much states that this is the book he wrote, so the notability (written by author notable enough for WP) is false there as well. MSJapan (talk) 05:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with the author (who has an independent third-party biography and who I think qualifies as meeting WP:BIO because of it.) I am less sure about the book, but this article has at least a brief mention of it (on page 3 or page 10 depending on whether you are counting numbered pages or actual pages.) There might be more, but I haven't made a very thorough search on Google. This book appears to be the author's main work however, so if the book is not notable enough for a separate article, then it should get some coverage in the article on the author. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added sources according to WP:N. I an not an expert on the book or subject, so if the nominator feels there are factural issues with the article they should edit, not queue it for deletion. I might also point out that the book itself has been used as a citation on google scholar. Fosnez (talk) 09:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the book was an international best seller and influential in its day. Dreamspy (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article's starter - I obviously think the subject is notable and the references show it to be. Jack1956 (talk) 20:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added the extent of the coverage in some of the sources cited, and thus far it's pretty trivial. For some reason I cannot access the Time article (which from search results seems to be a list of top books in 1973) or the Amazon search (likely temporary ISP problem), and for the book to be in the Times Literary Supplement 15 or so years after it was published (and likely OOP) strikes me as strange, so I have asked for clarification from the editor who added that particular ref. MSJapan (talk) 00:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Donovan Joyce - the Australian Dictionary of Biography Online doesn't specify which best-seller list it might have been on. Most likely the entry was written by the author or publisher. The other references have merely passing mentions. Where are the multiple in-depth references and/or reviews? This book simply did not achieve notability as it is defined on Wikipedia. Wednesday Next (talk) 18:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just wanted to point out that the fact that the book was sold in the early 1970s and is now out of print is going to make online reviews very hard to come by. Fosnez (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Of the three, one of the refs is one of a long list of recent sensationalist fiction about the life of Christ (The Tyndale Books PDF), and I'd gather the same is true of the "Essays in Christology" as part of it traces what people have been saying about Christ in various eras. The last is from a piece called "Is Jehovah an ET?" I'd consider the first two refs trivial, and the last fringe. Generally speaking, the references occur in a "if we create a list of psuedohistorical works about Jesus we get..." pattern. furthermore, as Fosnez notes, the lack of reviews and such makes proving either its sales status or its impact very difficult indeed, and there is thus no way to assert the book's notability other than anecdotally. I think a good indication of its non-notability, however, is the fact that it's apparently OOP after just one hardcover edition. A similar book, Holy Blood, Holy Grail is still readily available in multiple editions 25 years after it was published. I think it's a fair comparison - not every book on the same subject is going to be notable. MSJapan (talk) 04:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment according to Amazon's review of the book, 18 books cite The Jesus Scroll as a source/reference. Surely that makes it notable? It is cited as a source for Holy Blood, Holy Grail, which of course was an 'inspiration' for The Da Vinci Code, hence it is a 'forerunner' of that book. Also, after the hardback first edition mentioned above it went through several paperback editions during the 1970s. [140] Jack1956 (talk) 11:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems to be a well-referenced book and an early source of ideas that later became more well-known in Holy Blood, Holy Grail. Not that it couldn't do with some improvement, but that's no reason to delete the article. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yes, it is pseudohistory (and should be clearly labled as such), but it is notable pseudohistory. It was the first of what is now a clear subgenre of sensationalist pop-historical speculative works. That said... the article needs extensive work. Blueboar (talk) 13:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per recent upgrades to the article, it looks good. WP:V and WP:N seem to be achieved.--Pmedema (talk) 16:14, 31 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). WilliamH (talk) 11:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse non-admin closure as keep. --jonny-m t 02:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Jess Dannenberg[edit]

