< May 25	May 27 >

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

The result was I do not see a possibility for improving this article in a manner that would comply with the need for sources. I am closing this AFD with a delete ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roleplay Online[edit]

It seems like a great site, but I can't find any independent sources to establish notability. A search of news archives and RPG periodicals turns up no mentions. A search of reliable RPG sites and general web search turns up nothing except a bunch of directory style entries. The topic entirely lacks sources outside of itself and directory entries. This not the place for directory entries nor promotional entries. Vassyana (talk) 20:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as above. I found nothing but links, no reviews or independent coverage at all. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources found, also agree with nom.--Otterathome (talk) 22:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I'm the one responsible for this article becoming an issue, I'm of mixed opinion. I certainly don't want to infringe on anyone ability to use the net for fun purposes. Even if this article is basically an advertisement it does little harm, and as others have pointed out, the Wikipedia entry is about its only Google claim to fame. For all the gamers out there, it does have that benefit, so I would hate the entry to go away. However, what happened to me should not happen to any responsible netter out there. So if it remains, I would like to see it contain a warning. Can the authors produce another phrasing of my concern? (Dcholtx (talk) 02:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Delete, If content is not changed to reflect my concerns. Dcholtx (talk) 13:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

RPoL comprises of two things, a custom written BB system and the RP portion.

Many BBs have articles on Wikipedia;

UBB.classic
UBB.threads
YaBB
PhpBB3
AEF
Snitz Forums 2000
RForum

... I'm sure you get the idea. Many of these are virtually unheard of or no longer active, I wonder why RPoL is targeted for removal. See Comparison of Internet forum software (ASP), Comparison of Internet forum software (PHP) and Comparison of internet forum software (other) for a list of all the software around and the numerous links to Wikipedia articles on the software.

The RolePlay portion sells itself, and quite obviously does it well as Treasure Tables lists the site as being over ten times larger than any other RP-based site out there. With such a large user-base the need for constant self-promotion is no longer needed, thus there are no longer any administrators or moderators going around to other sites trying to tout RPoL. It's all done by "word of mouth" recommendations. Thus you won't find the blatant attempts to generate traffic on RP news sites that other BB RP sites have to resort to.

Check out recommendations such as those on Wizards of the Coast Forums and White Wolf Forums. The aforementioned Treasure Tables page is also a good source of information.

Thanks for the reference. This one in particular. [1] At first I thought maybe it was just me, getting old and crotchety. I do not know the person that started this thread and never would have known about this without your help. Dcholtx (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of this message RPoL has 3,061,272 posts on the system, which (according to Big Boards) puts it at about the 502nd largest BB system (the site currently has 2,094 recorded, so that's the top 25%) they have record of. Larger than Overclockers Australia and Anarchy Online. 202.89.161.156 (talk) 03:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This IP's only contributions have been to this article. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

"there are no longer any administrators or moderators going around to other sites trying to tout RPoL. It's all done by "word of mouth" recommendations." Quite the opposite, in point of fact. RPoL is one of the few such sites which allows people to advertise other places to game, whether over the net, or in the real world.

The article was never intended as an ad for the site. The authors are not the administrators of the site, but the people who use it. Occasional input from the site administrators has been, largely, the provision or correction of technical details (dates, figures, etc). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.227.68.12 (talk) 05:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This IP user's contributions have also been only to the Roleplay online article. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It does indeed seem like a fantastic site with an enthusiastic userbase. However, what's in question is whether or not there are sufficient independent and reliable sources to produce a good quality article about the topic. Sadly, there is a complete lack of such sources. The topic may have enough independent and reliable coverage for an article at some point in the future, but it does not currently. Vassyana (talk) 05:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm a bit puzzled by all this. Because a user only contributes to one article does not mean their opinion is of less import?

Secondly I didn't realise it was a requirement for something to be famous to be in Wikipedia. I can't see anything in Wikipedia's article guidelines that indicate that a article must have "independent and reliable sources". I can see the merit in why they'd be desirable to make a "good quality article", however I can't see where it's a hard set requirement in Wikipedia's five pillars or rules.

To add to my confusion I don't see why some of the previously mentioned articles still exist, yet there is a move to delete the RPoL article. Overclockers Australia has zero external references (the RPoL article at least has one), yet the OCAU article merely has a request for sources or references, not a deletion request, outstanding since 2006. RForum is virtually unheard of, barely meets the 1kb stub Rule of Thumb, and also contains no references; somehow this has no deletion or correction requests.

I don't think either of the example articles should be deleted. Request for improvement, sure, but deletion? The article can be improved, absolutely (want another reference?, here's a quick one; RPoL Revisited | Lone GM), but why request deletion on something that (a) can be improved upon and (b) when there are demonstrated cases of pages with far worse content.

After all, don't the Wikipedia guidelines say "In general, information should not be removed from Wikipedia"? 202.89.161.156 (talk) 07:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are similar and worse examples. The first pillar of the five makes it clear that a topic lacking sources is not appropriate for Wikipedia (since it tells us to cite verifiable sources and avoid making claims not made by reliable sources). I attempted to find reliable sources, as noted in my AfD listing rationale and came up empty. While LoneGM is a good blog, it is not a reliable source. Vassyana (talk) 10:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To quote Wikipedia:Verifiability that you just referenced (emphasis mine);

"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources"

and

"All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy".

There is clearly a distinction made between what should be done and what must be done. NPOV must be done (and the reason for the undo & edit war of yesterday), whereas (as I've said previously) references should be done.

You're talking about a RolePlay site here. Something that, if one was to be cynical, you could say is done by a whole bunch of people who live in fantasy-land and who never grew up. How reliable is a source going to get on such a topic?

No claims have been made in the article that cannot be verified as accurate. Trying to find external links to something as conceptual as RolePlay is playing with fire, you're not going to get your Neutral point of view.

When relevant, yes, one should refer to external sources, but when (for example) listing the features of a software package, the definitive list is available direct from the designer. Going by what other people think is the feature list is just going to introduce inaccuracies. (Heck, look at Office 2003, another page that has been marked for improvement but not deletion.)

Again, merely because something is not so widely known as to warrant Slashdot articles (where, incidentally, RPoL has been mentioned on several times) or news headlines, ergo not getting "reliable sources", I don't see how it disqualifies it for Wikipedia. This is not a popularity contest, why is the entire article being judged on something that Wikipedia states as being desirable, but not mandatory?

I'm well aware that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, however when trying to find some guideline as to what is and is not acceptable, I do not think it inappropriate to look at other articles. When similar or worse articles have received administration attention and have received requests for improvement, not deletion, then I think it only natural and fair to ask why not in this case. While not 100% attainable, surely the Wiki team strives for uniformity. 202.89.161.156 (talk) 12:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question -- So is the article now flagged for improvement or deletion? Both are on the main page, which is bizarre and confusing. Easun (talk) 16:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs improvement either way. Moreover, if it happens to be improved during this AfD, it might be more likely to be kept. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like it has the high potential to be a waste of time. Wikipedia:Reliable sources states that "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (everyone seems to be ignoring the point that it does not say "must", but "should"). As far as software is concerned I would imagine the most accurate way of getting facts regarding the features would be to talk to the developers, not third parties. How is this reference requirement supposed to be met without ignoring the best source of information and bringing in inaccuracies? Who best knows when RPoL was started? The coder. Who best knows the feature list? The coder.

To try a different tact; what parts of the article are questionable and require external references for fact-checking and accuracy? Easun (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coders are notoriously disfunctional when talking about their "children." Factual information years, dates, who - those are fine. Description of feature content is otherwise. The site even states the following: "The most common complaint is that the site is confusing, though we receive very few suggestions on how to rectify this." At least the first part of this statement is objective in my experience. The site also says that it can be completely arbitrary in their decisions. I found this statement to be objective, too. This would be the minimum warning that I would have placed at the start of the article. Though a reference to a moderator team would not be out of place.

Better yet would be a balanced review of the site. Rather than the entire article being a list of features, that information should be encompassed in one (short) paragraph. Another dedicated to its growth and leadership position in the field. A final paragraph should contain the warnings I have mentioned. That way the warnings are not so far down that no one sees them, but it's not the first thing one sees. Dcholtx (talk) 19:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect I'd rather hear from an official Wiki person, not someone who's been reported for their contributions. -- Easun (talk) 01:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I follow your reasoning. I should keep quiet and stop defending the article. Dcholtx (talk) 11:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly fails WP:V, WP:RS. (It's not like I'm anti-roleplay; Gygax talked me into becoming an RPG writer for Dragon, back in the day.) --Orange Mike | Talk 20:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's all very well to have these Wiki people to come in waving these WP:V and WP:RS flags in our face, however there's never any constructive input on what portions require fixing, or how a section of the web with no reliable or notable peer review system is supposed to achieve such a goal. -- Easun (talk) 01:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of the main reliable RPG periodicals and websites provide at least some coverage to internet resources and popular RPG sites. It's a market covered by references that would be considered reliable under even a stricter interpretation of reliable sources. If other people haven't covered it yet, it is not our place to do so. Vassyana (talk) 02:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Magazine doesn't review websites. Wizards, White Wolf, et al don't mention anything but their own products (though RPoL is highly recommended in their forums). RPG.net reviews paper products, not websites. rpggateway.com is user submitted links. rpgopinions.com has reviews, but anyone can submit then (ergo fails being reliable or having a npov). indie-rpgs.com reviews independent game systems. freeroleplay.org deals with open-source game systems. therpgsite.com is like rpgopinions.com. enworld.org focuses on RPG systems, namely d20. The list goes on and I can't see any evidence of these "reliable RPG periodicals and websites" you allude to. If you know of valid places that could review RPoL then why not actually reference them, rather than this completely unhelpful "oh they're out there".

