The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G4. The article is almost completely the same as the version that was deleted by the last AfD. seresin | wasn't he just...? 02:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Wray's fourth studio album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

It is a recreation of a previosuly deleted page per Afd (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicole Wray's fourth studio album). As the page is not substantially identical to the version of the page that was deleted, it may not be deleted per CSD G4. It still fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:MUSIC for albums, besides having sources like myspace and youtube. Victao lopes (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Please tell me what is wrong with this article page before it gets deleted. Nicolefan (talk) 21:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom and original afd discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicole Wray's fourth studio album. Cloudz679 (talk) 22:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep unless you want me to place it under a new name.

• Comment: You mean, the page? OK, do it. Unless you rewrite it so it follow our guidelines, it will be deleted, just the same. Can't you just wait until the album is released? Btw, remember to sings your posts with ~~~~~ (four tildes). Victao lopes (talk) 22:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Yes, but before its deleted can you move it to my page, so i can experiment and reeditt the information. So when I make a change on the page, i contact you to see if it's okay to reveal. Nicolefan (talk) 01:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: You can create the page here (if it gets deleted). However, I still believe that before the album is released and asserts notability per WP:MUSIC, the page will be still a candidate for deletion. When the album is released, it may chart or receive major media exposure. Then, it may assert notability. Victao lopes (talk) 01:09, 5 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Dominguez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Despite being tagged more than once for notability, someone keeps removing that tag without adding material to establish notability. Per WP:NN and WP:BIO:

Self-promotion, autobiography, and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works should be someone else writing independently about the topic. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it. Otherwise, someone could give their own topic as much notability as they want by simply expounding on it outside of Wikipedia, which would defeat the purpose of the concept. Also, neutral sources should exist in order to guarantee a neutral article can be written — self-promotion is not neutral (obviously).

The "Selected filmography" isn't at all selected. It contains every role mentioned on IMDB, which itself isn't considered a reliable source. The problem with the roles on IMDB is that they were, with one exception, so trivial that the character didn't even have a name, just a description. The Nip/Tuck and the Judy's Got a Gun roles are both "Highschool student" on IMDB. The Stan credit is listed as "Party Guest." Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip is an "orderly." The Hell on Earth role was "student" while the Viva Laughlin role was "Hot Guy." There is no listing on the IMDB name page, or on the Journeyman page or subsequent episode pages, for this person to establish that he in fact appeared on the show. In fact, the only named role listed was in a now 6 year old appearance on Malcolm in the Middle, as "Brian".

Appearances in training videos and local television commercials are not notable and unverifiable. The YouTube videos for which he is supposedly "best known" are self-created and self-posted, while there is nothing beyond self-promoting websites mentioned in Google searches. A search conducted on the kidzbop website for the name "Ricky Dominguez" produces no results, even if that was sufficient to establish notability; any work done there appears to be uncredited voice work for webcast animation, if he appears there at all. These factors do not make notability, not by any stretch of the definition. Someone keeps adding in contact and agent information. This article exists as a promotional page for an unknown aspiring actor who, at this time, does not meet the criteria for notability. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No notability whatsoever; just a few minor apperances and self made YouTube apperances. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, fails WP:BIO, no major acting roles. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete An aspiring actor with a few credits to his name isn't notable. Pinkadelica (talk) 03:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable yet. Alberon (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• flaccid Keep ...oh give the kid a chance. --emerson7 19:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It's not our job to give the kid a chance. It's only our job to write articles about persons whose chance has been realized. It's kind of a "we report the news, we don't make it" thing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Although I nominated the article for deletion, I thought I should enter my opinion on the existence of the page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:32, 7 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. Some decent arguments for deletion, but the weight of consensus is to keep. An easier close now that the article has improved.--Kubigula (talk) 19:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One Wachovia Center (Charlotte, North Carolina) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete no indication that this building is notable, 3rd highest in a mid-sized city really doesn't cut it, and if kept it needs a major clean-up from what appears to be a phonetic attempt at Southern US English - "Refrance" for "Reference".... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Gets a lot of hits, but nothing seems to assert notability. It's just another office tower. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Mid size city! Charrlotte is one of the fastest growing cities in America. Also you are saying that B0ston, Seattle, and Washington are mid sized cities to (by city limits). It also has a bigger metro than Nashville. If the Wachovia Center in Winston-Salem at around 450ft deserves an article, why doesent this? Oh, and i fixed the Reference.Alaskan assassin (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I've looked and looked, and other than what appears to be a pretty minor award that doesn't appear to have anything to do with architecture, I see no sign of any particular notability. Even the property manager can't come up with anything to say in the that light, and if they can't who can? Mangoe (talk) 00:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I came across this when I was new change patrolling and AA had just started it...it started me on a voyage to attempt to make sense of the seemingly endless number of buildings/companies/sports arenas wich Wachovia in the name. I would suggest we keep it only to help people who are also trying to figure out what's what. I've tried to make sense of the various entries on WP here: Wachovia (disambiguation) Legotech·(t)·(c) 00:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Probably non-notable MalwareSmarts (talk) 01:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, third-tallest building in the 20th largest US city is a respectable claim to notability, I think. According to Emporis, it was the tallest in all of North Carolina for a few years. Zagalejo^^^ 04:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Though, if I'm reading this correctly, it used to be known as One First Union: [1] Zagalejo^^^ 05:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, "when it opened, One First Union was the tallest building in the Southeast"[2], presumably topping even Atlanta. (For historical reasons North Carolina and Charlotte have been banking centers.) --Dhartung | Talk 07:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No offense to those south of the Potomac, but I think "southeast" and even more so "North Carolina" are pretty small ponds to be big fish in. Acto our own listings it isn't even within the fifty tallest buildings within the country. Mangoe (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Being taller than any building in Atlanta or Miami (see links) is very significant and noteworthy. --Oakshade (talk) 00:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The tallest building in a large region is certainly notable, so it was notable in 1988, and once notable, always notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Was the tallest building in the entire region when it opened and for many years. Along with its former name, First Union Tower, it was the subject of multiple secondary sources [3][4] --Oakshade (talk) 23:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep At 700 000 in the city proper and well over 2 million in the metro, this is hardly a mid-size city. One of the tallest buildings in the area and in the Carolinas region, does mean that it has more notability.--JForget 02:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As a Charlotte-area resident, yeah, it's a neat building. But on the global scale of Wikipedia, it simply lacks the notability for the encyclopedia. Justin Eiler (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: notable as the third highest building in Charlotte, formerly the first highest building, in addition to being the world headquarters for the fourth largest bank in the United States. Major cleanup completed.
  --JKeene (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, this time as A7, non-notable bio, as has been done several times before. (see deletion log) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Brittain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A word of caution: I am an ignorant American, and I know absolutely nothing about soccer (or "football", if you will). I could be way off base here, but I don't think I am. The article smells hoaxy. I was unable to confirm his participation with any of these clubs, for example this search for his current club yields only one hit: this article. Being an ignorant American, I don't even know if these clubs are top level, minor league, little league or what. Please have a look and see what you think. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete G3 as hoax, so tagged. A search for him and his soccer football soccer sports team turned up nothing whatsoever. The author's name also suggests WP:COI. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:47, 4 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 as duplicate nomination. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-globalization and antisemitism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completing malformed nom for Sugaar (talk · contribs), who had previously tacked disussion onto the top of this AfD. User's rationale was as follows:

The whole article is an amalgamation of anecdotic, irrelevant, false and confusing material. It looks like blatant propaganda for most of its extension. It confuses icons accusing Israel of being Nazi with pro-Nazi ones, it casts anecdotes of some individuals apparent anti-semitism as something widespread, it begins with declarations of neonazi militants that make no sense, it confuses once and again anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, it casts ignorance as anti-semitic slur, etc. Overall it seems to have been created in bad faith, as nearly nothing in it is salvageable. The proponent: --Sugaar (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I am neutral on this article, and this is just a procedural nom on my part. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:37, 4 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 except signature updates.