Non-notable and has issues with WP:BLP1E. This researcher is described in terms of being a coauthor on a paper retracted because one of the other authors had committed scientific fraud. There is no implication that this researcher committed misconduct, to my knowledge. Other than his tangential connection to this episode, he is no more notable than the average professor of medicine. MastCell ^Talk 05:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete there is some sideways suggestion of a possibility of some form of implied culpability in the bio in question sourced to a Norwegian newspaper article, but... The description of the incident in the Jon Sudbø article suggests that none of his co-authors were fraudsters, so I see WP:BLP issues here. All the encycplopedic value related to this Bio is the fraud, and the fraud is more than adequately covered in the Jon Sudbø article, so I see no reason to keep this. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, I doubt that fraud implications this serious would rate only a mention in the Norwegian press. Here it's asserted that the co-authors are considered dupes. This is insufficient under WP:BLP. --Dhartung | Talk 10:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - BLP concerns, fraud claim appears to be doubtful. KnightLago (talk) 13:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dhartung Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dreamspy (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Please look at his bio at the NYU/Cornell website [141] The article merely needs to be expanded. He holds a named full professorship at the cornell medical school & is head of a major service there. 3 significant awards. I've added this to the article. That he was coauthor of a fraudulent paper, presumably as a dupe, is sourced adequately by The Scientist. I do not know on what base Pete concluded there is no other notability. "no more notable than the average professor of medicine" is hardly correct, as he's at the top rank at one of the top medical schools. I suspect nobody above has actually looked beyond the minimal information on the article--apparently not even in Google. DGG (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out from Web of Science he has over 200 articles, of which 27 have been cited over 100 times -- highest is 401. Even in the medical sciences, this is a remarkably strong record. DGG (talk) 18:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I considered whether the article just needed to be rewritten. I'm not questioning that he is a prominent researcher, but I know a lot of full professors of medicine at several big-name academic medical centers, and my sense is that academic rank alone isn't necessarily enough for notability per WP:PROF. The only secondary-source coverage deals with his connection to the Sudbo paper, but any discussion which highlights this episode does a disservice to his other academic work, which is prolific but low-profile beyond the medical community in which he works. That's where I thought BLP1E comes in - it's better to have no biography than one which implies, however unintentionally, that he is notable for his connection to the Sudbo paper. These are just my 2 cents, but just to provide some background for the nomination... MastCell ^Talk 18:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just added 3 third party references to his work. (just found a 4th, complete with a portrait). found them in Google. Agreed, they weren't on the 1st screen of results.... Care to withdraw your nomination? DGG (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm... I dunno. My major concern was the BLP1E aspect. I can live with the article notability-wise, particularly with the additional sources, so long as it doesn't turn into a WP:COATRACK or imply that his biggest claim to fame is that one of his coauthors committed scientific fraud on a paper. MastCell ^Talk 22:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. I've checked the Lancet website and he is listed as an author of a paper now retracted for "fabricated data", so there seems no BLP concern in mentioning that fact. As to whether or not he was an unknowing dupe, that seems best left unmentioned, unless there is strong evidence either way. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 18:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Weak) Keep. In addition to DGG's arguments, I think "Keep" because it is particularly difficult to find ways of merging the information about retracted papers into the research subject itself. I think there are BLP issues to consider though and the article should be extremely carefully sourced. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 19:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG comments. The citation rates are extremely high; he has significant awards and holds a named Chair position at one of the top medical schools. Clearly satisfies WP:PROF, so I do not think that this is a BLP1E case. The article does need some work in terms of balance, but it should be kept. Nsk92 (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep (changed from delete above) I still think the article may lack balance (sources in the Jon Sudbø article seem exculpatory wrt this person), but DGG is right about the fact that, aside from this BLP1E, he exceeds the standards usually required for keeping at Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Like Mscuthbert, I think the paragraph on the Lancet paper ought to be re-written a bit more carefully. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the comments by DGG, I believe that the earlier concerns have been quashed. (jarbarf) (talk) 17:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per welcome improvements by DGG and Richard Arthur Norton. --Dhartung | Talk 22:41, 27 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 Non-Admin Closure. Tiddly-Tom 09:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals to Reform Indian Governance Systems[edit]

I don't even know how to categorize this. It appears to be some manner of report on how to reform certain elements of Indian national or local government. Hard to say who generated it, or why that entity thinks it belongs here. Notability is not demonstrated or even asserted. Qworty (talk) 05:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as copyvio. Cut and paste of http://localgovernance.org/vivekumrao/amendments.html DarkAudit (talk) 05:45, 26 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. BLP doesn't apply, mainly the L part, sadly. The "one event" portion apparently doesn't either, as has become notable beyond his death (street naming), and it has been adequately sourced. There are "memorial" issues though, could use some cleanup to read less like an obituary, IMO. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zhe Zeng[edit]

Non-notable victim of 9/11. Jmlk 1 7 05:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, as normally I would cite WP:BIO1E, but having a street named in his honor I think pushes it toward lasting notability. hateless 09:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep as he was a volunteer first responder, not sure how many of those are in the victims list and how many first responder victims have articles tho. --Dhartung | Talk 10:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - whilst tragic, victims do not warrant articles on their own per WP:BLP1E Fritzpoll (talk) 14:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Delete He seemed like a really good person. Unfortunately, a lot of good people died that day, and I see no evidence why he should be singled out. The sources are largely memorials, something that Wikipedia is not. WP:BLP1E applies here. If the street named after him were notable, I might think otherwise, but it is not.--FreeKresge (talk) 16:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if he was any any other 9/11 victim I would say to delete it;BUT since he had a street named after him then I say to keep it, some government body decided to have him and his story memorialized.Callelinea (talk) 02:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep having a street named after him asserts some notability (more so than most other victims of 9/11). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Jmlk17. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

White fangs[edit]

It's pure cruft, but I can't tell what kind of cruft it is. All I know is that the Universe would be far better off without it. Qworty (talk) 05:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete It's not cruft, it's nonsense. DarkAudit (talk) 05:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy I'm not sure that this crosses over onto Patent Nonsense, but it is a sterling example of something that just ought to be speedied regardless. Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:56, 26 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 Speedily deleted as nonsense or even attack Dlohcierekim 12:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karon[edit]