RPoL exists to give people the framework to RolePlay, which is to say to emote. Such sites don't have cold hard facts that can be referenced, merely peoples opinion on their experience on the site. Reviews and opinions are based on the POV of a single person, which no claim to neutrality can be made. Wikipedia clearly has no place for an article regarding something as visceral as RPoL. -- Easun (talk) 03:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RPoL may be a wonderful website. However, Wikipedia articles about things like websites and businesses must be based on topics which have wide and independent coverage (of whatever PoV or slant). Gwen Gale (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is sad to see that people have put in time and effort to create such an article without knowing wikipedia's policies. Unfortunately, I don't see a way to improve this article, because I doubt that there ARE reliable sources that discuss the content. I also just did a quick check over |Alexca.com and I can see why there may be notability concerns. DigitalC (talk) 08:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Even sadder to see that, in the couple of years that the article has been in place, and despite several contacts with Wikipedia admins, not one of them thought to bring any of this up any earlier. Or if they did, they were helpful about finding ways to fix the problems.

Regarding sources: a source is a location where people can go to check the authenticity and accuracy of an article. In that case, the link to RPoL counts as a source, since anybody can go there and actually see the real site for themselves, check that the features and figures are as mentioned in the article, and form their own opinion (as opposed to being told somebody else's). That is exactly the same as, for example, checking the sources for an article on astrophysics, where they would have to go to another site (or to a library), locate the cited material, read through it, and form their own opinion.

Your definition of sources may need to be looked at. Yes, a book, or other document can be a source, but so can the actual subject of the article, seen "in the flesh", as it were. --90.227.68.12 (talk) 13:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for now. The content just doesnt satisfy any of the notability requirements. I would like to apologise, however (as others have commented) for nobody actually helping to improve this article's notability in the time it has been here. Ironho lds 22:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Apparently transwikied. Sandstein 19:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of units in the Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War series[edit]

These units have not established notability to justify their own article. This violates wikipedia's policy on notability, particularly the general notability guideline that calls for coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject itself. The general notability guideline has been adapted into the specific guideline on WP:VGSCOPE, which excludes lists of weapons and items from inclusion in wikipedia. Randomran (talk) 23:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete against video game policy (No weapon lists). Atyndall93 | talk 04:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - textbook case of WP:NOT#GUIDE. Asserts no notability also and fails WP:NOT#INFO and WP:FICT. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Listcruft. Not encyclopedic. Axl (talk) 06:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Repetition of in-game content without any discussion that is not instrumental to understand the game. User:Krator (t c) 10:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unencyclopedic list. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 12:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki The WH40K project seems to have a system set up for this.[2] This list is not encyclopedic, but it's probably exhaustive and well-written enough that another wiki would want it, assuming they haven't copied it already. Ham Pastrami (talk) 12:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and Delete. This article definitely constitutes Gamecruft: the information is useful only to those who play the game. ZappyGun, his (empty) talk page, and what he has done for Wikipedia. 13:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, incredibly well-organized, and verifiable article concerning a major aspect of a notable game series that even provides the context of the list). Not what you would find in a game guide as it is not a how to. WP:ITSCRUFT is not a valid argument and as even in a worst case scenario, this legitimate search term that is not a hoax, copy vio, or libel can be redirected without having the contribution history deleted. So, really a merge or redirect discussion, but no reason to outright delete. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We delete articles that were made in good faith all the time. If you have a problem with deleting articles made in good faith, please take your discussion to WP:deletion policy. Otherwise, a failure to meet WP:N *is* a reason to delete, not just for hoaxes or legal problems. No one has provided evidence that this topic is notable by using proper references. Randomran (talk) 17:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that we all agree that it isn't a hoax, copyvio or libel. Rather the article describes a list (or a list of tables), breaching point number 3 here. Axl (talk) 17:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a clear breach of WP:NOT#GUIDE, and although I will give it credit for being better organised than these things usually are, this stuff belongs in the game's instruction manual, not in an encyclopedia. I'd support a transwiki though, as it is well suited to the Wikias. -- Sabre (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#GUIDE. That said, it should be transwikied where players of the game can make use of it, and it is a nicely written and formatted list. Edison (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki As per previous comments supporting this action. It would be a major waste to just delete it. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Transwiki'd to StrategyWiki:Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War with full edit history. -- Prod (Talk) 05:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Svalander[edit]

Notability is not shown DimaG (talk) 23:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NN. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, perhaps a good dance instructor, but only has a local profile. Possibly the dance theatre itself would pass WP:ORG. --Dhartung | Talk 04:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete A bona fide person with her own web site but little more to establish her notability. Artene50 (talk) 05:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Sword (fictional location)[edit]

No assertion of notability for this location in violation of WP:NN. Violates WP:V and WP:OR as well, unless references are provided. But no independent references that assert notability exist, which is required in the general notability guideline for wikipedia. The article is based entirely on non-notable WP:PLOT information, violating the policy against concise summaries. Randomran (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per several policies. For extensive argumentation, see User:Krator/Gamecruft. User:Krator (t c) 13:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's non-notable, and has no sources to back up its claims.--EclipseSSD (talk) 15:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Sandstein 20:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marchesi di San Vincenzo Ferreri[edit]

Another self-publication by Tancarville. References are either from the creator's own website or are unobtainable and therefore unverifiable. Very little biographical information about the subject. Much of the article is in various foreign languages. See other current afds such as this and this and the debate here. andy (talk) 22:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following very similar pages by the same editor:

andy (talk) 22:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: As has been cropping up in the other related AfDs over the last few days, the only source we can actually see for any of these articles and any of these claims is the creator's own website. The creator claims (unpublished) documents in government archives in Europe and his own "unpublished research notes" for sources, as well as presenting much of the articles (much of which is cut and pasted from his other articles) in Italian and French. Fails WP:V, WP:N, WP:OR and WP:SYN. Ravenswing 01:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:RS, WP:N, WP:V, WP:OR. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the bunch of them; fail WP:V etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Charles 19:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, somebody might want to check this list of the articles he's created. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ... that's a better formatted list than the one with which I've been working. Ravenswing 20:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP "Marchesi di San Giorgio" For reference see Carlantonio Barbaro (1720-1794) in Barbaro family http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbaro_family (note 69). Hopefully some kind soul will volunteer to translate the Italian, otherwise it's well written and the subject's notable enough.

COMMENT, somebody might want to check a list of Maltese nobility at http://www.lapasserelle.com/lm/pagespeciales/anglicistes/malta/LCVnewRWsitesept06/lcvversion2site/page1/assets/3summer2000oneblock.pdf. Give user=Tancarville a break . Frisianham (talk) 12:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)Frisianham — Frisianham (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment If you check the talk page for the Barbaro family you will see there's been a lot of hoaxing and by sockpuppets that claim to be experts but post sources that cannot be confirmed, some of them the exact same sources that are being used bt Tancarville in these articles. Edward321 (talk) 14:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In addition to the concerns raised by the Nominator, Frisianham's post raises the concern that these articles are part of the Barbaro hoax [3] [4] [5], which was very prone to socks. [6] Edward321 (talk) 14:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silverton Goatman[edit]

The article was previously nominated for deletion by Nuttah (talk · contribs). The creator of the article contested it. However, I see now that this article should be deleted. The poster of the prod considered it a hoax. Basicly, the article appears to have been copied from Lake Worth monster, with a few modifications, including the time, year, and the external links were removed (you might be able to guess why). The book by Loren Coleman and Patrick Huygue, which I currently have borrowed from the library, is not a source for this. That book only discusses the Lake Worth Monster, not this one. A quick google search reveals only 49 ghits. The first one, as you can guess, is the Wikipedia entry. Another one looks like a discussion-type format and cites Wikipedia as one of its sources, another one is a blog and not reliable, another one if a Pdf and vaguely resembles the article but opening it reveals something about sporting activities. The last one for the first page is from a bigfoot research group, but discusses a bigfoot-like creature, not a goat-man like the other sources describe. The other sources on the first page have nothing to do with the article's subject. Unless we can find additional reliable sources, I would consider this a possible hoax by the author (I mean not a documented hoax), and thus should probably be deleted. ~A H1^(TCU) 22:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Can't find it here [7] or [8], & the bit about locals thinking they have captured him and instead capturing a named teenager seems a giveaway and perhaps identifies the author.--Doug Weller (talk) 05:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obvious hoax/made-up article. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With 5 google hits, including wikipedia and mirrors, this is obviously either a hoax or incredibly non-notable. Yilloslime (t) 05:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources to establish notability, and its probably a WP:HOAX--Captain-tucker (talk) 01:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability is not established and there is a strong possibility that it is entirely made up—certainly some of the details are invented, such as the midget being thrown and the local teenager who was mistakenly captured. Everyking (talk) 08:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 19:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chess stacking[edit]

Contested PROD. Article started as a non-notable article about stacking chess pieces on top of each other for sculpture, with no references. It has since been added to, to include "Russian Chess", a Russian variant of chess. The reference for that mentions nothing about chess stacking as a term and a google search on "Russian Chess" brings up lots of hits about playing chess in Russia. I can find nothing meaningful about either the game or the "art form". Nominate to delete. Roleplayer (talk) 22:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a neologism apparently coined by Youtube, according to the first few google hits (not that the ghits are important necessarily). There are no sources that can verify notability and therefore fails WP:V, WP:NEO and WP:OR. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. JJL (talk) 22:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's the type of thing you expect to read in a BCM Christmas issue. I've played a variant of this where you stack as many pieces on top of one (btw not sure that 'Chess stacking' was the name) but don't recall reading any literature on it. It might possibly be in the Guinness world records. SunCreator (talk) 00:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless it can be shown to be notable. At this point, I fail to see the notability. Bubba73 (talk), 02:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral (or really leaning towards delete), but it is not a Youtube neologism. The August 1987 issue of Chess Life has the activity of stacking chess pieces on the front cover, along with a several page long article. (This provoked anger from a chess teacher in a later Letters to the Editor, along the lines of "when my students get bored they start stacking pieces on top of one another, then I tell them that chess is a game of class and if they want to stack things, they should go to Kindergarten and find some wooden blocks to play with. Now what does Chess Life find to be a cute idea...?") Still, this really has very little to do with chess, and is not a widespread activity. The August 1987 Chess Life was really more in the class of human interest stories you find in a newspaper. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of it being notable. A search of google ([9]) gives nothing reliable. Buc (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Found a number of sites about it, but nothing that seems notable. It's more a human interest then an Encyclopedic topic, which is more likely called 'Chess piece stacking' or 'Chess Sculpture'. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. I suspect the most notable thing is the August 1987 issue of Chess Life given by Sjakkalle, but I'm unsure if that makes it notable or not.