The result was Keep. The trend generally seems to be swinging this way, and there is rough consensus that the article should be kept, considering its adequate sourcing, when contrasted with the length of the content, which to some extent diffuses the supposed issues of POV. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-globalization and antisemitism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Anti-globalization and antisemitism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) –

The whole article is an amalgamation of anecdotic, irrelevant, false and confusing material. It looks like blatant propaganda for most of its extension. It confuses icons accusing Israel of being Nazi with pro-Nazi ones, it casts anecdotes of some individuals apparent anti-semitism as something widespread, it begins with declarations of neonazi militants that make no sense, it confuses once and again anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, it casts ignorance as anti-semitic slur, etc. Overall it seems to have been created in bad faith, as nearly nothing in it is salvageable. The proponent: --Sugaar (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Correcting nomination, was attached to another AfD. I am not expressing an opinion on this discussion at this time. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I tried to fix it just as you fixed it too. Sorry for the confusion! Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmmmm The material is obviously valid; the name is perhaps questionable. I cannot address issues such as OR given that the article is too big for more than the most cursory reading. I would note that this article is three years old; one would think someone would have noticed the problem earlier. I would suggest that deletion is probably the wrong venue. Mangoe (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as being much ado about nothing - this smells like a coatrack article and seems to be placing undue weight on the issue. The article's text seems to confuse conservatives with globalists and basically states that a person who opposes globalisation and zionism is a anti-semite, which includes accusing at least one indivudal. --Nick Dowling (talk) 08:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This has been through the wringer before (2005 VFD, 2007 AFD (and what a confusing mess of AFD names we have now), but it hasn't really improved its balance or analysis. It's a vaguely-organized laundry list of alleged associations, but there isn't very much material to give context or rebuttal, or it isn't properly highlighted (for example, the lead is pretty one-sided). We must fix this. --Dhartung | Talk 08:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:SOAP. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This article is fundamentally problematic because it takes a variety of disparate comments and lumps them together under the rubric of "anti-globalization and antisemitism." That is a clear example of original research by synthesis. Any worthwhile material in the article can be incorporated into Antisemitism and New antisemitism, but this article in itself is simply soapboxing and is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. It should have been deleted long ago. *** Crotalus *** 15:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP. It shows certain voices in the cold light of day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.25.12 (talk) 01:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to a more user-friendly name Carter | Talk to me 16:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete: Per nom, it is WP:SOAP full of WP:SYN. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - While the article could be fixed up a bit, I strongly disagree that this is soapboxing. The growing acceptance of "unspoken" antisemitism in anti-globalization and leftist circles is something that has been noted by several scholars, including leftists such as Naomi Klein, and is the subject of much debate among academics. This isn't a nonissue being soapboxed through wikipedia. --Telecart (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Telecart expressed it well, it is a well sourced phenomenon noted by scholars. --MPerel 19:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• strong delete - this execrable article is an obvious bad-faith attempt to smear a particular group as "antisemitic". Clear violation of WP:SYN. What little there is of value in this article can be treated better in new antisemitism or antisemitism. NSH001 (talk) 21:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I will reconsider as soon as the 90% of WP articles which have way fewer sources and are terribly written are deleted/improved. Also, I would urge whomever closes to ignore the delete arguments that rely on variations of "Well, the people who are conflating AG and AS are wrong." They may well be, but these are not judgments we're supposed to be making. It's all about sources (and this article is quite nicely balanced on that score, I might add). IronDuke 23:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Good sources, well written, well-balanced. More than satisfies the requirements WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. Objections appear to be based on a misunderstanding of policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's definitely not a SYN violation as someone suggested. When I last checked, the sources specifically discussed anti-globalization and antisemitism. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Topic is very notable and article is well sourced. Yahel Guhan 02:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Anti-Zionism has a tendency of using anti-semitic iconography. I've recently read a book about this, which includes sections about people who support the anarchist anti-globalization movement, and am planning on adding this source into the article. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is a pretty obvious case. The phenomenon the article addresses is well documented among notable scholars and is discussed among an increasingly large percentage of the literate public. That ones favorite cause, anti-globalism, includes antisemitic themes may be viewed as unfortunate by some, but not the least bit surprising to the student of antisemitism. No reasonable basis has been brought forward for deletion that has not already been refuted. The article's compliance with WP policies is better than most. Regards,Doright (talk) 05:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Hmm. For five days, the discussion has very low traffic, and then within five hours, tons of "Keep" votes all flood in at once from participants with a particular POV — most of whom are friends on IRC, and one of whom has previously been caught running a secret, POV-pushing mailing list. I smell canvassing. *** Crotalus *** 05:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, nominator stated that this was placed in error (see this comment). Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furry fandom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia:NOT Vashir (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is an eight year old article, so WP:SNOW surely applies. Mangoe (talk) 22:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep - I'd be curious to know what part of WP:NOT this is supposed to go against. It's a verifiable, well referenced and long-standing article. There's no reason to delete. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep - Article is well documented, cites plenty of sources. Subject matter attracts more than enough interest from the general public to justify an article As Tony Fox asks, what part of WP:NOT finds this article lacking? This AfD nomination borders on being a misuse of process. --Mwalimu59 (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Furry keep Article is very well sourced. I would trust Tony Fox (talk · contribs)'s judgment here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Whoops Sorry, apparently the page didn't load completely, which led to me placing this AfD. Please keep then. --Vashir (talk) 23:29, 4 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, defaulting to Keep. Black Kite 23:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yuki Asuka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A Japanese porno actress. As a porno actress she doesn't appear to be particularly notable. The only potentially notable thing about her is having been arrested, which is not enough for being notable per notability guidelines for porno. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 22:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Dekkappai (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She may not be notable as a porno actress but she is notable per WP:V and WP:BLP with regards to this upi newspaper source I would recommend adding the original Yokohama Shinbun Japase newspaper source. Igor Berger (talk) 22:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's just one count of indecent exposure. We can't turn every petty criminal into a notable personality. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 22:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How many counts does a person need to have to be notable? Is the question not that the person should be notable per sources? Do they have to be a major porn star or an important law violator to be notable? We should apply WP:WEIGHT and get some commentary from WP:BLP project not just porn star project. What do you think?