Article appears to be nothing more than an example of what it's ostensibly talking about. I'm hoping an admin will come by and simply speedy this. But if the creator of this article wants to fight it out--as so many creators of this sort of stuff do--then I suppose this will be the place for it... Qworty (talk) 05:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as nonsense. Undeath (talk) 12:19, 26 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 Copyright violation. ~ Bigr Tex 06:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC) - Fixed by Tiddly-Tom 09:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tarrant Regional Water Disctrict[edit]

It's completely unreferenced. It's a textbook case of WP:COI. It's posted by someone at the company. It's spam. It's self-promotion. It's an advertisement. It looks like a cut-and-paste job. It might even be a copyvio. It should be gone. Qworty (talk) 05:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as spam. Tagged as spam. Author is User:TRWD. That explains a lot. DarkAudit (talk) 05:24, 26 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 g7, blanked by author. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alensa[edit]

It's an advertisement. It's spam. It's self-promotion. It's written by someone at the company. It's completely unreferenced. It's textbook WP:COI. It should be gone. Qworty (talk) 04:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. Speedy tag was removed by another editor. Articles like this, where the author's name is nearly identical to the only article they work on, is nearly always spam. There is little here to show that the article meets the standards of WP:CORP. DarkAudit (talk) 05:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spam/worthless. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spam --Starionwolf (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - irredeemable spam. Springnuts (talk) 10:43, 27 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. — Scientizzle 16:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RINET[edit]

Contest prod several days ago, non-notable organization. Was originally a spam article, tagged speedy on its second revision, but IPs removed the speedy tag. Also swarmed with COI edits. BoL (Talk) 04:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I don't think that the subject fails WP:NOTE. But shame on the authors for creating a blatant piece of advertising. They even refer to it as "our organization" within the article. To save the article, it would require serious attention from editors who are not involved with the subject organization. As it stands it is blatant WP:COI. (However, I am assuming that the creators had good intentions when they created the article.) --- Taroaldo (talk) 04:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I think this is a useful article. The charts make the article more useful. The article just needs references.--RyRy5 talk 05:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nuetral I read it over, and I didn't think that it really matched with WP:NOTE.—Preceding unsigned comment added by RyRy5 (talk • contribs)

Comment I doubt it. I remember placing the speedy tag on December, then they removed it without me realizing. Then I added another csd tag and the speedy was declined. Prodded it, and an IP contested it. Seems to be role accounts hurr, and here we are in the now times. So, I say delete. BoL (Talk) 05:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "It's useful" is one of those arguments to avoid. I'm more concerned about whether or not the article meets WP:ORG. By all appearences, it does not. The activities are not national or international in scope. The group's size and achievements are lacking. No verifiable information from reliable independent sources is provided. That's more important here than being "useful".—Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkAudit (talk • contribs)
Delete Not Notable, no references on article, page seems to copy the information from Rinet. Use of "Our organization’s strength" in second line leads me to believe it was created by RINET. AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was. I've took it up with one of the many SPAs that ran the article, presumed blocked. Will list IPs if requested. BoL (Talk) 01:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails notability requirements, improper tone belies COI ("our organization", etc). Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:11, 26 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:SNOW. Nick Dowling (talk) 06:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Evolution of Artistic Communities - One Example[edit]

Appears to be an essay piece in violation of WP:NOR. The general topic may be workable, but using "one example" in the title would appear to indicate that the article will be forever narrow in scope and unable to redeem itself from WP:OR. Taroaldo (talk) 04:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete essay, junk it. JuJube (talk) 04:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - totally non-encyclopedic content. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - essay and violates WP:OR. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 04:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Wow--where did you ever find this one? It looks like the assignment was "Log onto Wikipedia and just start typing about whatever you feel like typing about." Qworty (talk) 05:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a quick peruse through one page of Recent Changes the title caught my eye and it sounded so much like the title of a paper you might find in any social sciences undergrad class that I had to check it out. And sure enough.... Everyone should have to read and understand WP:NOT before being able to create an article. ;) --- Taroaldo (talk) 05:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:OR. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, gently. It sounds to me like the author of this piece knows something about Warrandyte, Victoria, and might be able to add productively to that article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:OR Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the essay. Possible origional research? --Starionwolf (talk) 01:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Almost certainly original research (at the least no sources are supplied) and not an encyclopaedia article. Perhaps suitable for userfying should the editor wish to try and have another shot at writing an article on the topic. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:22, 27 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 by Orangemike. Non-Admin Closure. Tiddly-Tom 09:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Needza Friend[edit]

"Paul Needza Friend is an American singer Songwriter. Who claims to have invented his own genre of acoustic, melodic punk rock. Very little is actually known about him. He has toured throughout the United States, Scandinavia & the Baltics of Europe."