Some online links http://blog.azureabstraction.com/date/2007/06/ [10] [11] [12] SunCreator (talk) 09:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bubba73. SyG (talk) 18:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Stacking the pieces is the sort of thing kids do when bored; not unlike buiding towers from playing cards or dominoes. I don't regard any of it as notable in the least. Brittle heaven (talk) 10:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 19:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pawa[edit]

Not notable. Fails to meet the WP:GNG that a topic needs significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to qualify for notability. As far as I can tell, there is no coverage that can assert notability for this artlce. Randomran (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:N. The nominator puts it well, and all I will only add that WP:V is a policy, and without secondary sources no notability can be verified. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:N Artene50 (talk) 06:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google shows no reliable resources, or any resources at al about the subject. There are no resources in the article that established notability.--RyRy5 (talk) 11:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure). The consensus of the discussion below is that the song and phrase are emblematic of a particular aspect of America's war in Vietnam, and is used in a variety of books and news sources to represent that aspect. Darkspots (talk) 02:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Napalm Sticks to Kids[edit]

Delete for lack of Notability. This article is about a partial phrase in a song. It is not referenced well and does not have nearly enough material to be considered a complete article. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This seems to be a significant song; I've found mentions (I can't get at the full articles to see their quality; hence the "weak" part) in a Google Scholar search. As an aside, what a gruesome song; the irony of reading the lyrics on Memorial Day is somewhat overwhelming. AnturiaethwrTalk 22:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask why you feel it is significant? There are a lot of stupid lines in military cadences. Should we have an entry for "Eskimo p*ssy is mighty cold"? It WAS in a cadence and it WAS uttered in a movie (Full Metal Jacket), so it is as notable as this, right? Niteshift36 (talk) 23:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really just giving it the benefit of the doubt since the only reliable sources I can find (the Google Scholar results, and not all of them) are unavailable to me: it looks like the song has been studied as folklore, but I can't be sure. I'm not at all willing to mount an active defense of the article. AnturiaethwrTalk 03:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is notable because it is referenced by reliable sources such as the article in the Journal of American Folklore cited in the article, these books and these news sources. It's also not just "a partial phrase in a song": it's the title by which the song is known. The fact that it "does not have nearly enough material to be considered a complete article" is not a reason to delete. By that logic we would delete every article in Wikipedia, because no article is ever complete. And finally we are here to discuss this article: whether or not we should have an article on another song is irrelevant, but anyway I would say that the song mentioned above is also notable. [13] [14] Phil Bridger (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its existence is not in dispute. But the mere mention of it in articles and books doesn't make it notable in my mind. What can be said about it? 3 sentences? Also, at least 2 of your sources we listing a band that uses that phrase as a name. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the "mere mention of it". Many of those references discuss the song as an example of how troops are dehumanised. Just because "at least 2" of those sources might not be relevant it doesn't invalidate the others. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the use of a song as emblematic or iconic of an historical period makes it notable, when documented, as it is here. DGG (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep many songs don't merit coverage, but argument above convinces me this one does. Geo Swan (talk) 22:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 'Delete ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hillhead Halls Of Residence[edit]

Contested PROD. Details of a Hall of Residence at the University of Aberdeen with absolutely no assertion of notability whatsoever. User also created North Court, the deletion discussion for which is here. Roleplayer (talk) 22:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've seen quite a few of these. Very few university buildings qualify for inclusion, and the halls of residence at Aberdeen university is no different. Fails WP:N. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete many, thought certainly not most, university buildings can qualify for inclusion as either notable architectural or historical structures, but this is very definitely not one of them. DGG (talk) 00:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no assertion of notability, Wikipedia is not a directory, guide or an indiscriminate collection of information. Accurizer (talk) 03:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable sources to establish notability. --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Market and Social Research Society Limited[edit]

Notability not established; no third-party sources. Promotional tone. KurtRaschke (talk) 22:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The news items at http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Australian+Market+and+Social+Research+Society%22&btnG=Search+Archives&hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8 may be of interest. --Eastmain (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WEak Keep per the ones Eastmain found above and these, which include The Age and Sunday Times. I think it's enough to pass WP:CORP _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 23:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is certainly notable and important; this article just needs some work. Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Eastmain has shown there are sources and as WP:DEL says "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion."--Captain-tucker (talk) 01:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article in desperate need of attention but is a professional body, much like the Australian Computer Society or Royal Australian Chemical Institute. Orderinchaos 08:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I know that this will probably be controversial, but none of the links presented above are actually about the organisation, as required by WP:ORG. They seem for the most part (at least in the ones that are in languages I can read) to just quote someone from the organisation, rather than going on about who they are or what they do. Only 67 pages actually link to their home page. I am of course willing to retract this argument if notability can be demonstrated in some other way. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
comment - they seem better known as the Market Research Society of Australia. Against this name there appears to be a mite more interest than the current one - Peripitus (Talk) 23:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 19:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

165_Losses[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/165 Losses

this page has absolutely no context whatsoever, it seems like an article of a law, no structure Shoombooly (talk) 21:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia isn't Wikisource. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to be a section from a textbook on US tax law, maybe appropriate on Wikiversity or Wikibooks, but not here. AnturiaethwrTalk 22:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably a copyvio, but if it isn't, it still belongs on Wikisource. No prejudice to rewriting the article so it's less law-textbook-y. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 00:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a totally unreferenced article with zero verifiability. The author has made only 5 minor edits to Wikipedia: [15] which tells me this was a one time article. Artene50 (talk) 05:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unreferenced article. Wikipedia is not Wikisource. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: it's unsourced. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 12:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Probably a copyvio, and if it isn't it should be on Wikisource, not here. Asenine 11:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 19:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea diSessa[edit]

The subject does not seem to me to comply with Wikipedia:Notability (academics): did not receive awards, is not regarded (or the article does not claim he to be) especially important, has written some books and articles but none appears to be "significant and well-known", and so on. Goochelaar (talk) 21:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She's a university professor, and that in itself is notability. She's also written books, which is further evidence of notability. This article needs to be cleaned up and sourced, but she is notable by profession. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a university professor is not a criteria for notability as suggested above. Fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF Also adding Turtle Geometry, non-notable book by the subject to the afd. --neonwhite user page talk 22:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not a woman, by the way. I added the website to the external link. Not all professors are notable, but he is: member of National Academy of Education, author of notable books, holder of full professorship at Berkeley (Professor of Cognition and Development, Graduate School of Education) adequate article, that just needs some expansion. As for the book, Turtle Geometry is published by MIT Press, is cited by 431 other works in Google Scholar, a classic computer science textbook, is held in 1031 libraries according to worldCat, has 38 books listed there based on it or about the subject diSessa introduced in it. DGG (talk) 00:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly none of these are criteria for notability according to Wikipedia:Notability (books). --neonwhite user page talk 15:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

see the section on Academic books on that page: "notability should rely on the reputation of the academic press publishing it, how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media, [and other possibilities]" Read the entire guideline, please, not just the first paragraph. DGG (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Andy DiSessa is clearly an important figure in mathematics education, as a search trivially demonstrates. A lousy article, to be sure, but much more notable than many academics we routinely keep. Improve. --Dhartung | Talk 04:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both. Google scholar finds (among some dups of the book itself) a dozen or so papers by other authors with "Turtle Geometry" in their title, based on this book, which was at one point highly notable for promoting the idea that kids can learn to program computers at a very young age. For that matter, I'm pretty sure I have a copy of the book myself. And a search for di Sessa reveals many other highly cited works, so he's notable for more than just that. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again none of those are criteria for notability. see Wikipedia:Notability (books). --neonwhite user page talk 15:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a clear pass of WP:BOOK #1 and a likely pass of #4. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate on DiSessa himself: I just added a little to the article. He has by my count 11 publications with over 100 citations each in Google scholar. He has a named chair at an excellent university. And he is a member of the National Academy of Education; according to the source I added, "membership is limited to 125 people whose accomplishments in education are judged outstanding." So that's three different claims of notability any one of which would be enough for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The article's writing is poor and it is only a stub. But the person is notable as an academic. And this article can always be improved. Artene50 (talk) 05:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein. GoogleScholar results are very impressive and show a substantial number of highly cited works. Nsk92 (talk) 12:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sorry, but I don't believe the article should be kept. There is only one source of information, and the only notibility is the person is a professor. It could possibly be merged into a Professors of Berkeley article or something to that effect, but there is no reason to keep this article.--LAA Fan 21:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both -- I am old enough to remember when Logo and Turtle geometry were the next big thing. Maybe they didn't turn out to be as great as anticipated. But they certainly merit coverage here. And the creators merit coverage. Geo Swan (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Berkeley does not give out full professorships like candy, and so his having one is a clear indication that his peers think him notable. In general, full professor at a research university is enough to satisfy WP:PROF # 1 & 2; the book disputed above shows that he meets # 3 & 5; the only reason I can't say anything about criteria 4 & 6 is because I don't know enough about him. This should be open and shut. Discussions about the book should be under a separate AfD. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 15:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Take your drama elsewhere, please. Sandstein 19:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Nell[edit]