• Delete Every petty criminal isn't notable. Mangoe (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think the nominator is correct that she is not extremely notable as a porn star (note, however, that she does appear in a video reviewed by AVN-- a U.S. publication that does not specialize in the Japanese industry.) It's her arrest, and its coverage that makes her notable. I don't think the "every petty criminal" argument holds water. Not "every petty criminal"'s arrest makes international news. This person's arrest highlighted an interesting and largely hidden aspect of the Japanese adult entertainment industry-- shooting videos in public for reactions from unsuspecting bystanders. That's why she made international news, and that's why she's notable. (Director Hisayasu Sato's Mibojin Hentai Jigoku made notable use of this technique, which, since it is illegal, is widely denied by the industry. See the All Movie Guide description[5]) Dekkappai (talk) 23:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with what you said. I have been living in Japan for 17 years now, and while in America such an incident would not make big news, in Japan it is a Taboo and against the law to be seen nude on a public street and that is why this made International news. Pretty much it is like Larry Flint and the Hustler magazine controversy made Japanese. I think even deleting it maybe against freedom of speach and a violation of First Amendment because this can be seen as a protest in Japanese society, but I am not sure. A lawyer needs to determine this. Igor Berger (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I wouldn't put much stock in AVN reviews as a reliable source to establish notability. AVN is not an independent reviewer of movies because they take in ads for the movies they review (and this includes the American distributors of Japanese movies). Besides the mention of Yuki is brief and not significant coverage under WP:Notability. As for the nude arrest, are there any more articles that are intellectually independent of the UPI article? Oh and Igor, the First Amendment applies to American government censorship, not wikipedia.Vinh1313 (talk) 02:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Dekkappai (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, she's notable for neither her pornographic appearances (per WP:BIO) nor her arrest (per WP:ONEEVENT). Jfire (talk) 23:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the rationale provided by Dekkappai. Once again I see that ONEEVENT is being misapplied. RFerreira (talk) 00:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep-notability is established as there is also an article at ja:結城明日香. Two languages means she's not a flash in the pan. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 02:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you show us the video evidence for examination? Just joking! Thanx for the Japanese link. Igor Berger (talk) 03:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Just a comment: Two and even more languages just means that hard-working and well-meaning editors translated the article. It is not by itself an indicator of notability. I do tend to agree with other interesting comments about the notability of public nudity in Japan. ---Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 05:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'd like to understand the damn thing before evaluating its chances. We now read that Yūki got in trouble for walking around Yokohama naked, and that she and Inoue also had filmed Shimizu walking naked through Chinatown. Yūki's birth name is Arisa Shimuzu [sic]. I'd guess that "Chinatown" refers to part of Yokohama. So who walked where, and who was arrested? Though even if this is sorted out it seems little more than a small news story at this point. Incidentally, photographing nude women in Japanese urban spaces (and exhibiting the results) has a history that's at least 49 years old. -- Hoary (talk) 04:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Looks like so, but he did not get arrested for that, it just caused quite a stir. Being arested in Japan for nudity in a public place is big news, and it goes internationally. Going against Japanese hivethink is turbulent and discrespectful to the society. Maybe you have heard a saying in Japan, if a nail is sticking out of a plank of wood hammer it in to be equal with others. So naked AVI shoot in Yokohama Chinatown is very big news. I would not be supprised if it hit prime time telivision like NHK and Asahi TV. Anyone who knows how to write Japanese, which I do not, do a search for the article story in Google Japan and see what you get. Igor Berger (talk) 04:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Igor, you seem to be both confidently asserting that this was big news and implying that you don't actually know if it was big news. Offhand, I don't know: I'll happily google for it but not as long as I'm using a work computer. And if it is notable then I don't see why it's more significant for Yūki/Yuki/Shimizu/Shimuzu than for Inoue, and anyway WP:ONEEVENT kicks in. Meanwhile, it seems as if the whole article is taken from this short and slapdash UPI story, complete with typo (though I'm not alleging a copyvio). -- Hoary (talk) 06:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  What I am recommending that someone who reads Japanese should Google this in Google Japan, and see if there was a big news in Japanese media about this event. Although this was one event there might have been over actions by association that have not been brought to light yet. After 17 years in Japan I speak Japanese but unfortunately cannot read it. But would not one event rule apply to a certain news story that has no follow up or consequences? For example a metiorite falls in Peru has an article even it is one event, 2007_Peruvian_meteorite_event! I mean I hope they do not have metiorites falling down on them every year. Why does it have an article? Could it be atributed to that the local people got sick from exposure to toxic fumes, those implying cause and effect. So, a follow up from that event. I think the naked in public place arrest is more than one event scenario. Igor Berger (talk) 07:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, I'll try to google for it later, unless somebody beats me to it. This meteorite seems to have made a big crater, and in some way made hundreds of people ill (or possibly induced quasi-hysteria and imagined illness in hundreds of people); somehow I'd have thought that this was more significant than having an actress get her tits out in a Yokohama street (much though I'd have loved to have had a close view the latter when younger and hornier). Or perhaps you're suggesting an article on the history of erotic events and pseudo-events in Japan; my only contribution to that would be a link to the Kijima article (which needs sourcing for its vague assertion of a moral panic). -- Hoary (talk) 07:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Well let's give the actress her WP:DUE. I grant she is not Larry Flynt but then who can match him! Igor Berger (talk) 10:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Her and her arrest: mostly blogs, chitchat, and the occasional little paragraph in some peripheral news source (example). Her, her arrest, and newspaper: just more of the same. Asahi Shinbun doesn't seem to have heard of her. -- Hoary (talk) 15:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment According to journalist and Swedish Tokyo correspondent, Kjell Fornander, five to ten videos are made in the average AV career.[6] Asuka, according to the news article on the arrest, had starred in about 100 at that time. So, by real-world (though, notably, not Wikipedian) standards, she is notable even within the AV field. I don't think public nude photography has been claimed as Ms. Asuka's unique contribution to Japanese society. In fact it's a fairly common sub-genre of the AV industry. But because of its illegality, its existence is routinely denied by the industry. Ms. Asuka's being caught in the act by cell-phone camera is what is notable, and what made international news. Also, I don't think blaming Ms. Asuka for the Yūki/Yuki and Shimizu/Shimuzu mix-ups resulting from Japanese/Wiki orthography and newspaper typos casts any more doubts on her notability than the same would for Toshiro/Toshirō Mifune. Dekkappai (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dekkappai (and I always love that username), the last part of what you write is some kind of response to something that I wrote. You are of course under no obligation to come up with what I think would be a better response, but I warmly invite you to do so. You clearly think that the article about Yūki/Shimizu is worth preserving (and, presumably, improving). I haven't yet decided if I agree with you, but even if I don't I respect your point of view. However, I'm mystified by what seems to be an imbalance of energies here. Whatever the merits of an article on her, the article as it stands now is awful. Couldn't you -- or somebody else who's written rather energetically on behalf of there being an article -- at least remove the contradictions (real and apparent) that still plague the very first paragraph? -- Hoary (talk) 04:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree the article reads like an advert for the AV model. Should be written more in encyclopedic style and texture. Igor Berger (talk) 05:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I apologize if I sounded a bit sarcastic up there, Hoary. I've seen your input at other AfDs, and do respect your obvious knowledge and opinions also. The typos/inconsistencies you point out can be easily fixed, and I'll do what I can right now. The state of the article as a whole is pretty poor, obviously, I'll see if I can do something about it later on today when I'm free to do this manner of research. (Oh, about the, ahem, username. It started out as a one-edit/one-article joke, and I'm stuck with it. I've had thoughts about changing it, but it seems to suit me so well... Glad you approve. :) Dekkappai (talk) 17:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, no sarcasm at all, and nothing to apologize about. For my part, I'm sorry; I'd wrongly assumed that you could read Japanese fairly easily: of course if you can't then it's not so easy to improve on the present mess of an article. -- Hoary (talk) 02:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • My Japanese is pretty hit & miss, picked up by close proximity with Japanese speakers as a child, my own non-academic reading & studying, and visiting the country a few times when I lived in Korea for a few years. (During which time the Korean language supplanted most of my knowledge of Japanese.) Apology, or non-apology, accepted or not, as appropriate. Dekkappai (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Is it proper to Move an article in the midst of AfD discussion? I think the article should more properly be titled "Asuka Yūki". Dekkappai (talk) 17:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:MOS-JP, the English Wikipedia should use Western name order. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, and I believe the Western order would be "Asuka Yūki". Dekkappai (talk) 00:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last time I looked, it wasn't appropriate to move during an AfD, no. I must regretfully concede that yes, MoS-ja has an intercoursing stupid rule by which the names of Japanese people born after 1867 must be put back to front, in order not to frighten the horses or whatever. And yes, this even applies to the noms de guerre of hotties, leading to such nonsense as "Sora Aoi" (cf "Twain Mark", not that he was a hottie or anything). -- Hoary (talk) 04:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right-- Rampo Edogawa is another name that suffers more than usual under this rule. Dekkappai (talk) 23:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Another Question ***WARNING*** The following links are not work-safe! At THIS site (biglobe.av-channel.com), I've found Asuka Yūki (結城明日香) in their top-ten rankings for several weeks. HERE, for example, she is in the #1 position (1位 結城明日香) (look at the listings on the left). All the "Week" headings give the current week, however. My Japanese is far from good, does anyone know how to make better sense of this? Dekkappai (talk) 22:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know, but I can confirm that yes, according to this site she is this week's number one. And a look at her page tells me that she's welcome to stroll along the street outside my house any time. Though I'd ask her not to invite a media circus when she does so. -- Hoary (talk) 02:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• On balance, keep. She may just be a flash in the pan (I haven't investigated), but anyway she's at least one week's flash in the pan. And let's not pan flesh. -- Hoary (talk) 02:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So that's a keep per WP:HOTTIE? :) Jfire (talk) 02:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You betcha. -- Hoary (talk) 02:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Should we not examine the videos to see how HOT she is..:) Igor Berger (talk) 03:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ahem. In a subject as serious as this, I'd hoped we could avoid playing the WP:HOTTIE card. But there it is, and there's no denying it. :) Dekkappai (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Looks like she gets to stay! Anyway, for now, she maybe deleted later, if she stops being HOT. Igor Berger (talk) 04:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Would almost be notable by her pornographic work. Her arrest appears to push her over the edge to reasonable notability per WP:BIO. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:45, 11 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 noted, relevant material appears to already exist at Australian English, so no merge is necessary. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Varieties of Australian English (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is largely OR - reference to the three categories can be restricted to Australian English. StAnselm (talk) 22:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (talk) 03:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - surely this doesn't need to come to AfD if a merge is all that is being asked for. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Smerge into Australian English#Varieties of Australian English, which is much better sourced and tighter overall. There may be a few salvageable points here, but mainly just redirect to the better-written version. --Dhartung | Talk 08:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, would suggest a merge to [[Australian English, but all the salient points already appear to be there. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete - and salvage anything that can be put into Australian English SatuSuro 07:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - and roll any unique information into Australian English. Sadly this article has no references so there's really little defense that can be offered. Phrases like "Most linguists consider..." sound like weasel words. Format (talk) 18:20, 9 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 except signature updates.