Clearly Non-Notable nonsense. Couchie (talk) 03:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7, so tagged. Not quite nonsensical, but still utterly lacking in notability; fails all criterion of WP:MUSIC and doesn't even assert any possible notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Given the lofty claim, it's either a self-aggrandizing WP:NEO issue or WP:HOAX. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 04:43, 26 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. — Scientizzle 15:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Kelpfish[edit]

Non-notable student flat. First reference only confirms that students live in North Dunedin, no references to notable former residents. Also, Notability is not inherited. dramatic (talk) 03:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.
Delete - Agree with the nominator. I can't find anything that makes me feel as though this complex meets WP:NOTE. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 04:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article doesn't meet with WP:NOTE. Some parts are good but overall, its not very good.--RyRy5 talk 05:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that a few famous people have lived there at various times doesn't make it notable, and it has no other claim to fame. --Helenalex (talk) 09:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with above. No assertion of notability Think outside the box 19:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a user called snowcam entered their thoughts in favour of the article on the article's discussion page and found a much improved reference. He has since added it to the article. It describes how dunedin flats acquire legendary status and specifically names Clyde Street in the top five of Dunedin's most infamous student streets.— Reddo5000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment That article might be a good reference for a section of Dunedin or Otago University, but it doesn't verify that the kelpfish exists.dramatic (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment snowcam's only 2 edits to date are to this article, after it was tagged for deletion. XLerate (talk) 08:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. --Starionwolf (talk) 01:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep And why the hell not! And what happened to my page about my dog Fluffy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.15.223 (talk) 12:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable, not mentioned in the Listener reference, Michael Cullen studied at Canterbury not Otago. The only thing distinguishing it from the hundreds of other similiar flats in the area is a sign above the door. XLerate (talk) 08:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The Kelpfish certainly does exist, but it's utterly non-notable. If articles on halls of residence are borderline deletes (as has been shown here frequently), then articles on individual student flats are 100 times as deletable. Do we really want articles on all the dozens of named student flats in the North End? If so, I can come up with the names of a large number significantly more notable than The Kelpfish (Pink Flat - The Door; Toad Works; The Pink Pussy; Narnia Flat; Footrot Flat; etc etc etc). And Cullen was a lecturer at Otago, not a student there. Grutness...wha? 23:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. NN Dreamspy (talk) 20:52, 31 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. — Scientizzle 15:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wei Xi Fan[edit]

No evidence that this is a real soup has ever been forthcoming: cookbooks which allegedly mention this soup have not been named, Google results for the Pinyin "Wei Xi Fan" or the (apparent) Chinese characters has been entirely fruitless, and the article itself makes little mention of notability. nneonneo (talk) 02:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable per nomination. Could find no reference to notability on Google AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Probable hoax, unverifiable. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:12, 26 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 by Jimfbleak. Non-Admin Closure. Tiddly-Tom 09:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Busch Systems[edit]

PROD'd to allow author to establish notability. PROD tag removed and sources added. Sources do not establish notability or claims made in the article. I also couldn't find any reliable sources through a Google search. KnightLago (talk) 02:30, 26 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 23:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of dog fighting breeds[edit]

"This is a list of dog breeds originally developed for, or commonly used at some time in their history for dog fighting."

Nomination: This article name by itself is misleading and provocative by nature. It potencially allows to include about any given breed of dogs to the list and accordongly label it as "fighting breed". For example, Manchester Terrier and Bedlington Terrier are currently on the list. User:Afru

Keep - This article is a list, which is allowed at Wikipedia Category:Lists. Any breed on the list should have a citation for dog fighting in the breeds article. References in the list are not required as they are in the article. This list is relevant and adds context to Wikipedia and should stay. Chessy999 (talk) 23:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG Keep. Entries in the list are to be cited as having a history of dog fighting. It is not an indiscriminate list. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems like a very useful list.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 03:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 04:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This meets WP:LIST just fine. It's not indiscriminate and does not violate WP:NOT#DIRECTORY or any similar sub-guideline. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 04:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: is by its definition a discriminate list. And useful, too. If there's any concern about specific entries, tag them as needing sourcing that the breed was indeed for fighting. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To me, this can be a useful page.--RyRy5 talk 04:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it meet WP:LIST. KTC (talk) 10:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep though I personally prefer categories. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although it is, currently, an indiscriminate list, it's a valid topic with plenty of opportunities for improvement. Mandsford (talk) 21:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Quite discriminate actually. Chessy999 (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep only if sourced The topic is worthy, but the article is very bad in its current shape. All unsourced entries should be deleted, which, at present, is the entire list. Any sourced entry should remain.--FreeKresge (talk) 17:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The sources are located in the articles, where they should be located, not the list. Chessy999 (talk) 21:21, 27 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 Boldly redirected by User:Ohconfucius. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Annual observances in the United States[edit]

Redundant and the worse of two. See United States observance. The AFD nominee list includes random crap days that are not official observances and should be deleted. Jeff (talk) 01:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States observance, which contains much of the same info (and actually has a couple sources). No need for two pages. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirected per WP:BOLD: I believe this would be an uncontroversial redirect. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:29, 26 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 as a coyvio by Orangemike. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr A.J Khan (Sitara-e-Imtiaz)[edit]

Fails WP:ORG and WP:RS Fall en An gel 00:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:RS, ORG, basic grammar and spelling as well. Helixweb (talk) 01:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete this is a blatant copyright violation of this article Ohconfucius (talk) 02:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G12 per Ohconfucius' observation, clearly a copyvio from this site. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - copyvio per Ohconfucius. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 04:49, 26 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. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Society of Consultant Pharmacists Foundation[edit]