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

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

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

The result was Keep and redirect to Taking the Long Way ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voice Inside My Head[edit]

Song didn't chart; isn't the subject of any reliable third-party sources beyond the one article about Taking the Long Way. Was apparently a promotional single only. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, fails WP:MUSIC. Redirect back to album Taking the Long Way. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - completely agree with all above, doesn't meet any criteria under WP:MUSIC. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 00:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, but needs a good trimming, some of the character sections could be usefully reduced - I have removed some of the more obvious WP:OR. Black Kite 08:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in the Cloverfield universe[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just a big repetition of the plot of the movie Cloverfield and the manga prequel. It is therefore duplicative and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Important information should be merged with Cloverfield, especially at least a summary of the characters. Gary King (talk) 00:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is original research. -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A discussion of fiction through a list of character sis not plot summary, though it can be derived from the fiction--for a film like this, it's an alternate way of presenting the material, clearer in many respects than alternatives. It is not duplication to have alternate ways of handling these topics. DGG (talk) 01:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:FICT. Excessive plot summary without real-world notability that should be merged into the main article. Terraxos (talk) 02:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: It would probably be best to move some of the information to cast section of the Cloverfield article, at least about 5 sentences or so for each character. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 01:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's the best way to have a summary characters, and the reason why it's so crappy is because 1) Wikipedia is under attack by prankters 2) No one gave a damn about checking and editing. --4444hhhh (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so. I've just given the article a massive overhaul — well, for the film's characters, at least, since I'm most familiar with them — and you can check out my recent contributions at the article's history. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 22:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs work but then what does not? Z gin der 2008-06-02T01:42Z (UTC)
Keep: After giving it more thought, I say it'd be best to keep this article. All it needs is a little improvement, and I'm sure the issues stated can be addressed and fixed in time. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 02:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the plot summary and some short descriptions in the main Cloverfield article should suffice. –thedemonhog talk • edits 02:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marijuana and schizophrenia[edit]

Better analysis exists in article entitled Health issues and effects of cannabis. The article being considered for deletion is extremely biased and does not present any new information (see its discussion page). Mbarbier (talk) 20:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look as though it contains any non-duplicative information, so delete. If it does have anything I've missed worth merging it'll need NPOVing first. Olaf Davis | Talk 21:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge if possible - Completely agree with both nom and Olaf Davis above, it's more or less a duplicate of Health issues and the effects of cannabis. Merge if possible. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 00:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus to delete, which defaults to "keep". Valid arguments given on both sides of the debate of equal value, cannot find enough justification to delete or merge content. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Human (Star Wars)[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just a repetition of the plot sections of Star Wars novel articles. This article is purely trivia and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant plot summary and trivia. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The role of humans in the Star Wars universe is hugely notable and I have planted a few seeds in the article to demonstrate this. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You must be joking...the references you have added belong in the article on Star Wars or the first movie, and how some author can establishe that all the actors are "non-jewish" without proof is silly. That's not proof at all, as it does not actually demonstrate something about this topic in particular. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable part of hugely notable series. Hobit (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to assertions of notability through reliable sources and also because trivia is encyclopedic. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge whatever last-ditch cited material (like the recently added stuff) to Star_Wars#Feature_films and redirect there. Humans by themselves are not notable; cited material about dramatic role is more appropriate included in the films' production info. --EEMIV (talk) 02:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other related articles such as Star Wars are too big already. They should therefore be broken down into smaller topics like this series which describes the races/species of the Star Wars universe. Humans are obviously the most important of these, with the most real-world impact, and so this proposal is ridiculous. As you indicate, it is ordinary content editing which is required, not deletion. Thank you for your keep !vote. :) Colonel Warden (talk) 05:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is silly. The article doesn't establish the notability of humans in Star Wars. Most works of fiction feature mainly humans. (Where is my Human (Hamlet) article?) This article rambles on and on in an in-universe tone about various plot points, characters and alien races. Once you remove that, you are left with a sentence or two. Merge to somewhere else if you really want to, but delete this fancruft. --Phirazo 18:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lengthy summary of plot points about fictional versions of species. Notability is not established through significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. I suspect the references listed are merely passing mention or about Star Wars in general as it is doubtful there are works which focus on the human race specifically. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The book The Science of Star Wars: An Astrophysicist's Independent Examination of Space Travel, Aliens, Planets, and Robots as Portrayed in the Star Wars Films and Books devotes many pages to the subject of humans in the Star Wars universe, including a few pages (pp. 20-23) analyzing whether humans (assuming earthlike biology) could be able to survive on the variety of planetary environments portrayed in the stories (this coverage can be verified using the "Search inside this book" link at Amazon.com). Given that there are three more references cited in the article itself, I don't doubt that there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources for an article on this subject. Oh, and we don't have an article on Human (Hamlet) because Hamlet, like the majority of fictional stories, take place on Earth and are about Earth-bound humans, which is a subject covered adequately in the Human article. (Although an article on Shakespeare's portrayal of humanity in general would probably not be unreasonable.) "Humans" living "a long time ago in a galaxy far far away..." that do not clearly have anything to do with Earth humans other than having a similar appearance, are indeed a different subject entirely. DHowell (talk) 20:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eeek. Get it out of my sight! Speedily! Seriously though: No. This just does not belong. dorftrottel (talk) 00:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the articles on the list of races in the star wars universe is already several articles and this can not be added back. Z gin der 2008-06-02T01:48Z (UTC)
Keep per the AFD discussion for Human (Star Trek), also initiated by JudgeSurreal. AFD is still not cleanup. SashaNein (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the article has a lot of potential with the mass media coverage of the Star Wars saga. If it was an article about humans in something like The Godfather trilogy (taken another famous movie series), then I would say delete, but the Star Wars humans are apparently different than those in everyday life. –thedemonhog talk • edits 02:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per --EEMIV's reasoning. Just another dollop of in-universe duplicate material. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wizardman 20:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Occidental Quarterly[edit]

Appears to be a non-notable fringe journal. The only independent, reliable sources provided in the article discuss a whites-only dating website, proposed by the publisher of the magazine. While coverage in Newsweek may make the website (or at least the controversy surrounding it) notable, the website is separate from the journal and does not confer notability on it. Gwernol 20:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find many mentions of the publication, but the only piece I see that is a profile is this article at the Huffington Post, "More White Supremacists in the Closet" by Joshua Zeitz. I suspect that isn't enough to establish notability. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, coverage exists including criticism and support. Not a lot, but sufficient. --Dhartung | Talk 21:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first of these seems to be an article about Arnold Schwarzenegger that doesn't mention the Occidental Quarterly. The second appears to be about William Regnery, not the journal. The third mentions in passing that Abernethy is on the board of the journal but is not about the journal. The final one is not a reliable source and isn't about the journal, again it just mentions it in passing. None of these, as far as I can tell, are useful sources for showing that the Occidental Quarterly is notable. Gwernol 21:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep g-news pulls up some other hits as well, such as a mentions in this and this. Those are passing mentions mostly, but hits at g-books and g-scholar show a number of third-party publications citing issues of it as a reference. I think that's sufficient to demonstrate notability. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 22:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clear sources for notability given and cited in the article. DGG (talk) 22:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, the only sources cited in the article are about Regnery and his dating website, not about the Occidental Quarterly, which is the subject of this article. Gwernol 23:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 due to wrong criteria for AfD. (non-admin closure) Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 02:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher (film) (2nd nomination)[edit]

Result of previous AfD closed on April 25 was merge to Margaret Thatcher. Nobody's bothered, so I think we can be rid of this 2009 TV show at least until it starts production. I'd say it becomes notable only after it's been on TV. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The previous nomination was in fact closed on the 3rd of May, and there have been no significant edits since then: [16] Olaf Davis | Talk 22:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and merged the content to Margaret Thatcher per the previous discussion, so can an admin close this as speedy merge? (Assuming such a thing exists by analogy with speedy keep - I hope I'm not breaking any policy here.) Olaf Davis | Talk 22:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List in WP:RFD if you want to discuss deleting the Redirect page. Otherwise, the merger has been done per the previous nomination. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 02:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 19:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Hunton[edit]