The result was delete. Much of this content is duplicated at The Saint of Dragons in any event.--Kubigula (talk) 02:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dragons (Saint of Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An article about dragons in a fantasy novel does not meet notability standards. —BradV 21:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: An article about Tolkein's dragons probably could meet notability standards. There is nothing inherently non-notable about topic, if scholars and critics have written about. Perhaps you meant to say "This article ... "? —Quasirandom (talk) 22:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, condense, merge. Appears to belong in the article about the book. Although it is true that some notable characters within notable books by highly notable authors have warrented articles of their own, I don't think this author is on par with Tolkein. It also seems that the this article may go too far in its over-descriptiveness of elements in the book. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 07:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Can't say I disagree... —Quasirandom (talk) 02:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability of these fictional creatures.--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Gavin Collins. Doctorfluffy (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per above. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 02:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Death dog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Dungeons & Dragons monster of questionable notability. Article implies that it has been copied in several other fictional universes- if this could be confirmed, there may be a case for keeping the article, though it is possibly original research. No evidence of third party coverage. J Milburn (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 23:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Also, I notice there is very little information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MalwareSmarts (talk • contribs) 01:53, 5 March 2008
• Delete — non-notable. Unsourced. Mention in a list. March is D&D Spring Cleaning Month; you can help. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. Belongs in a list; is not notable in of itself. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 07:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No secondary sources, no sourced assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per above. Doesn't seem to have any relevance outside D&D. --Minimaki (talk) 14:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Eliv? -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L13 ½-Raichu Soulknife)} 18:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 05:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Connexion.org (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:Notability. May be notable, however, I can't find anything on the web which would suggest notability via independent reviews other than blogs and the like. Pgagnon999 (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep The site does appear to be notable and has had some coverage in LGBT publications, but it hasn't been covered in the mainstream press as extensively as other social networking sites such as Myspace or Facebook. Dgf32 (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note I'd reverse if those sources are put forward and are shown to be significant within that community. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the comments on Connexion.org. Whether that page is significant probably depends on whether you regard the activities of Tim Gill (which would be me) to be significant. I'm still adding citations and such. And since this is the first page I've ever done it's going slowly. For all I know, I'm not sending this message properly either. Nottim (talk) 22:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tim, although you may be notable, with regard to Wikipedia, notability is not inherited. The software must be notable in of itself. Also note (you seem like a nice enough contributer, so don't take this the wrong way) it might be worthwhile to read WP:Conflict of interest. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 23:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - not notable. Just an ad for yet another social networking site. Bardcom (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.  – ukexpat (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Planetouched. I have redirected the article, knowledgeable editors are encouraged to merge relevant information. seresin | wasn't he just...? 05:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tanarukk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable Dungeons & Dragons monster. Setting specific, but is of only minor significance within the setting as a whole. May deserve a mention when discussing orcs or Tenar'ri (especially when discussing them in the context of the Forgotton Realms). No evidence of third party coverage. J Milburn (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Planetouched. Powers ^T 22:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Planetouched. BOZ (talk) 23:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 04:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — non-notable. Already adequately covered at Planetouched. March is D&D Spring Cleaning Month; you can help. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 09:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is just one of thousands of non-notable stock characters with no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside D&D canon. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, it's a fictional species, not a stock character. Powers ^T 03:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  It's a copy and pasted reason for deletion, so forgive Gavin if it doesn't make sense for the particular topic it's being used for, as it's been used on quite a few AFDs lately.Shemeska (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment In the fantasy world of D&D it may be classed as a fictional species, but in the real world, its actually a stock character. Which stock character are you? --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The stats for a level one warrior Tanarukk are the stats for a stock character, the Tanarukk race itself is no more a stock character than the Klingon race. J Milburn (talk) 10:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Uh, no, in the fantasy world of D&D it's a real species. In the real world it's a fictional species. Powers ^T 16:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, so it's a fictional real species, not a real fictional species. Glad we have that sorted. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  A real fictional species would be the Pacific Northwest tree octopus. J Milburn (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not even remotely what I said. Powers ^T 21:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Planetouched as per BOZ.Shemeska (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — non-notable. shadzar-talk 21:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - just because it's in Monstrous Compendium doesn't make it notable for Wikipedia. --John Nagle (talk) 19:56, 11 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. The artist names--"Lightningfinger Brown" and "Thunderhawk Janzen" + the fact that the review links pointing to a completely different article=an obvious hoax. Blueboy96 22:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Countdown (T-Minus Now! Album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Album by band deleted as NN album/hoax in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T-Minus Now!. Cannot find references to prove it even exists. Prod removed by IP without comment. Hut 8.5 21:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't meet WP:MUSIC notability criteria. Tempshill (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kunal_Pradhan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Content not suitable for an encyclopedia. The said author is not well known and certainly not a "leading writer". Naon34561 (talk) 08:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Only hits from reliable sources are articles written by him, not articles about him [7]. Subtracting out "by Kunal Pradhan" from the GNews hits leaves merely 14 articles, of which over half aren't even for the same person [8]. cab (talk) 08:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 08:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - lacks secondary sources to support a position as a notable columnist. TerriersFan (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not at all famous. Tintin 13:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge. I have redirected the page, knowledgeable editors are encouraged to merge relevant information. seresin | wasn't he just...? 05:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thoul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Dungeons & Dragons monster with no evidence of notability. No reliable third party sources provided, and monster is of minimal importance within the (current) game. To be fair, it appears to be more a part of a version and setting with which I am less familiar, so an argument could potentially be made for this article to be kept. J Milburn (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Troll (Dungeons & Dragons)#Related creatures, where they are already mentioned. BOZ (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per BOZ. -Sean Curtin (talk) 00:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 04:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — non-notable. Already adequately covered at Troll (Dungeons & Dragons)#Related creatures. March is D&D Spring Cleaning Month; you can help. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per BOZ. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nomination. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 13:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 16:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside D&D canon. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Minor component of fictional work, or Just Another Monster. --John Nagle (talk) 19:58, 11 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. faithless (^speak) 05:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hespeler Baptist Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

100+ year old church with no evidence of notability and ghits are limited to directory type listings. Per WP: CORP, local orgs need RS coverage, this one doesn't have any. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 21:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Hardly any notability to speak of. Almost G11-able in my book. Blueboy96 22:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleteor cite sources I would say delete, but I'm fine with keeping it as long as you cite your sources. Signed, Nothing444 23:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or delete for a different reason Its real, I added an external link. The only thing I would worry about is Notability. Signed, Nothing444 23:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment No question it exists, but there's no evidence it's notable. The church's own website does not establish notability per WP:RS, WP:N TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:ORG. Most individual churches are non-notable. The article's only sources are the church's own web site and one of its publications. A Google search indicates that significant coverage of this church in independent reliable sources is hard to find. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No notability. Not even any evidence of being a historic structure, which could make this notable. Nyttend (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have cited all the works I have quoted, other then that, I'm just going off what I know about the church. The church has done a lot of great work in peoples lives. While the building itself is not too old, the original building still stands, about two blocks away, and is now owned by the salvation army. If someone doesn't want a specific church article, let me know, and maybe I will right a big article with other churches, including this church.(I will just copy paste this article, into the big article, and right up about some other baptist churches in cambridge.)The article also has notability. Go to the official website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul the dud (talk • contribs)
  • Comment none of which, unfortunately, meet notability standards. Existing!notability TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 20:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Currently checking with city to see if original building is historic site-Paul the dud
• Delete - I regret that it is necessary to delete churches so regularly, but few are truely notable. See current guidelines on this. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Landwyrm (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable spinoff of a dragon within the Dungeons & Dragons universe, introduced in a book about dragons and barely mentioned since. No evidence of third party coverage. May deserve a mention when discussing dragons. J Milburn (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — non-notable. Mention in a list. March is D&D Spring Cleaning Month; you can help. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons) Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons). BOZ (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is just one of thousands of non-notable stock characters with no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside D&D canon. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — non-notable. a wingless dragon is just a big lizard. shadzar-talk 21:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• *Delete as non-notable. Minor component of fictional work. Not even a very interesting monster. --John Nagle (talk) 19:59, 11 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, a merge request does not fall under the purview of AFD, use WP:MERGE instead.

Version Targeting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

First, "Version targeting" is a fairly vague term that could apply to any piece of software that implements this kind of behavior. Second, Microsoft relented and will be making IE8 default to the highest level of standards support it is capable of, so version targeting is not nearly so big an issue any more. Third, though the article presents more-or-less factually correct background information, no references are provided to back it up.

I suggest deleting this article entirely, and putting a rewritten, carefully referenced summary of the issue into the Internet Explorer 8 article if desired. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 21:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering Microsoft's turnaround, I have no objection to merging/rewriting the content of this article into the IE8 article. dimo414 (talk) 22:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC) (Article Creator)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 11:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HillSide Quest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