Fails Wikipedia:CORP, and WP:RS Fall en An gel 00:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G12 as copyvio of this, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I removed the copyvio stuff and ended up with a one sentence sub-stub for an organization whose presence I can't independently verify. This seems to fail WP:ORG. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck out my !vote for now and will wait for further comment; I still think it's thin on reliable sources, however. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Existence of the organization is easily verified. Medscape is quite reputable. — Epastore (talk) 00:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that re-stating an organization's mission statement is a copyright violation (perhaps it should be in quotes?). If it is, then the mission paragraph can be deleted without deleting the entire article. This organization runs a lot of programs, and should at least have some time as a stub to see if it can grow. — Epastore (talk) 00:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its not suppose to be a article at all then. Fall en An gel 00:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the copyrighted text, leaving a little bit of a stub. As I said, the article does deserve to be a stub... Please give it more than a few seconds to see if it can grow. — Epastore (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, WP:ORG. Fall en An gel 00:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least for now. I really do not understand why people leap to delete articles like this. It looks very much like an organisation that is notable, so it should be given a chance and not AfD'ed minutes after creation. Professional associations are generally notable. It needs to be expanded and sourced. --Bduke (talk) 01:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It was started due to WP:RS, WP:ORG and WP:COPYVIO. Fall en An gel 01:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Copyvio is only a deletion problem if all of it is a copyvio so nothing is left after removing it. Notability is not a reason for deletion if it is asserted and I think it was here. After a very short time all of your concerns have been addressed. --Bduke (talk) 01:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What? Like I said thats why it was started like that, it still doesent meet WP:RS WP:ORG standards. Fall en An gel 02:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As previously noted, reliable sources are plentiful. Among those thousands of search results, early results include articles about this organization on the websites of Medscape, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and American Foundation for the Blind. That seems to meet both standards. — Epastore (talk) 03:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 04:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it does seems to be notable in its field. Serious need for expansion though.... KTC (talk) 10:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with American Society of Consultant Pharmacists, which needs major POV editing on its own. Besides multitudes of distributed press releases, I see only a handful of references to the foundation/association. I would say the reason most of these orgs get tagged for deletion is because they present themselves as consumer champions instead of professional associations. Flowanda | Talk 20:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is a paucity of reliable sources - All I see are primary references. This doesn't meet WP:CORP so it fails notability guidelines. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 20:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would also suggest taking a look at Consultant pharmacist, which seems completely written according to this association's marketing objectives. Flowanda | Talk 20:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, spam. Blast Ulna (talk) 03:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As not notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4 plus WP:SALTed. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 16:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another Anime Convention[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[142] and [143] demonstrates a complete lack of notability. I can't find any significant coverage in reliable published sources documenting this convention. I'm just seeing blogspot and primary, closely linked sources. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 00:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 00:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 00:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not assert notability as a con at all; no reliable sources could be found. Might need a dose of salt too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as twice recreated deleted article that still asserts no notability. Agree with the need for a little salting as well. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thrice KTC (talk) 10:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and Salt. Reasons as noted above. --- Taroaldo (talk) 07:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G4 and salt as per above. KTC (talk) 10:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find any news sources. Convention has only been running for two years, only sources in the article are the con-website and a con-report, has not had more than 1000 people in attendance. All these things would qualify the con as "under the radar" and non-notable. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 12:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt per above. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as recreated, and salt to prevent further reiterations: It failed, it failed again, and now it's failing a third time. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:09, 26 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 by Orangemike. Non-Admin Closure. Tiddly-Tom 09:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UCC Clubs Executive[edit]

Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:ORG. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 00:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Fall en An gel 00:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A7. no assertion of notability for a club. Author removed AfD tag without comment, restored. DarkAudit (talk) 00:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Author is continually blanking both the article and their talk page. DarkAudit (talk) 01:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of notability. JJL (talk) 02:10, 26 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 A7 by user:DJ Clayworth, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Information Sports Network[edit]

Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:CORP. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 00:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, should be a speedy delete. Fall en An gel 00:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nomination there isnt even enough to really call this an article. AlbinoFerret (talk) 00:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, A7 - notability not asserted. – ukexpat (talk) 03:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and tagged it as such Fritzpoll (talk) 14:21, 26 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. Wizardman 15:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quench Zine[edit]

Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 00:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real claim in article of meeting WP:N; first several pages of non-wiki ghits aren't showing a whiff of notability. WP:COI issues don't help the case.--Fabrictramp (talk) 00:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't appear that there are refs good enough to meet WP:N. There is a single source on the page, but it's not third party. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Also: "Tagging anything other than attack pages or complete nonsense a minute after creation is not constructive and only serves to annoy the page author." please do not bite the newcomers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.43.159 (talk • contribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 04:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is no policy or guideline that prevents users from tagging an article for deletion due to "time" if it clearly fits the criteria. A1, A3 and A7 at WP:CSD for example. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 04:52, 26 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 G10 (for the 2nd time) by User:Gogo Dodo just as AfD opened. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The crap pack[edit]