MusicMaker5376 has suggested that this article fails to meet the notability standards for Entertainers. I was unsure this was true and declined to speedy delete. Rmhermen (talk) 20:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete: I have seen this girl she was a Guest Star, top of show on Drew Carey, Also she was a lead in Chicken Soup for the Soul in an episode entitled "Carries Gift" in which she played Carrie. These are more than "walk-on" roles. Spring Awakening is NOT her first "featured" (btw it would correctly be called Lead) role. In theatre you are a Lead, a Swing or an Ensemble. Les Miserables was a LEAD. She was a co-star in Angel, and Judging Amy, she was a supporting in Happy Endings and a Lead in Distracted. Additionally, This girl has three songs on a CD (when she was 12!) All this by the age of 16 seems pretty significant to me. Oh did I mention that she is a Lead in the Disney Animated film Tinkerbell? Disney...small potatoes? Do your research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balconygurl (talk • contribs) 23:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: She has a modest resume, but only a modest one ... a few minor walk-on one shot roles in a few TV shows. She's autolisted in a lot of the "celebrity" databases that list anyone who's ever appeared in anything, but without anything in the way of genuine biographical information. When it comes down to it, what part of WP:BIO does she meet? RGTraynor 20:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Spring Awakening role is her first "featured" or "signfigant" role. In order to satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER, the subject needs to have "had significant roles or been featured multiple times in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions." At this time, she does not satisfy those qualifications. — MusicMaker 5376 20:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Doyle (note creators were different, though Doyle's was an WP:SPA). Neither actor originated their role. I'm going to go look and see whether any of the actors have articles now. --Dhartung | Talk 21:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another replacement, Alexanda Socha (see Wikipedia:Geogre's Law...) seems more than iffy to me and was created by the same editor. Co-replacements Blake Bashoff (acting in TV/movies; article created 2004) and Kyle Riabko (singing career) are both marginally notable. --Dhartung | Talk 21:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Its a 3 day old article on a fairly bona fide actress. She may be notable in future but not presently. Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTAL. Perhaps she will be notable in the future but not at present. Artene50 (talk) 05:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has appeared in multiple stage performances as shown in these sources, Spring Awakening [17] and Les Miz [18], Distracted [19]. The article does need work but as it states in WP:DEL "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion."--Captain-tucker (talk) 11:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I added the above references to the article. --Captain-tucker (talk) 11:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Regular editing" won't make her notable. — MusicMaker 5376 13:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - My point was that WP:ENTERTAINER states "been featured multiple times in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions", so if she has been in three (i.e. multiple) stage performances (all referenced by reliable sources) does she not meet that criteria? It does not state that they must be all on Broadway or that the actor must be the 'originating' actor in that role.--Captain-tucker (talk) 13:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm certainly not the arbiter of WP:ENTERTAINER, I don't think three is "multiple". Three is "a few"; three is "several". "Multiple" I would take to mean in the double-digits. — MusicMaker 5376 14:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to DuckTales. Nothing but unsourced plot summary and trivia at this point. Black Kite 08:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Double-O-Duck[edit]

This is the only episode of DuckTales that has its own article (problably). This episode fails Wikipedia:EPISODE. Theres no claim or notability, no real world information, or secondary sources. The article contains a summary and a trivia section, nothing else-- Coasttocoast (talk) 20:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to DuckTales (which was already done and undone, not sure why). Wouldn't be a bad search term as the title of the episode, but not notable enough for its own article. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 22:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I undid it because I saw it was previously redirected and undid. So just to avoid any arguments I decided to bring it here -- Coasttocoast (talk) 23:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable (search term) and even if it was, the DuckTales-editing Wikipedians have not demonstrated a capability to manufacture good articles. –thedemonhog talk • edits 02:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as, seeing as the episode was the inspiration for the entire Darkwing Duck cartoon, I believe that establishes notability. McJeff (talk) 06:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Although the apparent lack of secondary sources would typically be a deciding factor, User:Emperor raises the argument that there are sources yet unexplored. Combined with the comments noting appearances in multiple films related with a single studio, I consider this to be an argument sufficient enough to challenge the arguments in favor of deletion. Toss in the fairly even split between commenters, and it's clear that there's no firm consensus at this time. --jonny-m t 02:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Val Verde (fictional country)[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just a repetition of trivial plot points from several films. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of references indicating "significant coverage" in third-party sources. --EEMIV (talk) 20:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fictional country is referenced in a number of films, being used as a stand-in. Some films, such as Die Hard 2, give some geo-political history about the country as well. This article is more relevant than many in wikipedia. The simple fact that it is referenced in more than one film makes it more notable than some other exiting entries. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a compelling reason for keep (or delete) an article. In-universe geo-political "history" is not enough to sustain an article in the absence of out-of-universe third-party sources. --EEMIV (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I gave my opinion. I don't need to debate it with you. It has become VERY evident to me that wiki-administrators do whatever they want, so trying to justify it with you is pointless. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an administrator. But, whatever. Happy editing! --EEMIV (talk) 21:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I say you were one? I said the administrators do anything they please. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They do stop people from removing the AFD tag from an article, that's for sure. Garion96 (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. I stand by what I said. If it doesn't apply to you, wonderful. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unrelated trivia. There is nothing to indicate any continuity between the appearances other than some of the same creative personnel. --Dhartung | Talk 21:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For whatever reason, "Val Verde" is used in films from 20th Century Fox as its generic (or stereotypical) Latin American dictatorship; Fox also has a history of using the name for towns in Westerns, such as Bolero in 1968. Being a Hollywood stereotype, it's a legitimate subject for an article. Mandsford (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to multiple appearances in diverse films. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems notable enough. Bienfuxia (talk) 04:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The notability has only been flagged for a few days and we should try and exhaust all efforts to improve an entry (that isn't obviously completely non-notable) before resorting to AfD. There are certainly lines of areas that haven't yet been followed (for example, DVD commentary tracks are often a good place to look for creators' insight on such things, also given the fact that it does appear in a number of films it must have been mentioned somewhere). This AfD may even prove useful as it will draw attention to the need for more sources - so if anyone has any of the films or might know of any other good sources then now is the time to pitch in (I'll have a look through Predator later). Also on a sidenote there was a spoofed CIA entry for Val Verde which was removed from the links and it could be worth adding this back in: cached version. (Emperor (talk) 13:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Comment - How is this article "notable enough"? Is it the total lack of reliable sources, or the lack of any real world coverage or commentary? Besides we need not add 50 references because of the AFD, a few would be nice, but I doubt even that will be found. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks secondary sources to satisfy notability. Edison (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of representation by reliable third party publications or sources. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Its repeated use in mainstream films from notable producers and distributors establishes its notability as a fiction item. It's better to improve and cite more sources than to delete. " Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia; there is no practical limit to the number of topics it can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page." MichaelNetzer (talk) 07:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 01:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of castes from the Alien expanded universe[edit]

This article is an inappropriate compilation of the cast information from various Alien and Predator media articles. The cast and characters of the individual movies and other media articles belong in their own articles, not compiled here as it is purely duplicative. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this article is about aspects of the expanded universe which are not featured in the movies, so no, duplication is not the goal. If there are sections which overlap, these should be changed, of course. Funkynusayri (talk) 20:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of references and presence of original research -- I don't think "Razor Claws" is any sort of official/cite-able label, for example. This looks mostly like trivia; a more appropriate treatment in some other article would look at production reasons for creatures' various appearances across media (e.g. the Alien3 creature being given more doglike features to reflect its host -- if this list were to include the whole franchise, that is). --EEMIV (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Razor Claws" is the name it has in the game. Anyway, the article can be improved, so I don't see why it should be deleted just because it currently lacks sources. Rather address the problems you think the article has on the talk page. I personally think the article should focus on the expanded universe overall, like with Star Wars, not just the castes, but that's an issue with the title, not the content. Funkynusayri (talk) 21:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See my proposal here: [20] Funkynusayri (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep combination articles like this are the appropriate way to handle these topics. DGG (talk) 01:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, organized, and verifiable list concerning elements of a notable franchise). As it does not advance a thesis, it is not original research. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not fond of this article, but it does offer a decent safety valve for non-canonical information not relevant to the "serious" articles like Alien (Alien franchise). Serendi ^pod ous 12:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Such articles are occasionally appropriate, when they have reliable sources and real world notability, and so far this article demonstrates neither. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research and due to a lack of reliable sources and out of universe coverage. Nomenclature includes some original research. Edison (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again, why not simply propose what should be changed instead of voting delete? It's pretty simple, claiming "original research" is present, without even giving valid examples, is kind of useless. There is plenty of stuff in the Aliens novels and comics which could be discussed in this article, again, see the Star Wars expanded universe article. Funkynusayri (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although it certainly requires some cleaning up and verifying, the content is valid for an encyclopedia. Deleting would resulting in people simply adding more to the Xenomorph article etc. Kilo T 20:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some more real-world sourcing is certainly possible, so I see no need to delete the article although it could certainly be improved. The nominator is aware, I hope, that this article is about caste information, not cast information, as the rationale for deletion seems to indicate they have misunderstood what the article is about in the first place. --Canley (talk) 01:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Alien_Quadrilogy#Origins_and_production as the information is already there. Black Kite 08:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Alien Legacy[edit]

This is an article about a DVD release of the Alien movies, and asserts no notability through reliable sources. It should be mentioned in a sentence in the Alien movie articles, not an article on a non notable DVD release Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: DVDs are not inherently notable. This could easily be mentioned as 1 or 2 sentences in the Alien (franchise) article. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Alien (franchise). Judgesurreal777, if you haven't read WP:ATD from the deletion policy, you need to read it now. And read this too: Wikipedia:Merge#Proposing a merger. --Pixelface (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That policy applies to articles which should be either cleaned up or merged, both of which require enough notability to need mentioning in another article into which you merge the unnotable one. The stuff I AFD isn't notable enough for inclusion somewhere else, or so I believe. If I did, I would merge it, and I do when I think it is notable. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NNC. Notability applies to topics, not article content. Text does not have to be "notable" in order to be in an article, just verifiable. --Pixelface (talk) 09:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Alien (franchise) That's the best place for a non-notable DVD. Ultra! 09:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as search term. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as I have never been a fan of DVD articles and it appears that this DVD set did not even come with any bonus features. –thedemonhog talk • edits 03:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as hoax, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Zwierzchowski! The Adventures of a Merman Live-er[edit]

No sources, possible hoax, no Google hits except for article. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 20:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references for a TV show? Certain hoax. Borrows phrases from H20. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G3 Most certainly a hoax. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trapped by History(book)[edit]

Looks more like someone's book report than a Wikipedia article; no references and no assertion of notability. KurtRaschke (talk) 19:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: ~~Speedy Delete under CSDG1 or G11 . Rgoodermote 20:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)~~: Upon reading other comments I have changed my stance. Still speedy delete but only to close this AfD. As the article in question has not declared it's notability. It is basically a summary from the back of a book. Rgoodermote 20:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't qualify for either. It's not nonsense and it's not really advertising. But there should be no problems about closing this early; it's not an encyclopedic topic. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not just a book report, but one of those book reports where a kid reads a summary straight off of the back cover. Mandsford (talk) 22:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article doesn't merit a spot on Wikipedia. Artene50 (talk) 06:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from User:213.7.29.248 moved from article's talkpage: I believe this article should not be deleted but someone with experience handling wikipedia articles should help whoever wrote this article to better it and the only thing in my opinion that should be deleted is the link to the website. This is a free encyclopedia and i believe someday that book could play a very important part in the world of literature and an article should be made for it. WilliamH (talk) 12:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avp 3[edit]