RS coverage is false positives and ghits barely confirm existence, let alone notability for this game. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 20:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - a random net-based video game is not notable simply because a small group of people plays it. The article doesn't even assert notability of any kind. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, wish there were a CSD:Game category TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 21:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, clear WP:WEB failure. Jfire (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 02:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asad Raza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article appears to be a hoax. The supposed references lead nowhere. Google finds no references at all. Sbowers3 (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete if not a hoax than simply a nn high school player TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 21:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - not a notable person. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, hoax or nn person. Tempshill (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a non notable hoax. MalwareSmarts (talk) 01:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoax. None of the references appear to be relevant to the subject, and I can't even figure out what city the subject is supposed to be from. The article creator has already been warned that the article appears to be a hoax. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:29, 5 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. Please don't send the kobold archers after me. Nandesuka (talk) 04:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tucker's kobolds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Group of Dungeons & Dragons kobolds named after a Dungeon Master named Tucker. Article claims that they have been used numerous times as examples- I see no evidence of this, with the article citing only a single editorial. May possibly be keepable if sources exist, but probably better suited to a mention in the article on D&D kobolds. J Milburn (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Kobold (Dungeons & Dragons). Web Warlock (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Kobold (Dungeons & Dragons). BOZ (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: Text has been merged into Kobold (Dungeons & Dragons); redirecting this article will suffice. BOZ (talk) 13:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• If even the nominator thinks it should be merged, what's it doing here on AfD? Bryan Derksen (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  We can form some level of consensus. Maybe these aren't notable at all, maybe they're notable enough for their own article. I don't know, that's why I brought it here. J Milburn (talk) 23:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Merge discussions are out of place in the AFD process. The discussion page for the article can be used to form a level of consensus just as easily. Rray (talk) 00:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Discussion is encouraged. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  No one indicated otherwise. But everything has a time and a place, and the appropriate place for a merge discussion is on the talk page of an article. Rray (talk) 12:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, nom indiated that a mention in (implied) Kobold (Dungeons & Dragons) might be best — and it is extant; this is not the same as a merge of this article to there. It is a question of an appropriate level of coverage; there are no out of universe sources on this so a mere mention is sufficient and a merge is thus inappropriate. i.e. delete, it's already covered at an appropriate level of detail. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough. Rray (talk) 15:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per others here. The AFD nomination should really be withdrawn, since even the nominator agrees that a merge is appropriate here. Rray (talk) 00:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 04:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — non-notable. Already covered in Kobold (Dungeons & Dragons). Mention in a list. March is D&D Spring Cleaning Month; you can help. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Redirect to Kobold (Dungeons & Dragons). No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete There are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside D&D canon. This essay on someone's favorite Kobold fails WP:NOT#OR, and is not fit to keep or merge. The reference cited appears to be self-publication and copyright violation, so the article also fails WP:V. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reference cited is an opinion piece in a first party D&D magazine, by the editor, about a group of kobolds created by someone else. The website is a copyvio of said opinion piece. J Milburn (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Redirect shadzar-talk 21:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Minor game mod. This is non-notable at the garage band level. --John Nagle (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodsilk spider (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Dungeons & Dragons monster of minimal notability or importance. Minimal in-game coverage, no evidence of third party coverage. Article does not mention any sources, third party or otherwise. J Milburn (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Dgf32 (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge with the appropriate article; not in of itself notable enough to justify an article here. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 21:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — non-notable. Unsourced. Mention in a list. March is D&D Spring Cleaning Month; you can help. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is just one of thousands of non-notable stock characters with no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside D&D canon. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — non-notable. just another variation of commonly found real-world critter used for D&D. shadzar-talk 21:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - near the bottom of the barrel in notability here. --John Nagle (talk) 20:04, 11 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 except signature updates.

The result was delete. Nandesuka (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banderlog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable Dungeons & Dragons creature. Minimal in-game coverage, no evidence of third party coverage, absolutely no significance. No reason it would need to be mentioned anywhere, as I see it. J Milburn (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Dgf32 (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom or Merge with D&D article. Not enough distinct notability. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 21:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — non-notable. Unsourced. Mention in a list. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 15:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Possible hoax: there are no primary sources or reliable secondary sources to demonstrate real world notability outside D&D. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — non-notable. shadzar-talk 21:44, 8 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 WP:CSD G10, attack page. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rob cypher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Dubious notability (WP:N) with sensitive material that requires immediate referencing or removal (WP:BLP). The nature of the material also makes me suspect that it is a vanity piece. Marasmusine (talk) 20:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, vanity piece. Tempshill (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. Not notable per WP:N – ukexpat (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Rob Cypher] has already been deleted 4 times. Obviously not real person.--Boson (talk) 21:39, 4 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. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eugeroic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Invented pharmacological category. This article was AFD'ed previously and the vote was keep, with most editors noting that it seemed like a worthwhile dictdef. But nobody noticed that "Eugeroic" is not used in the medical literature (see the article). This is an invented term and not a class of drugs. Since this fact was not mentioned in the previous AFD, I'm nominating this fake class of drugs for AFD again. Tempshill (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete Non-notable neologism. The term is recently created slang. It does not represent a scientific or medical classifaction of pharmacological agents. Dgf32 (talk) 20:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dgf ^ flaminglawyer^c 03:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This word has a wiktionary entry and I have no problem with that (in fact it could be expanded using the lead para of this article). It's not an accepted separate class of drugs though so it not suitable for an encyclopedia. The WHO ATC/DDD Index 2008 classifies these drugs as "centrally acting sympathomimetics" or "Other psychostimulants and nootropics" and Template:Psychostimulants, agents used for ADHD and nootropics already contains both those categories. I think we should stick to these categories used by the WHO. The main thing these "eugeroic" drugs seem to have in common is that they're all marketed by the same company. Qwfp (talk) 12:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Enough problems with discussions on real drugs and their effects (homoepathy, anyone?), don't need made-up drugs.King Pickle (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just to be clear that I think having articles on the individual drugs is fine, it's only this "category" I think should be deleted. Qwfp (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aspect (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable Dungeons & Dragons monster created for the miniatures skirmish game then detailed in the Miniatures' Handbook, a supplement focusing on the use of miniatures in roleplay. No evidence of third party coverage, but may deserve a mention somewhere when discussing D&D deities. J Milburn (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Kill with Fire Caste soldiers. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L13 ½-Raichu Soulknife)} 20:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Dgf32 (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge into, ah... List of Dungeons & Dragons deities I guess. Aspects have much more to do with dieties than monsters, and have been used extensively in the 3.5 edition of the game, for both gods and demon lords/archdevils. BOZ (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — non-notable. Unsourced. Mention in a list. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable stock characters with no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate real world notability outside D&D. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — non-notable. just another term for an avatar. shadzar-talk 20:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The concept of an aspect of a god is a common religious concept in Christianity. [9] It's sort of a hack to reconcile monotheism with polytheism. Amusingly, Wikipedia doesn't have an article on the religious usage, but it has one on the D&D usage. --John Nagle (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • then maybe that means the avatar article needs to be changed to related other religions uses of similar concepts? shadzar-talk 23:12, 11 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 (A7) by Orangemike. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Death Grip Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod removed. Record label that fails to establish notability. Self-confessed Myspace label. None of the current roster appear to be notable or have articles of their own. Article created by someone linked to the label and the incoming page Wikipedia:Requested articles/music was updated by the same user. A look at the log [10] shows it's been speedily deleted twice today already. Lugnuts (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable "Myspace" record label. Dgf32 (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, vanity. Tempshill (talk) 20:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Upon further review article makes no assertion of notability. Nominating for speedy delete per CSD A7. Dgf32 (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment And it appears that the article has been deleted via Speedy Delete. Dgf32 (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 05:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hampton and the Hampsters Compilation - Hampsterdance Hits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

As fun as Hampsterdance was in its heyday, this album is entirely non-notable. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 20:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not notable. Tempshill (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable album. A google search reveals no coverage in independent third party sources. Dgf32 (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge track listing and any other relevant info to The Hampster Dance. Powers ^T 22:03, 4 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 to Jabberwocky (what harm can it do, and it might help some confused schoolkid). Black Kite 23:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Galumphing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I really want to write "No. Just. No." and leave it at that, but actual reasons are unverifiable, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and WP:CB. -- Merope 20:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: But add a tag to state that it requires sources! A quick google for seal and galumphing suggests the term is in wide spread use, and some might be academic articles (JSTOR). If it is true it is interesting to find a term that has moved from humour to science. (Flange of baboons anyone?). As for WINAD, maybe there there is enough to say on this form of locomotion to justify an article? Billlion (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Google gives a lot of results for this, but I feel that most of them are in fact copying from Wikipedia. I could not find a credible source. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JS Brown - Journal of the American Geographical Society of New York, 1894 - JSTOR... Fur Seals and the Bering Sea Arbitration ... a sudden dash forward, seize a female by the back and lifting her clear of the ground go "galumphing" away, apparently ... You cant say that was copied from Wikipedia! Billlion (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skimming through the article the term appears applied to the locomotion of a male fur seal on p341 It is in double quotes, but there are a lot of descriptive and technical words (eg "harem" applied to seals) in double quotes in this article. It just seems to be the style. Billlion (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable slang. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. See WP:NOT. Dgf32 (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Jabberwocky. --Pixelface (talk) 21:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge origin of the term to Earless seal. Powers ^T 22:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete outright We'll never agree on where to redirect it. Mangoe (talk) 23:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "Widespread use" isn't quite true. It certainly isn't used in the scientific literature. There is a good chance that it has been picked up with some frequency due to this very Wikipedia entry (as Morven suggests). The 1894 article is an example of colorful description, but is no way a standard (any more than the spelling "Prybilof" for the Pribilof Islands). A comment within the Jabberwocky article that it has been used to describe seal locomotion might be OK. Having an extra mention (or even any mention) in the true seal, or seal, or pinniped articles does not, in my opinion, contribute meaningfully to those topics. Best, Eliezg (talk) 01:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it's already mentioned in the Earless seal article, for at least one example, but it's missing the origin of the term, which is why I suggested merging the etymology there. Powers ^T 02:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand Eliezg you are knowledgeable on marine mammals, so if the term is not in scientific use it should be deleted. Also I did a quick search on web of science. Non of the articles I found on seal locomotion used the term, and I couldnt find any scientific articles using the word in this sense. It does sound like a wikipedia created myth. As there are lots of web sites now picking up the terminology, and citing wikipedia as the source in some cases, is there a way after deletion they are going to find this discussion? Is there some section for "myths created by wikipedia that then grew legs and walked away" or galumphed away...? Maybe it is just a foot note to Jabberwocky.Billlion (talk) 09:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Jabberwocky, as noted by Pixelface — how would it hurt to have this as a redirect? Nyttend (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the Redirect idea is good. Most of what anyone would want to know about "galumphing" is in the Jabberwocky article, which could include mention of the fact that "galumphing" has apparently entered the English lexicon (see below), though not necessarily in contexts related to seals. I recast my vote above. Eliezg (talk) 17:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