Delete: Fails WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 00:21, 26 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 23:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evelina M. Goulart (schooner)[edit]

Notability not asserted, no references. ukexpat (talk) 00:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As one of seven schooners remaining from the thousands constructed in Essex during the heyday of sail, the Evelina M. Goulart, her location and status, are definitely of interest to those interested in this topic. I was not, however, able to find further information than what was offered at the website of the museum restoring the ship. Presumably more information does exist. Meanwhile, I'm of the opinion that the article should continue to exist as a stub; virtually any history of Essex shipbuilding or of the ships it produced mentions that only seven of these schooners remain. It would be worthwhile for wikipedia to have up-to-date, accessible information on all seven, especially since this information is difficult to find elsewhere on the web.Fullobeans (talk) 00:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References are a little thin on the article, but there are many Google News Articles on the ship. Fosnez (talk) 09:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per wp:ships, a majority of ships are notable; this one included. I urge expansion of this article. --Brad (talk) 01:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Noteworthy as a survivor with lots of press coverage. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A vessel being preserved as a heritage ship is undoubtedly notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:57, 28 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 speedily deleted. If it's been speedily deleted several times already, chances are that it isn't getting any more notable. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 03:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elysium band[edit]

Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:MUSIC. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 00:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. Already tagged. --On the other side ^Contribs|@ 00:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources to establish notability, and doesn't make anything at WP:BAND. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy NN myspace band , no references. It has been speedied as Elysium (band) and, as Elysium (Band) four times already.— Ѕandahl 00:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Should this page be salted in all spellings? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Something with latent potential for notability (i.e, musical groups) should never be salted. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As much as I disagree with Celarnor's reasoning (heavy disruption warrants salting; it's easy to undue salting should they become notable), I'm not sure these should be salted. The editor really seems like he's making a misguided effort to create an article on the band and we're potentially biting the newbie without telling him what he's done wrong until we've bitten. I think he'll stop. If he doesn't, we can always go back and salt. Redfarmer (talk) 01:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is it easy to undo salting? The editor in question has to put up a request to have it unsalted. Newbies aren't going to do that, it's too complicated; they're simply going to say "Oh, apparently Wikipedia doesn't allow articles on this band" and go back to myspace. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remember what we tell people in warning templates regarding autobiographies? If it's notable, someone will write on it. That means there's going to be someone who is willing to take it to deletion review. Also, if we start excluding anything with the slightest possibility of becoming notable in the future, we're excluding almost everything except for nonsense titles (a.k.a. "Create a new page here". Salting becomes useless. Redfarmer (talk) 01:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I now have a new red link (like this one) to link to for no reason other than a lame attempt to be funny. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. First, thinking "Oh, it's okay; if we break this page so it can't be edited ever, someone will eventually challenge it in the proper place" is a bad assumption to make. Secondly, bands are a somewhat special case, with relatively relaxed guidelines. It's easy to become a notable band here. All you have to do is get a few records out; they can be even under a relatively notable indie label. It's not as hard as it is to establish notability for a biography or an organization. In keeping with our philosophy as a wiki that anyone should edit, we shouldn't be going around pages throwing salt down on anything that gets deleted a few times. It's bad form, and makes it very difficult for those who don't understand what DRV and AfD is. Personally, I think salt should be applied only in cases of extreme vandalism on a non-notable topic, or in cases where an article will never, ever be allowed for creation, such as Daniel Brandt. Anything else detracts too much from the wiki philosophy and doesn't allow people to go about their business without a knowledge of Wikipedia's machinations like our first rule states we should be able to. Also, delete as not-notable.Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:06, 26 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. Wizardman 15:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters from Epic Movie[edit]

AfDs for this article:

A previous deletion debate decided to delete the article, but it was not deleted. I am aiming to rectify this error by having the articl be deleted. Jedravent (talk) 00:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Epic Movie, then delete redirect per closure of previous AfD. I'd add the link above if I knew how. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC) --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant with the main article. JJL (talk) 02:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete it's just one movie with just a few major chracters, delete the page but merge with the Epic Movie page itself. --Shaggy9872004 (talk) 05:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per JJL. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep or merge and redirect without deleting per Wikipedia:Lists and the GFDL. Memorable movie with memorable and verifiable characters. A list is a fair compromise rather than having articles on individual characters. We cannot delete and redirect per the GFDL. If we merge or redirect, we must keep the article's contribution history as was agreed per consensus on the matter in a recent AN thread. Thus, in a worst case scenario for an article like this one, we would redirect without deleting. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Duplicated material. There is no right in GFDL or "lists" or anywhere else that permits duplicating entries. The cultural standing of the film itself is low and sinking fast, but that's not germane to the discussion: the characters are already in the main article, unless we want to start naming all the barbarians turned to cardboard at the end. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 17:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - could meet WP:LIST. However, it is better to merge into the relevant parent article. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 17:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Overly detailed list of mostly minor characters from a parody film. DCEdwards1966 (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But there's no benefit to our project our goal of cataloging human knowledge by doing so. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That may be your goal, but I'm pretty sure that isn't the goal of Wikipedia. DCEdwards1966 (talk) 23:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is the goal of the project's founder Jimmy Wales, who said, "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." Thus, I am certain that it is the goal of Wikipedia. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and don't merge per WP:NOT#PLOT. Excessive plot summary of characters from a single film, with no independent notability. Anything relevant is already covered in the main article. PC78 (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As it is obviously a legitimate search term, then we would redirect without deleting in the worst case. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Even if it is a legitimate search term (and I don't believe it is), that would be no obstacle to deletion. "Delete and redirect" is a common outcome at AfD. PC78 (talk) 12:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Everything that is a legitime search term must be redirected as is the case here (deletion, which removes editors' contribution history as well, is only a last-resort used for hoaxes, libel, and copy vios). Otherwise, we keep and redirect when an obvious redirect exists, i.e. the Epic Movie article. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - If there is no content to merge, as is the case here, then we are free to delete. Anyone searching for information about the film is likely to head straight to Epic Movie, so I see little value in maintaining a redirect. PC78 (talk) 00:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The fact that someone created the article, which others edited and which still others have come to an AfD for is decisive proof that a redirect does indeed have some value and that editors and readers are indeed likely to search for a List of characters from Epic Movie. Therefore, there is no productive or worthwhile advantage for our project in not at least redirecting the article without deleting it. If nothing else, it least allows good faith editors' contributions to remain visible to the public. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and don't merge per PC78. --Starionwolf (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see here. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. If only I could regain the moments of my life back lost watching this horrible film. (jarbarf) (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Personal dislike of the film is not grounds for deletion of articles about it. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:37, 27 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 under G3 as a hoax article. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spontaneous Colon Realignment[edit]

Delete: Hoax. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Qualifies for Speedy Delete and I have tagged it as thus. — scetoaux (T/C) 00:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - beat you to it :) Exxolon (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
lol — scetoaux (T/C) 00:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax, endorsing existing G3 tag on article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under G3 per above. Complete crap. Dunno' why there's a G1 sittin' on the page, though. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - it was added just after the AFD. Edits were only a minute apart, prob some kind of edit conflict.Exxolon (talk) 00:25, 26 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. Singu larity 05:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Ceppos[edit]

Ceppos was the original publisher of Dianetics and briefly a director of the orignal Dianetics Foundation. He apparently also had some involvement with gestalt therapy. Aside from that, the article is mostly not about him and not verifiable where it is.

Delete as unsourced. WillOakland (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unverifiable Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as is: The person's profile is high enough that a biography is potentially encyclopedic, but this is neither a biography nor encyclopedic. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't verify this person either. --Starionwolf (talk) 01:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete have found a few secondaries, but nothing that would establish notablility other than a WP:COAT Coffeepusher (talk) 02:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I misunderstood WP:COAT, I don't believe it has any bias...however it is a non notable subject who only helped publish with Hubbard once.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are some here-and-there references to him in books and news stories covering the early years of Scientology[144], but nothing notable. Any useful bits might be moved to History of Dianetics. AndroidCat (talk) 04:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as unsourced WP:OR, has been since November 2007. Also agree with AndroidCat (talk · contribs) re: coverage in sources, if there is any potential info to be kept, History of Dianetics sounds like the best place to put it (though it'd have to be sourced to WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources, and not simply a paste from this unsourced article). Cirt (talk) 11:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable and unsourced, even though story is interesting.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 13:12, 29 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. Singu larity 05:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shiny revolution[edit]

Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 00:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pass the sick bag, Alice... Colonel Warden (talk) 00:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fall en An gel 00:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Some dude's comic book: no evidence that it is published, popular, or influential. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 17:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find no WP:RS for this, and therefore this is a failure of WP:NOTE. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 17:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for manga ideas someone created one day. And what the hell is "anime manga"? --Farix (Talk) 20:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, "anime manga" is a manga made using stills from an anime; I've got the English anime manga volumes for Spirited Away, and have seen them for other Studio Ghibli stuff. This, however, seems to be a different use. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poking about the intarwebs, I've picked up that this is an as-yet unpublished (or possibly self-published, though I've yet to find ordering info, or indeed any attribution of authorship that isn't a handle) comic book with an anime/manga influenced style. No reviews or other reliable sources to indicate notability. If the author (who claims to be 14) ever gets this published and it gets notice -- and I wish her/him luck -- then no prejudice on recreating the article; until then, though, delete as failing the notability requirement for books. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, no references or links --Starionwolf (talk) 01:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, plus I would argue that this entire proceding should be deleted from the anime/manga project afd page as this is an american comic and is neither anime nor manga by definition. 208.245.87.2 (talk) 15:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where would OEL manga be filed, then? Just curious. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, nothing verifiable to support the article. (jarbarf) (talk) 17:05, 27 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 G3 by User:Aleta, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flowzieramaha[edit]