This article has zero reliable sources, and is pure speculation until there is an official announcement. This information deserves a one sentence mention on the Alien versus Predator franchise article, not a whole article of speculation. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of sources, WP:CRYSTAL. --EEMIV (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:CRYSTAL, producers seem to be keeping everything secret, so there isn't any information to put in here. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 00:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete There are now 2 sources for the article but they are from blog sites, not reliable independent sources. At present, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Article may be more appropriate in 2009 when the movie is released. Artene50 (talk) 05:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of verifiability. Of the two sources in the article, one links to the other, and the primary source relies on an "anonymous source". Even if there is verifiable coverage, a stand-alone article would not be appropriate this early per the notability guidelines for future films. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Ty 02:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Laakso[edit]

Article is essentially a lengthy essay-like timeline; not encyclopedic. KurtRaschke (talk) 19:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a sculptor of WP:LOCAL significance only, judging by trivial mentions in newspapers and books. No substantive criticism of his work or major museum holdings. --Dhartung | Talk 21:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 05:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:BIO standards. Artene50 (talk) 05:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. Johnbod (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 20:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lia Mira[edit]

Does not establish notability through Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The fact that it could be autobiographical doesn't help either. Wizardman 19:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I am very familiar with this personality. Certainly not notable outside of the local market. --InDeBiz1 Review me! / Talk to me! 01:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to WCIL-FM as that appears to encompass her entire broadcasting career. As morning show co-host for many years she certainly merits a few sentences in that article but does not meet the notability threshold for a standalone article. - Dravecky (talk) 22:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 01:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Antimos[edit]

Commercial spam page for an absolutely non-notable insect repellant (and putatively ineffective scam product). The page has been created and edited by Pingfan (and an anonymous user). This user (and some other anonymous users) have also spammed articles with links to the product's website, e.g. on insect repellant and mosquito control. Cacycle (talk) 19:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sources given or available to establish notability, so fails WP:CORP/WP:PRODUCT--Captain-tucker (talk) 14:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. Tiptoety ^talk 23:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spedpod[edit]

Unused protologism, no hits. Fails WP:RS, and WP:V. Asenine 19:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete; WP:NEO. --KurtRaschke (talk) 19:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Cannot be speedied, does not fit into any available category. I would have otherwise. Asenine 19:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Note - Agreed, the CSD are exceedingly rigid and lead to a lot of jumping through hoops just to get rid of bad pages, but this AfD should still be a candidate for early closure. --KurtRaschke (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. Though ghits] shows some links about this entry in different name, but most of them are blog. No indication of notability--NAHID 19:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bstone (talk) 19:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, non-notable neologism if I ever saw one. JIP | Talk 20:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, no refs and difficult to obtain, no indication of notability and possible advertisement. ~A H1^(TCU) 21:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 18:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Orleans Idol[edit]

Completely unnotable local broadcast television series. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Could not find anything regarding this TV show. So it fails WP:RS, WP:N

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

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

The result was keep. Wizardman 19:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lighthouse Family discography[edit]

Duplicate of information already contained on Lighthouse Family and on the pages pertaining to the individual albums. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd consider merging the album articles to this as it seems to be a neat comprehensive article. --neonwhite user page talk 22:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually the standard for band articles is to remove all discography-related information (EPs, singles) except a list of studio albums from the band article if a discography article exists. See FAs such as R.E.M., Opeth, Metallica. indopug (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the FA precedents mentioned. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, definitely. Standard discog article, though it needs some formatting help. -Freekee (talk) 02:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 07:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drill 'n bass[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drill 'n bass

Bad, contentious article, based on an underground non-notable genre name. Article is barely sourced, with no good sources available, only an out of date allmusic guide, and the fact that some mp3 websites list the name as a category. This genre name doesn't deserve its own article, especially as the 4 artists which supposedly are the only notable artists in the genre have been on the same record label (Rephlex Records). Mansour Said (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sorry Newsnight Watcher, this is just not notable enough. Leave the mention on the relevant artist pages though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.122.225 (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, never heard of it. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:IDONTKNOWIT. –thedemonhog talk • edits 03:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as notability has not been established and the genre ended seven years ago so notability is unlikely to be established in the future. –thedemonhog talk • edits 03:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as an attack page nancy ^(talk) 19:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slugathor[edit]

Seems to be a mixture of a slang term and an attack page. Contested prod. Justpassin (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. While "Slugathor" appears to be the name of some metal band, this "slugathor" is... uh... a demeaning nickname for freshmen at some high school, I guess. I'm close to recommending a G3 speedy as blatant vandalism. AnturiaethwrTalk 18:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per Anturiaethwr. Looks like an attack page against an unidentifiable person. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete It is a vailed attack page. So tagged as G10 --Pmedema (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 19:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Dougherty[edit]

Non-notable Catholic priest who fails WP:RS, and WP:BIO -- Nomader ^(Talk) 18:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, one appearance as a human shield, and a visa flap; all other coverage is local. --Dhartung | Talk 21:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very marginal. The only other source, semi-independent, that I found is this interviewlet, which has no useful content for our purposes. I see enough coverage to understand why we have a stub on him, but also little enough to despair of it ever being more than a stub. GRBerry 15:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete - As copyvio Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Millenium Falcon (Star Wars novel)[edit]

Appears to be entirely promotional, zero sources are provided to establish notability. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 17:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article appears to be copied from Wookieepedia, contains no reliable sources per WP:RS. Once the novel is released it might qualify for its own article, but for now it should be deleted. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 17:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a crystal ball, article consists mainly of copy-pasted plot summary, possible copyvio. JIP | Talk 20:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G12 Speedy delete. This is a direct and blatant copyright violation from [21] Artene50 (talk) 05:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Generally redundant and duplicative. Black Kite 08:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extended History of Modern Rock Tracks[edit]

A list created as an "extension" of Modern Rock Tracks, which already has a small section on statistics. Doesn't seem to be notable at all; even to merge it into the main article doesn't make sense. Definitely fails WP:NOT#IINFO. - eo (talk) 17:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the harm in giving more information, if you dont like page dont go to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slivercobain (talk • contribs) 18:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NOT. It's not that the nominator doesn't like the page; it's that it violates WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NOT#STATS as it's an indiscriminate collection of trivia and stats about the charts. And please sign your posts. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indiscriminate collection of information; why does it have to be more than ten weeks? Totally arbitrary collection of info. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What amount of weeks do you suggest? 5 weeks? There have been dozens of artists and even songs that have spent that amount of time and if thats what you are looking for you might as well just look at the List of US Number 1 Modern Rock Hits page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slivercobain (talk • contribs) 18:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Alot of this is a duplicate in Modern Rock Tracks, and there's no reason for it not to stay there. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 21:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As i forgot to mention in prior statements here, i am the author of this article. I feel that with further research on the chart this could be a very popular page for followers of the Modern Rock Tracks chart. People want to know what band's were successful. Alternative rock has been the dominant rock format since the early 1990s, needless to say it is an extremely popular form of music and the Modern Rock Tracks chart is essentially its main chart. Long time lovers of the genre im sure would love to see find out about how there favorite band broke records on this chart. And a lot of the records for the chart are not recognized on the main page. If this page is deleted their needs to be a second page for additional info to be shared.

There does NOT need to be a second page. All of this can go into the Modern Rock Tracks page. Pages on Wikipedia have no size limit. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 13:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I wouldn't consider any of it notable for the main article, even. It's all redundant information that can be found on the individual "by-year" number-ones pages. The statistics section that is already in the main article already highlights the important records. - eo (talk) 13:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are already two articles that already say all of this more or less, along with A template which leads to the individual lists of #1s on the chart per year. And like it's been pointed out, most of this is a duplicate of stats in the Modern Rock Tracks article. I think the page's creator thought that Wikipedia articles had a size limit. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 23:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EC8OR[edit]

non-notable band akaDruid (talk) 15:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:MUSIC#C5 through Digital Hardcore Recordings. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This Ec8or Page should not be deleted. Why in the heck would it be deleted? Ec8or are a notable and influential European electronic band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.88.101 (talk) 07:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They had reviews and interviews in NME. Notable.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Singu larity 17:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The group is on Yahoo [22] and they have hit a couple of minor charts and have released multipul albums etc... seems to me that they have passed WP:BAND... --Pmedema (talk) 17:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets criterion 5 of WP:MUSIC by having multiple recordings on evidently notable labels. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there seem to be sufficient reliable sources on which to base an article. For example this profile from PopMatters.com, these two from NME, this article in Now, also mentions in other sources such as MTV and the New York Times. Guest9999 (talk) 21:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 04:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U.M.N. Network[edit]