intr. Orig., to march on exultingly with irregular bounding movements. Now usu., to gallop heavily; to bound or move clumsily or noisily. Hence galumphing ppl. a. and vbl. n., lit. and fig.

1872 ‘L. CARROLL’ Through Looking-Glass i. 22 He left it dead, and with its head He went galumphing back. 1881 Punch 27 Aug. 94/2 The [H.M.S.] Hercules got up steam and went on her way westward galumphing. 1888 N. York World 13 May (Farmer), A green bobtail car that galumphed through Lewis Street at a high rate of speed. 1891 Harper's Mag. Aug. 378/2 He [a dog] became a.. playful, gracefully galumphing, and most affectionate monster. 1893 Nation (N.Y.) 29 June 476/2 It is his humor, his ‘galumphing’ humor, which strikes a chill to the heart. 1901 Westm. Gaz. 15 Aug. 2/2 A postman in uniform galumphed about on a farm-horse. 1903 Daily Chron. 31 Oct. 8/1 There would be such a galumphing up their stairs that peace and security would forsake them. 1930 C. MACKENZIE April Fools xii. 271 Viola..had slept through the stifled cries of her parents beneath the bedclothes when Beyle [sc. a bull-dog] was galumphing round their room. 1965 S. RAVEN Friends in Low Places vi. 129 In the hall was a galumphing lass with a lot of jerseys and a po face.

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vashar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable Dungeons & Dragons race appearing in one supplement. No evidence of third party coverage, no real in-game significance. J Milburn (talk) 20:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Dgf32 (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.; not enough distinct notability to warrant an article here.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 04:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — non-notable. Not even mentioned in Book of Vile Darkness (no, please…). Mention in a list. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 16:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside D&D canon. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — non-notable. shadzar-talk 20:54, 8 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. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hamburger Hash Affair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable minor news incident. Seems to fall somewhere between WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:ONEEVENT. — Hex (❝?!❞) 20:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Tempshill (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn incident. JJL (talk) 23:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, sufficiently mentioned (one sentence) at Hash House Harriers. There have actually been a number of these incidents, a couple of them immediately following the 2001 anthrax attacks. I don't believe any of them have ended with any significant criminal convictions other than perhaps trespassing. --Dhartung | Talk 08:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. seresin | wasn't he just...? 05:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Smerick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article does not list outside sources and appears to be about a Cinderella band member who was only a member for a short while. The article has been tagged for cleanup for more than a year and does not appear to have been improved. Tnxman307 (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Agreed that the article is quite poor, however I think this guy passes notability. There are lots of mentions of him in secondary sources, particularly under his real name Michael Kelly Smith. Suggest requesting a translation of the Italian article, it is much more complete. Vrac (talk) 19:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide some of these sources? --neonwhite user page talk 01:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do a google search on "Michael Kelly Smith" (don't forget the quotes around the name) Vrac (talk) 02:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep This guy appears to have been the founding guitarist of the heavy metal band Cinderella (band). While there is no independent third party coverage of him, there is significant coverage on this band Cinderella. Dgf32 (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep As above... --Pupster21 Talk To Me 18:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep as per Dgf32. BWH76 (talk) 18:01, 11 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 except signature updates.

The result was NO CONSENSUS. There is no clear settlement between those that would delete 'just another episode' and those that wish to treat this particular pilot differently for reasons that are clearly articulated and based in policy. It seems that further work on the article is anticipated and that there is likely to be enough substance for it to survive. If that proves not to be forthcoming, then I suppose merges and redirections are likely to follow. Note: I can see no need for the second of the relistings; there were plenty of people and discussions to process the closure on after the first. -Splash - tk 00:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Fairly Oddparents (pilot) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

unsourced original research, and real world notability unestablished. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Yeah, I know, there's an injunction. Solo28 can refine her/his writing skills while the injunction is in place. Right now, kid, it's the notes you took while watching a TV show. See if you can't make it better. One thing those of us in the "not-every-TV-show-is-notable" crowd look for is "real world notability", and the pilot has all that, since it launched a popular TV show and made Butch Hartman a millionaire. I'm pretty sure there's already an article about the pilot, but maybe your article has something that one doesn't. Mandsford (talk) 21:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It appears an article on the pilot already exists at The Fairly OddParents! (Oh Yeah! Cartoons episode) (version before redirect) (The Fairly OddParents! (pilot) was moved there — note the P and the !), but it was redirected by an involved party of the arbitration case. While I think pilot episodes are generally always notable, this episode does not have to be notable. It just needs to be too long to merge into List of The Fairly OddParents episodes. Notability is always subjective (even "real world notability"). This article can't be deleted while the injunction is in effect. Perhaps if some editors were not so intent on redirecting existing articles, we wouldn't have editors creating duplicate articles with different names. --Pixelface (talk) 04:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• It is not clear whether the injunction applies to newly created articles but Delete. There already is a redirect that was in better shape and still couldn't established notability, so I guess it's still a nonnotable episode. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Rescue. This article could clearly state that the pilot has launched a major kids' television show and made Butch Hartman and co. a ton of money, it just doesn't at this time. I would recommend recommend reading other TV episode articles, especially pilots, and seeing how the writing and formatting is handled there, maybe it would help make an informed decision on what this article could look like? --Darkprincealain (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Cleanup - The current version of the article is bad, but there is clear potential for this article. It is, as has been mentioned, a standalone episode of an anthology series which was later expanded into a very popular cartoon series. That in itself makes it notable. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 03:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep per Darkprince and Yukichigai. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 23:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The pilot episode that launched a successful cartoon is very notable. Needs some cleaning. Please try to find references and add them to pages before you delete them, which is explicitly stated in the nomination procedure page. Hazillow (talk) 07:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This could more effectively be a (better edited) paragraph in the main article on the show. Mangoe (talk) 15:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Pilot episode of highly notable series. 68.40.58.255 (talk) 05:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There might be a legitimate argument about individual episodes within a series, but the pilot of a notable TV series is a notable episode worthy of its own independent article. Alansohn (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pending resolution of article injunction. A pilot is just another episode. Mangoe (talk) 23:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve. I started a production section to get the ball rolling. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge, redirect, or whatever the consensus is, which is not deletion as far as I can tell, merge is not preformed by the closing admin. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Gundam 00 Characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An article, List of Anno Domini characters, is the one used. It had been vandalized as it was removed with List of Gundam 00 Characters established instead. Ominae (talk) 07:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with List of Anno Domini characters, although I can't find anything official that verifies that the continuity should be referred to as Anno Domini.--TBC!?! 07:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect First, rename List of Anno Domini characters to List of Mobile Suit Gundam 00 characters to follow proper naming conventions and the MOS. Then redirect this copy to that newly renamed list. Collectonian (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete original research which fails notability and verifiabiility requirements. Edison (talk) 19:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 19:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename one of these articles, most likely List of Anno Domini characters, to List of Mobile Suit Gundam 00 characters as explained by Collectonian and merged/redirect the other to it. Using the name of the series is actually less ambiguous then using the name of the time line, or where ever Anno Domini came from. --Farix (Talk) 19:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Is Gundam 00 a TV series? If so, then this would fall under the arbcom injunction. Problem is the list has zero context and no lead at all so I can't tell. 23skidoo (talk) 13:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Mobile Suit Gundam 00 is, yes, a TV series, a recent incarnation of the large Gundam franchise. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The Arbcom injunction shouldn't apply to duplicate articles or forks. --Farix (Talk) 15:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• ArbCom injunction does not apply here — it was created after the injunction was passed. seresin | wasn't he just...? 00:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this interpretation of the injunction. It is reasonably applied to all conduct of the same type., without quibbling about the date the article was made. Its the same problem regardless. My opinion only. DGG (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and Merge as described above by TBC!?!, Collectonian and Farix. Highwind888 (talk) 00:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per TBC. Edward321 (talk) 04:13, 1 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 19:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought there already was a consensus, but just to pile on the wagon, merge as outlined by TBC!?!, Collectonian and Farix. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems that way to me as well. -- Ned Scott 05:09, 6 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. Maxim_(talk) 12:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The swaying argument is that Ty rewrote into something that meets Wikipedia's requirements. Good job!