Delete: Falis WP:RS. No hint in google search [145]. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3 Reads like a hoax to me; I doubt that even a "little known" deity would turn up nothing in a search. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - A1 Doesn't present any kind of evidence as to what the significance of the article is. Zharmad (talk) 00:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean WP:CSD#A7, which doesn't apply to mythology or fiction. It doesn't make A1, 'cuz it says the subject is a god. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't appear verifiable. Besides that a Gsearch for the title is empty besides a wikipedia hit, searches for Alzeran god (36 hits, all where the words are unrelated) and Franhictor (empty) don't give anything useful. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:18, 26 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 with no !votes for deletion made. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nagy Habib[edit]

WP:PROD removed. For other reasons/info see other tags/templates on article. My reason to vote delete is because i think it lacks notability. TheProf | Talk 00:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is some notability [146][147][148] But the article needs lots of work. AlbinoFerret (talk) 00:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw -- Since i did not do a proper check. I've now found that the article is notable afterall. There is no need for further discussion IMO. TheProf | Talk 00:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Here and there its notable but needs work. Fall en An gel 00:50, 26 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. Wizardman 15:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kid Comedies[edit]

Poorly founded topic, OR, lack of encyclopedic tone or focus. FuriousFreddy (talk) 01:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete have no clue what the article's about, everything's all over the place. Insuffcient info/importance. And as per FuriousFreddy, lack of encyclopaedic tone/focus and structure. --Shaggy9872004 (talk) 05:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. While I admit the article is bad, it has potential, as things like this are generally sourceable. None of the reasons given, except OR, are reasons by themselves to delete an article. Random 89 05:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The content of the article (narrow) is inappropriate for the title (broad). Article not encyclopedic. There is a lot of personal opinion or WP:OR commentary, and the whole thing really doesn't make sense. --- Taroaldo (talk) 09:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of encyclopaedic tone, but most importantly OR concerns Fritzpoll (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Our Gang or History of cinema: There is nothing wrong with noting the brief vogue of knock-off Max Sennetts, but the name is OR and will fragment the discussion. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:03, 26 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. Singu larity 05:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Values[edit]

The phrase is an obvious neologism. Direct copy from a Conservapedia page. Article was prodded with six prod2's agreeing. Prod removed by anon editor Dipics (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong speedy/snow delete Blatantly POV original research; unsuitable for an encyclopedia. Jfire (talk) 17:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as blatantly POV and a non-notable neologism. Wikipedia is not for original research. Are we to include an article now on Doctor Values or Lawyer Values or Editor Values? Those are professions too, and I'm sure original research could be done using reliable sources to support an article on them, but Wikipedia does not publish original research. --Darkprincealain (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible delete. Plagiarised hate-filled rubbish from what is in effect a blog. A clear candidate for invoking WP:SNOW. Get rid of it! Snalwibma (talk) 18:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is evidence for every claim. Its well researched with lots of references. Open your minds. 86.45.208.101 (talk) 19:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The evidence is that this is a neologism. Even Conservapedia itself admits it [149]. While this might be acceptable to something like Conservapedia, it shouldn't be and isn't for an encyclopedia. Dipics (talk) 19:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually this is not well referenced. There are only two references. The first, an article on homeschooling which at no time mentions tertiary education or professor values. The second, also the "third", is web article repeating the results of an online survey. The survey may be the only credible reference depending on how well it was taken, and it dicussed political views of professors not "values". This, I feel, further indicates this is original research or even opinon and not of encyclopedic merit.Aiden Fisher (talk) 05:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — title is a neologism, content is POV. ... discospinster _talk 20:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the only reason, seemingly, it even remains on Conservapedia is because it seems to be one of a group of articles that are the pet projects of the owner of the site and/or sysops. Check the Conservapedia Talk Page. Most of the time, any time anyone actually asks for evidence, they get threatened, ignored, or more or less get told to find the evidence themselves. Zmidponk (talk) 21:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reference's don't support notability as none even use the term, much less meet the requirement of being about it. Original research and spurious claims, some of which are borderline BLP violations. Fails WP:OR, WP:NEO. Horrorshowj (talk) 23:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Starionwolf (talk) 01:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete The article violates, WP:NOT#OTHOUGHT, WP:NOT#SOAPBOX, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY, WP:NOR and probably a half dozen other policies you could find. Aiden Fisher (talk) 11:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, that the best neologism they could come up with? AnteaterZot (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Open your minds. 86.40.108.127 (talk) 22:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you like to elaborate and refute some of the above accusations? Guycalledryan (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, can't believe we're still sitting around discussing this. Guycalledryan (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete,Why is this being discussed? TheresaWilson (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, Its a load of rubbish and the only defender is a troll Whiskery (talk) 13:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously. However, the second paragraph, which actually has some legitimate statistics, could perhaps get some mention in another article covering academia in the US. This article, of course, is absolute tripe. -R. fiend (talk) 13:37, 29 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 Redirected by Mrschimpf (talk · contribs) to correct page (Non-admin closure). PeterSymonds | talk 22:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)))[reply]

2008 FIFA Club World Championship[edit]

Duplicates another existing article + wrong tournament name Garavello (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirected to 2008 FIFA Club World Cup, the proper name of the tournament and left this as a plausible typo redirect. Nate • (chatter) 22:14, 26 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.