Delete. Completely and utterly fails WP:WEB and WP:N. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 15:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Revise. Talk: list of terms in Xenosaga and Talk: Xenosaga#Xenosaga List of Terms lead to this article's creation. The decision was made, in list of terms in Xenosaga, to transwiki the bulk of terms to U.M.N. Network because the game has multiple in-universe terms and definitions that cannot be easily described in an out of universe context, and do not meet the notability criteria of wikipedia. However, without the lump sum of those terms, the notable plot summary of the article Xenosaga (as well as Xenosaga 1, 2 and 3) cannot be well stated and therefore the lump sum of those terms is notable. Since Wikipedia is not a list of links, I created this article as a single link from wikipedia to the mutually agreed upon transwiki'd list of links. If you have a better solution for preserving the notable lump sum of terms, without creating a list of links on wikipedia, and redefining them in a real world universe, then by all means revise this article to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markozeta (talk • contribs) 17:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Singu larity 17:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reliable sources or even a claim of notability. Blast Ulna (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet general notability guideline of coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject itself. This simply isn't notable enough to be in wikipedia. Randomran (talk) 00:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Revise~~ After much thought, I've come to the realization that the way the articles in Xenosaga have been done are acceptable as they are, with a simple link to U.M.N. This article is not needed to perform the transwiki process and therefore should be deleted. However, I do believe that there needs some notification on the collection of Xenosaga pages on wikipedia that the majority of the links are to an external transwiki. I am unsure how to do this and would appreciate commentary on how to do so. In the meantime, delete this article while I begin that discussion on the relevant pages. --Markozeta (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clean up notice placed on all related articles. WikiProject Video games is going to look into cleanup of Xenosaga articles. --Markozeta (talk) 15:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, not a single source.--Otterathome (talk) 22:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is not a notable article for Wikipedia.--EclipseSSD (talk) 15:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 04:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roll (Fab Morvan album)[edit]

Unexplained, contested prod. Fails WP:MUSIC. Upcoming albums are not notable without substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. None provided, none found. Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 19:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Singu larity 17:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources, no crystal gazing, no keep. TN‑X-Man 17:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a crystal ball, no sources, no actual content beyond name of album and artist. JIP | Talk 20:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V. Artene50 (talk) 05:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 04:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tissø Lake[edit]

Likely non-notable musician. No notable label, records, sources. tomasz. 14:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Punkmorten (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Singu larity 17:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC... not much more to say. --Pmedema (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC as the artist has only 1 released album on a "more important indie label", the second album is the first release for Mathilde Records.--Captain-tucker (talk) 15:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hong. --jonny-m t 02:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hong (Chinese word)[edit]

This article is not about a specific term in Chinese or Cantonese with culture or social significance, but simply a collection of terms that translates to "Hong" in English. It is not notable and un-encyclopedic. Voidvector (talk) 17:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a transliterated English word that has been used extensively by the British since the colonial era. It has historical significance. Though I'll admit this article is quite undeveloped and we need more editors. Benjwong (talk) 17:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Voidvector (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. —Voidvector (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to Wiktionary. If the word itself has historical significance, I'd like to know what it is; I somehow doubt that it does. AnturiaethwrTalk 18:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Or redirect to The Hongs, maybe. AnturiaethwrTalk 18:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So we have articles on words like mu, bling, holy cow, hella, niangniangqiang. We even accept Abort, Retry, Fail?, a computer error message as an article. And Hong being such a historical word cannot be kept? This is nuts. Benjwong (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply All of the articles you linked are distinct concepts, not a pseudo-disambiguation page like what we have here. We already have an article on the Hongs (the type of businesses). I am not sure how you find a phonetic transliteration significant or distinct in anyway. (Also, I suggested that "niangniangqiang" be merged into Mandarin Chinese profanity.) --Voidvector (talk) 20:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hong, which is a proper disambiguation page. The sections "Word analysis" probably shouldn't be merged, but the others would be fine in a normal disambiguation page. Calling it a page for a "Chinese word" is inaccurate as it's not even talking about one distinct syllable (I see haang4, heung1, and tons of others lumped under here). cab (talk) 00:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to its proper place, Hong! This is an Anglocentric false collectivity due to accidents of transliteration. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus defaulting to keep. Coherent arguments have been made on both sides, and it comes down to a judgement call on where to draw the line. Ty 02:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ake Lianga[edit]

Contested prod. Awards and exhibitions are not enough to meet WP:BIO criteria Johnbod (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lianga has not only won a notable award and had his work exhibited in the Alcheringa Gallery, among others; he has also been featured on the cover page of The Contemporary Pacific. Aridd (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The award is mentioned in an article, and is not the subject of one. Even if it were, that is often not sufficient to establish notability by itself. The WP:CREATIVE criteria are:
  - The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
  - The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
  - The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
  - The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries.
- He meets none of these. Johnbod (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - He's recognised enough to be invited to exhibit his work in noted galleries, and to be a guest speaker at the Fine Arts department of a university. The Contemporary Pacific, an academic journal, feels that he's notable enough to be likened to John Pule and Albert Wendt. That being the case, deleting the article makes far less sense than keeping it. Aridd (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Lianga has been the subject of non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable sources (and this is only what we've been able to find via Google; there is likely to be quite a bit of local coverage of him that does not show up in Google). Thus, he meets the basic notability criterion, irrespective of whether he meets one or more of the specific "Additional criteria" specified in WP:BIO. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If he is asserted to be notable as an artist, which he is, he needs to meet the criteria for artists. Thousands of local politicians etc meet the general criteria, but are excluded on the specific ones. Johnbod (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - As noted at WP:BIO#Additional criteria: "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. [Howeverm, f]ailure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." The reason that articles on local politicians are sometimes excluded largely has to do with WP:BLP1E; that is, there is coverage of the campaign of the politician, but virtually no coverage of the politician himself/herself. That is not the case with Lianga. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Black Falcon, you beat me to it. I was going to say: He has been covered as an artist by reliable sources. The bio guidelines say "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." The guidelines also say that "Failure to meet [additional / more specific] criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included". We've established Lianga's notability; I see no valid reason to delete the article. Again, it makes a lot more sense to keep it than to delete it. Aridd (talk) 18:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, you haven't established his notability at all. He certainly does not meet the artist standards, and I would dispute that the references found so far meet the general standard. Even if failure to meet the artist standard is "not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included", no reasons why he should be a special case have been advanced. Johnbod (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - While Lianga is not internationally renowned, he does seem to be a person of note within his somewhat narrow field. He and his art have been covered non-trivially in several sources (not all of the 8 sources currently listed in the "References" section provide substantial coverage, but some do), and his work has been exhibited by various galleries and on the cover of a notable academic journal. While I certainly don't insist that this is a case where the subject's notability is clear beyond any reasonable doubt, I also do not agree that retaining this article would in any way make it a "special case". Why do you think that the references provided so far do not satisfy the general notability criterion? –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only "coverage" produced is the 2-line quote, apparently unpublished, by his head of department, that is given in the article. Hardly "non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable sources". One magazine cover??? A web gallery that would be most unlikely to survive AfD itself??? Generally speaking, no one selling an acrylic painting a yard high for CAN$1,800 is going to be notable as an artist. Artists with better claims to notability get deleted here daily. Johnbod (talk) 20:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How is the 2-line quote the only coverage in the article? What about the coverage here (or here - they are similar in content), here, and here. The two articles from the Times Colonist and the Lewiston Morning Tribune are relatively short (about 1-2 paragraphs each, at least as it relates to Lianga), but they still add to existing coverage of the subject (to some extent, notability is cumulative). There is also likely to be coverage of the subject in local newspapers of the Solomon Islands for, if nothing else, designing the logo for World Food Day for Honiara, the capital and largest city of the Solomon Islands (source). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Repetitions of the standard PR bio info from his gallery and his university are neither independent nor particularly reliable. They only pick up the same quote from his prof by way of critical evaluation - if there were any more I'm sure it would be included. The same stuff is picked up by the magazine, and no doubt by local papers. No "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". It's not nearly enough. Johnbod (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is inevitable that different sources that cover Lianga's artistic accomplishments will include a lot of the same information. After all, everyone has only one set of accomplishments. As for the sources, in what way are Alcheringa Gallery and WSU "his gallery and his university", respectively? And why do you assert that they are not reliable? As for "critical evaluation", that is something that exists primarily for works of arts, books, films, ideas, and the like, but not so much for people. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really?? "critical attention" is what the policy calls it, and unfortunately he hasn't had any, except the prof. Johnbod (talk) 23:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because he was invited as a guest speaker at WSU and his work was exhibited and discussed there does not make it "his" university. That claim is quite frankly silly. Please explain in what way the Washington State University is "not independent" and "not reliable". Likewise, the Alcheringa Gallery is not, by any wild stretch of the imagination, "his" gallery. It exhibits artwork by a variety of artists from several countries. Again, please explain in what way it is "not independent" and "not reliable". You seem to be misinformed. If that's your basis for a delete tag, this should be a Speedy Keep. Aridd (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I was mixing the Washington University up with the one he is a alumnus and ex-employee of. The gallery represents him. I was not implying ownership by him in either case, but neither are independent. The gallery, like nearly all commercial galleries, is clearly not a reliable source on artists whose work it is trying to sell, and the nature of the professor's remarks (an unpublished quote, about an artist invited to exhibit and speak) mean he is unlikely to be a WP:RS in this context. Professors always say nice things about guest speakers, but these don't have the same status as comments in published articles or books. In my view this is a clear case of WP:ILIKEIT, but we have discussed the sources enough here, let's see what others think. Johnbod (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can see both sides of this. On balance, though, I agree with Johnbod. I don't think there are multiple non-trivial references per the general requirements, and the travel grant isn't sufficient to meet the specific requirements. On the other hand, at least he's a working artist who's exhibited in a gallery, which is a step up from some of the artist bios taken to AfD.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Several galleries, to be accurate. And his exhibitions received press coverage, so it wasn't just the comments of the galleries themselves. Of course a representative of the uni who invited him would say nice things about him; that isn't the issue. The issue is that the university deemed him notable enough to be invited in the first place. Altogether, I think the attention he's received from notable organisations (academics and art galleries, plus the press, plus The Contemporary Pacific which clearly deems him as notable as art & literature celebrities like Wendt and Pule) clearly make him notable. I'll wait and see now what other people think, though. For the record, I didn't just write an article about him because I like his work, but because I'm trying to provide Wikipedia with articles on notable artists, writers, academics, politicians and sports people from the Oceania region. So WP:ILIKEIT doesn't come into it. I've created articles in the French Wikipedia on people I don't particularly like (Sitiveni Rabuka, for example). I don't see myself as a blind inclusionist, although I object to what I consider pointless deletion of certain articles. Anyway, let's see what other people think. Aridd (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's close, the artist needs a wider range of accomplishment, but is certainly a potentially worthwhile subject...Modernist (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone, by any chance, got a subscription to Project Muse to check these out? [23] Aridd (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficient accomplishments for notability as an artist, and sufficient references to show it. DGG (talk) 01:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After discounting the comments (on both sides) that appear to be motivated by nationalist zeal rather than policy, there's really no serious argument here that would support deleting this article. If you think its contents are wrong, go ahead and fix it. AfD is not cleanup or a substitute for dispute resolution. Sandstein 20:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarians in Albania[edit]

This article shoud be removed becouse it is only spreading false informations,and spreads Bulgarian idea of San Stefano Bulgaria.No neutral sources about Bulgarian minority in Albania.