Massurrealism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This very short article is written in the style of a promotional circular for a nonnotable art movement, not in the style of an encyclopædia article. It has no citations, and what it provides in the way of references, external links, etc., do not come from reliable, third-party publications. I prodded it, but the prod was removed with the argument that the article is well-referenced and in need of "careful cleanup", not deletion. With all due respect to the editor who made that statement, I do not feel that this can be cleaned up, as reliable sources simply cannot be found for the subject. The article also has conflict-of-interest problems, with editors involved in the "movement" editing the article, as well as articles about themselves. Delete as promotional material for an artistic movement of questionable notability.-RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 19:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete This is madness. Wikipedia is not a billboard.YVNP (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't really know where to start. This looks very like a promotional article, linking to websites which are more promotional than informative. Two potentially reliable sources are listed in the artcle: one from Arts and Antiques and one from Computer Artist; but these could be passing mentions rather than substantive reviews. They might not even exist. I can't find any other third-party sources even referring to the movement, let alone giving it the kind of attention a notable art movement ought to be receiving.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after Ty rewrite.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 12:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• A comment first, then motion for a deletion : Funny thing of the mention of artists and self promotion; in all fairness the Surrealists and Dadaists were notorious for self promoting themselves, and probably came under the same scrutiny during their time as well. I did follow up on some of the resources and in further mulling around I found what Ethicoaestheticist also found, numerous other examples of people either writing / commenting about massurrealism (coming from those who identify with it), or mentioning it as part of their lexicon not all seemed to me to be of a self promotional interest. All sources cited and additional ones I have found I do think there is a certain amount of notability, however I do not think notability is the issue here. Given the nature of the topic as an art genre / direction / philosophy this is something I would assume would be discussed ex post facto. These particular artists are in the here-and-now but there is not yet enough history to warrant anything more than a stub, and their impact IMHO can really only be determined after the fact. Please understand that I can appreciate all artists efforts, I really do. But because of massurrealism being more in the moment, I think this article falls short of making the grade at Wikipedia, and I'm inclined to agree for deletion, respectfully. --TheNightRyder (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If "notability is not the issue here", and the article provides sources (several magazine articles and a book) which appear to be reliable and substantial (the fact that they have the subject in the title suggests they are more than "passing mentions", as Ethicoaestheticist presumes), then I don't see that any valid reason for deletion has been given. Self-promotion and COI are reasons for cleanup, not for deletion; thus my original prod removal. Jfire (talk) 07:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If TheNightRyder's research is correct then the conclusion is that the article should be kept, not deleted. Notability in the here-and-now is good enough. On the face of it, this is a valid and well-sourced stub. Unless someone wants to allege that the sources are actually hoaxes (a point I'm in no position to judge) then the article's a keeper (although it still needs work). AndyJones (talk) 13:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "KEEP". Notable. Brunhilda (talk) 15:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Notability is the issue, and there is none. Beyond self-promotional websites, passing mentions in magazine articles, self-published books (which do not count toward notability), other Wikipedia articles (which are themselves promotional), etc., there are no citations for this "movement." With all due respect to TheNightRyder, who is a new user, I do not agree that there is notability in the "here and now." Unless and until the organization, the artists involved therewith, and their works have received attention in mainstream, respectable, third-party publications in the art world, they do not deserve an article. This is clear Wikipedia policy. We follow, we do not lead. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete self-promotional article, ask User:Touchon and User:Alankinguk. --Switch-to (talk) 15:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Switch-to (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Ty 03:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem is not with the article. It is with the midwestern surrealists who do not know what surrealism is and who want to define it on Wiki[pedia, their only place where by number of votes they can define surrealism. You cannot change reality by votes and by bad thinking. By making bad articles and by voting away the truth or "fact," if you will, you only look like what you are. What do you think that is? Anyway, all of us in the intellectual community have pretty much abandoned all Wiki articles on surrealism as hopelessly controlled by non-notable and intellectually deficient cranks.Brunhilda (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response. I fail to see how that opinion is relevant to the current discussion. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is just the problem, isn't it?Brunhilda (talk) 16:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The description in this nationmaster.com entry[11] helps focus what we have here, a "coined" word and therefor a neologism. As such it has to pass that guideline. A hand full of unreadable sources in what seem to be articles highlighting alternative terms published in equally alternative publications just doesn't cut it as reliable sources. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the nationmaster.com entry is just a mirror of a previous revision of the Wikipedia article. Jfire (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noted and used as an example, not a source. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Response :.

"With all due respect to TheNightRyder, who is a new user, I do not agree that there is notability in the "here and now." Unless and until the organization, the artists involved therewith, and their works have received attention in mainstream, respectable, third-party publications in the art world, they do not deserve an article." ---RepublicanJacobite

No disrespect felt RepublicanJacobite. The above what you stated is what makes this debate interesting. This begs the question: who is the art world? is it really fair to state that just because an artist / art group / genre does not have involvement with what are considered mainstream galleries and museums in the world then they do not deserve to be noted in some way? The other issue here is what qualifies as good third party reference in the virtual world? I think this for example would have to count as a more credible source: [12] since this is directly from the University's web server (PS - if you do not read Russian just scroll down to the English transcript) as opposed to all the other blogs and websites connected with massurrealism by individual posters in cyberspace. In the same argument, does not these posters opinions count as well? My position of deletion however, still stands because of the lack of enough content worth writing about to substantiate a good article at this point in time, especially if the article were to be cleaned up. --TheNightRyder (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The link to the lecture is definitely worth reading. It is either a description of the humble origins of a notable art movement or a frank account of a made up art movement. In my view the latter, but I'm interested in what others make of it.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response : Good question. I am inclined to believe the former. Came across an article from what I think could be considered third party: http://www.hatcityentertainment.com/ (Scroll down to where it says "Art Is Massive") a piece about co-founder artist Michael Morris. The difference here is that it comes from a more provincial source, as opposed to say a more mainstream site that the art world recognizes and respects. But then again do not provincial sources count? I'm only playing devil's advocate here. One could argue that the mainstream art world has its own Illuminati of a small select number of people who control who gets written about, who gets exhibited, which artists sells, etc. They are all connected to each other, and they all have their own agendas and method of 'hyping' people and projects. And if artists are not in with the "right bunch of fellows" in the mainstream art world, they're contribution goes unnoticed. In further looking I came across this [13] From Entertainment Wire in Miami - a Theater production that was described as massurrealism. --TheNightRyder (talk) 08:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I tend to agree with JFire, re: notability. The term eleicits 4400 Google hits. Most are not self-promotional. The article can be made worthwhile with some more sourcing/attribution.Bjones (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Not sure if this is considered worthy enough as notable, massurrealism being listed here: http://dir.yahoo.com/Arts/Art_History/Periods_and_Movements/ This is not something that anyone can simply either place or request with Yahoo. --TheNightRyder (talk) 16:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I do not know what the process is by which an article, or a category of articles, gets listed on the Yahoo directory, but, as far as I am aware, that is not sufficient, in Wikipedia's terms, to prove notability. The point is, as i said above, that Wikipedia follows, we do not lead; what I mean by that is that we have articles on topics the notability of which has already been proven by substantial coverage in reputable venues. No one has indicated anything here, that I have seen, that proves that for Massurrealism. Look at the three articles that are listed on the Yahoo directory, two of which are self-promotional and one is a Geocities fansite. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• So you have either located and reviewed the five sources listed as references in the article and determined that they do not constitute substantial coverage, or are familiar with the sources and know that they are not reliable? Or are you presuming these things? Jfire (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is none of us have seen these references (and I'm sure we've all looked). For all we know they could fully substantiate a claim to notability. Or, they could just be, well, made up. The cleanup to the article has improved it and it looks much less promotional. In its present state it looks fairly harmless, and might not have even been put up for AfD. But since it is here we have to apply some rigour. Given that in its former state it did look promotional, added to fact that no other reliable sources can be found, we have to assume that the movement is non-notable until some evidence can be presented to the contrary.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They don't appear to be made up. This looks like it could be one of them. This shows that another exists (though the text is apparently not available online). Here's another. Jfire (talk) 23:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My question, then, would be: who publishes these magazines? Are the magazines themselves notable or are they little more than 'zines? Who is responsible for the website to which you linked? What is the importance or notability of the person or persons responsible? I have never heard of either of those magazines before, and I am fairly familiar with contemporary art and literature. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : For the discussion, apparently an orthographic variant of massurrealism, spelled with only one "r" (e.g. massurealism) also produces other fan sites, online communities or discussions about massurrealism : [14]--TheNightRyder (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. There are (at present) five independent references, three of which have the term in their title. Unless it can be shown that at least 4 of those publications are not independent of the artists who are considered Massurealists, notability is proven. Argyriou (talk) 02:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Article has been entirely rewritten. I've rewritten the article entirely with new sources, so anyone voicing an opinion above needs to have another look to confirm or change their position, which is about the earlier version of the article. I haven't used the references previously given, but they seem credible and if anyone can get hold of the texts, they would be a valuable addition. Ty 07:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per rewrite as in statement above. Ty 07:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per excellent rewrite work above. - Modernist (talk) 12:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have to say this is the best version of the article to date, including good additional references on Ty´s efforts. --LAgurl (talk) 13:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep after rewrite. Johnbod (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "Massurrealism" exists like Cecil Touchons book Happy Shopping: "Your search found no results" (LoC) and "No results match your search for isbn:0615182445" (WorldCat). This website catalog is the main source: [15] so forget about it. --Switch-to (talk) 12:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Switch-to (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Ty 03:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This article, despite its revamp, is still borderline delete. The references to it being an actual encyclopedic "thing" are some very thin unreliable sources, including a directory entry and an eBay reference. To much "people who are the subject defining themselves" and not enough "reliable experts defining the subject". This article is much stronger as a description of a neologism, and seems to be close having the required references as such. It may even be there, but hard for me to say since I can't read foreign language references. All and all this probably should be in Wikipedia since I, for one, would like to know what it is. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The directory entry is compiled by the University of Oxford and Manchester Metropolitan University. The "self definition" is a speech made at, and published by, Saint Petersburg State University. Ty 05:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Though the rewrite by Ty has certainly improved it, this remains an article about a neologism used by "people who are the subject defining themselves," as Bryn Mawr put it. As such, I would argue it still qualifies for deletion as a nonnotable neologism for a nonnotable so-called "art movement." ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That can be said of most art movements. The question is, can anybody else be interested enough to write about them (or buy them). Narrowly, I think the answer here is yes (as does FoBM it seems). Johnbod (talk) 00:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In further digging I came across another web source from a university, located here: http://web.utk.edu/~bobannon/preparing/guides/chapter10/cjohnson_arts.xls University of Tennessee, Knoxville, it is a .xls file, but an html version exists here: [16] go up a few levels in the URL and it appears what I presume to be the source homepage: http://web.utk.edu/~bobannon/ --TheNightRyder (talk) 08:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep: At first, this looks like Wikipedia in a self-installed mouse trap. As long as there is little control on edits and deletes, it may be free, but no encyclopedia - for it is technically innocent, and only hopefully controlled by the mass of contributors, administrators, etc. - In this special case, we probable face freedom, claimed by an artist (or a group) and powered by Wikipedia. One of my teachers used to categorise things like this (already in the 1960s) to be ungehörig (that means, in-obedient as well as impossible to be owned by someone); he even mounted an exhibition of smells, in these days. - All in all, one could state that art concepts now include the facilities of Wikipedia, but there is absolutely no reason to exclude them (unless Wikipedia redefines its standards). It's Neo-Dada, okay, let's see what happens. rpd (talk) 23:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Have fun: An art movement with one artist. Who are James Seehafer, Alan King and Melanie Marie Kreuzhof? The "key figure among the Massurrealists" (Wikipedia), Cecil Touchon, "co-founded the International Post-Dogmatist Group (IPDG)". Never heard of, but their website links to "MASSURREALIST.COM" and "MASSURREALISM.COM". Tried to find Touchons "book" (Wikipedia) Happy Shopping - Massurrealist Spam Poetry. The result: "Your search found no results" (LoC) and "No results match your search for 'isbn:0615182445'" (WorldCat). --89-dot-247 (talk) 09:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— 89-dot-247 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. User's 5th edit. -- Ty 03:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per Tyrenius' rewrite. It is weak as this appears to be a small thing, but it is (just) big enough to be notable I think. --John (talk) 04:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Black Kite 23:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finding Gracie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable film. No third party coverage or reliable sources could be found with a series of google searches. Dgf32 (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No statement of notability. Was it ever shown? Tempshill (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 08:41, 5 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. faithless (^speak) 05:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GrimBB (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

One bit of RS coverage is talking about a way to exploit the software. Ghits are forums, howtos, and other non-reliable sources. No evidence of notability. Creator is an SPA with a COI TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 19:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it per nom. Not able to establish notability through solid independent sources. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 21:47, 4 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 can be recreated if reliable sources found. --Salix alba (talk) 21:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Onepoint project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:Notability Does not establish clear notability with independent sources (current sources are download sites & the like. Pgagnon999 (talk) 18:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A project management tool, references given appear to be blogs and similar sites. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Delete per nom. Fails to meet notability guidelines. Dgf32 (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable, or not as yet anyway. Author remains free to re-create it in future once/if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Qwfp (talk) 09:38, 5 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. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taskbar clock replacements (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete Aside from advertising these two five very non-notable pieces of software, what does this article do? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete spam, basically made to advertise software mentioned. Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 18:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a sales catalog. Not encyclopedic. Qwfp (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as spam. --Explodicle (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 05:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Veckefjärdens Golf Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable golf course. Mr Senseless (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: A question for golfers: What would be the best reliable source (perhaps a print-only source) to find information about a Swedish golf course? You might find enough information there to save this article. --Eastmain (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The golf course itself might be non notable, but I created the article because it might be of general interest anyway because of its ownership, since it was started by and is owned by ice hockey superstar Peter Forsberg. But I don't know however if that is a valid reason though, so it's all up to you more experienced Wikipedians to decide what to do with the article. Petey21 (talk) 15:37, 3 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 18:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Mr Forsberg's golf course doesn't inherit his notability. It could be mentioned in his article. JohnCD (talk) 22:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - in order to meet WP:ORG either there need to be reasonable secondary sources or another claim to notability, for example the scene of a major golf event. Neither, is presently the case. BlueValour (talk) 03:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. Maxim_(talk) 12:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nrpn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article fails WP:NOT, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Financial Times group.
I am also nominating the following related pages:

Pensions week (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pensions management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

European pensions & investments news (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

European Pensions and Investment News (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

FDi magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

FT Mandate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all Fails to meet notability guidelines. Also appears to be self-promotion/spam. Possible COI exists as well. Dgf32 (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, advert, and keep an eye on that IP address range. Tempshill (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close and relist separately. Just because these publications have the same publisher it doesn't mean that they should stand or fall together. The decision on deletion should be based on whether each particular one is notable, not on the imagined motives of the articles' creators. For the moment I have added a book and a newspaper source for Pensions week, which can be seen to be notable by the fact that it is frequently quoted by major newspapers and broadcasters. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. BWH76 (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. I am posting the additional sources noted here to the article's talk page, and I leave it to the editors involved there to add them to the article as appropriate. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

40 Days For Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article about a local pro-life group, unsourced, no assertion of notability. Mr Senseless (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:SOAPBOX; cites no secondary sources. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article is about a national pro-life group who is being mentioned in news coverage (Sacramento Bee, The Guardian) and has up coming protests. Though it does stand to be expanded and could be better sourced. - Schrandit (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unsourced shameless promotion. Beeblbrox (talk) 00:19, 28 February 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 18:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Has had press coverage in the The Guardian, AP, and Reuters [17]. This appears to be a large national organization, not a local organization. While there is significant coverage in mainstream publications, there is even more coverage in major religious publications such as The National Catholic Register [18] and Zenit [19]. Dgf32 (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; that is not press coverage! It's an automatically-printed press release issued by the group itself. I don't see any third party reliable sources anywhere in this article. Tempshill (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thanks for pointing that out. The Reuters article was a press release. However, there still exists third party coverage in The Guardian, Sacramento Bee, and a large volume of coverage in the religious media including the National Catholic Register, Zenit, and many other publications. I still think we should Keep this article. Dgf32 (talk) 02:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, and http://www.sacbee.com/city/story/452835.html looks perfectly fine. Hobit (talk) 02:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the Bee definitely is a reliable and third-party source, and I can't imagine why the Catholic matter should be discounted simply because they're also pro-life. If all are counted, this fulfills the notability criteria of multiple reliable sources. Nyttend (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, covered in the Sacramento Bee, The Guardian, and the National Catholic Register. --Pixelface (talk) 08:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 05:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Business press (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NOT#REPOSITORY Hu12 (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete without prejudice; if someone can come up with a worthwhile article, let them write it. The present version is just a list, better served by a category. Mangoe (talk) 23:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. BWH76 (talk) 18:16, 11 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.