Makedonij (talk) 21:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE imediately- no such thing in Albania. Regards --MacedonianBoy (talk) 09:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; useless,+ Laveol is useing double standarts,the sources he mention are valid here,but not valid when the word is about Macedonian minority in Bulgaria.--Makedonij (talk) 09:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You are the nominator, you should have signed the nomination so it doesn't look as though you are 'voting' twice.--Doug Weller (talk) 18:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Are you serious? If there are two self-proclaimed Bulgarian associations in Albania, this is a no-brainer. Besides, the article doesn't even claim that all Slavophones are ethnic Bulgarians, so what's the problem? It seems that those behind this AfD think that if you speak a Slavic dialect and happen to live in the wider geographical region of Macedonia, you can only be an "ethnic Macedonian", whether you like it or not. These are the same people who believe there can be no such thing as Slavophone Greeks. Please. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 11:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Are you serius,100,000 Bulgarians in Albania??That is more than 50,000 Greeks in Albania which barly maded recognation along whit Macedonian minority,and now we have 100,000 Bulgarians???Fany,this is nationalistic POV,and nothing more!!Makedonij (talk) 21:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - the article is heavily referenced. This is an obvious POV nomination with I have to say pretty unsubstantial evidence. Are these links the reason for deletion, cause if this is the case I don't think the nomination is serious. --Laveol ^T 14:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:You can watch the contributions of Special:Contributions/Laveol and see that more than 50% of his actions are engagement in negating the Macedonian Nation and its attributes.Makedonij (talk) 22:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete useless... and bulgarian POV--Raso mk (talk) 17:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy KeepI can't see any rationale for deleting it. I don't know what the references of the nominator are supposed to tell us, the article seems referenced adequately. I am not happy about this article being nominated. 'Useless' is not a reason for deletion, and we don't delete articles just because someone thinks they are POV. Nor are we going to delete 'immediately' in any case.--Doug Weller (talk) 18:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Bulgarian Nationalistic Propaganda, Anti-Macedonian. There is no reality check in this article. --Ejanev (talk) 21:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Those aren't reasons for deletion, I don't like it is not an argument for deletion. --Doug Weller (talk) 21:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Yes they are, and i ask him many times to show real references,and he did not.So i ofer real references which clearly shows that there are no Bulgarians in Albania,and for shure not 100.000 of them.This is POV natonalistic propaganda which can only be used in Bg WIKI not here.There is not a single evidence of Bulgarians in Albania.The point of this article is show to the world Bulgarian view of non existion of Macedonian nation!!!+ Laveol do not accept those references when the word is about Macedonian minority in Bulgaria!Makedonij (talk) 21:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary - there are neutral sources, but you have refused to look into them. I'm wondering when will you understand that Wikipedia is not a game. And why are you showing these references here? How are they relevant to the AFD? This is just some joke, right? --Laveol ^T 22:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Joke for you,yes!If there are 50,000 Greeks and 5,000 Macedonians,the Albanians woud probebly recognised Bulgarians to,if there is a number of 100,000 of them!?Dont!Maybe we shoud write an article that Bulgarians claim that they were found on MARS to?--Makedonij (talk) 22:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT by some people. --Tsourkpk (talk) 23:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a well referenced article with numerous verifiable sources on a legitimate topic. Artene50 (talk) 05:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Comment. I do agree that the article is unencyclopedic. But a clean up and reworking of the article to remove bias is needed. PMK1 (talk) 06:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the lists of Albania-, Bulgaria- and ethnic groups-related deletion discussions.—Ev (talk) 06:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are only facts in the article! Jingby (talk) 08:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Rule No.4 say,Please consider notifying the author(s),so the authors are only 3,many out wiki canvaseing in here!Once again this article is National POV pushing and the author did not reedit it,even he was informed a couple of time.On the other hand national minorities in Albania do not include Bulgarians,and OSCE,will probebly mention Bulgarians if they were there.--Makedonij (talk) 09:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not very wise to raise the issue about off-wiki canvassing since two users turned up for an immediate delete ... how bizarre. As you say me and Jingiby are the only two Bulgarians voting here. --Laveol ^T 09:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. It would be original research to claim that there is no bulgarians in Albania. --Eivind (t) 09:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The primary objection here seems to be POV, which is a content issue and not a criteria for deletion. There's a very obvious, simmering issue here of ethnic and national rivalry which is very notable in its own right. The fact that this article doesn't yet discuss this tension, or mention alternative views, is a good opportunity to WP:Be Bold and add that information. Debate (talk) 12:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article is well-referenced from multiple reliable sources. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep Seems to be a very well referenced and encyclopedic article. I can't think of a single reason to delete it. Ijanderson977 (talk) 13:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is referenced. --Gligan (talk) 20:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ for the time being. This article is related to Macedonians in Albania (which represents the Macedonian POV without any mention of the Bulgarian POV); ideally the two articles should be merged into one, because they are dealing with the same group of people whose ethnicity is disputed, but just naming that article will be like entering an ethnic minefield. Preslav (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How can their ethnicity be disputed?? Their is official an Ethnic Macedonian minority in Albania. Their is no official bulgarian one. PMK1 (talk) 06:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is a significant number of people who have a different POV on this compared to the official Albanian one, there is a dispute. That this minority POV is not endorsed by any government doesn't matter. Actually, because of the official Albanian POV, I now consider it best to merge this article into Macedonians in Albania. Preslav (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the reasons given by User:Debate. Dimadick (talk) 07:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was hesistant to vote delete but one contributor will not accept any change to the article to remove the POV information. You cant constructively create an encyclopedic entry like this. PMK1 (talk) 06:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~/Comment ~~I'm voting~~ I voted to keep, though most parts of the article need to be completely reworded. It looks like a POV-fork ("ethnic Macedonians are Bulgarians, therefore an ethnic Macedonian minority in Albania are actually a brainwashed Bulgarian minority") and a section should probably be added to the Macedonians in Albania article. --Hegumen (talk) 07:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, ethnic Macedonians are Bulgarians?? WTF?? whats wrong with you? PMK1 (talk) 02:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no. That's their reasoning for a Bulgarian minority in Albania. --Hegumen (talk) 07:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This is a procedural closing; the nominator withdrew. Darkspots (talk) 02:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raghu Ram[edit]

Requesting Deletion

I am not convinced that Raghu Ram meets any of the following criteria for creative professionals.

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.

Whether he is an "important" figure is obviously subjective, but I do believe the answer is to that is "no". He is certainly not widely cited.

The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.

Roadies is not a concept or technique. It is just a TV show.

The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

While Roadies is a well known work, it has not been the subject of multiple independent reviews.

The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries.

Not true.

Perhaps the statements I made might become false if Roadies continues for another 10 or so years, but at the moment, I do not believe that Raghu can have a wikipedia entry just because he is executive producer of a fairly successful TV show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pramod.s (talk • contribs) 2008/05/25 09:25:38

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Let me answer the objections one by one:

He certainly is a notable figure and is executive producer of many shows on mtv including, MTV Roadies, MTV Teen Diva, MTV iSuperstar and many more.
The person in question is the producer, creator and a judge in selection of contestants in the reality show.
Well MTV Roadies is India's longest running Reality show and Raghu Ram is integral to the show from selecting contestants to producing the show.
the answer to the last point is same as above. Raghu is the executive producer of Many shows on MTV and i guess that shd be reason enough to keep this article for a while.

The necessary tags have been placed on the page and i believe we shd give it enough time to evolve into a proper article. Gprince007 (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Gprince007

I reiterate. I am not convinced about him having an article just because he is an executive producer. Being executive produce by itself does not establish notability. How many other executive producers do we have on wikipedia? I don't see any articles about the producers of, say, Baa Bahoo Aur Baby. Are you suggesting that in the long run we're going to have articles about the producers/directors for each of these serials? What about about other producers who work at MTV? Surely Raghu is not the only one. I find it hard to believe that we want articles about everybody who produced a TV show at some point on Indian TV.

My point is, Raghu's claim to notability is not his job as executive producer, but that he appears on the show frequently. I think we should have a higher bar than just folks who come on TV often. I also believe that the criteria for notability with their emphasis on citations from peers and successors as well as independent reviewers are an attempt to establish this higher bar.

Pramod.s(talk) Pramod 19:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Pramod.s

You asked "How many other executive producers do we have on wikipedia?".....the answer is Fred Barron, Larry David, George Shapiro, Jerry Seinfeld, Tina Fey, Joann Alfano and many many more....all the above mentioned ppl are executive producers of famous TV serials. MTV Roadies completed it 5 seasons is probably up for its 6th season....Therefore Raghu being an executive producer of famous indian reality show deserves an article of its own. Baa Bahoo Aur Baby may not be a TRP hit or its Executive producer may not be well known...but Raghu is well known and also the producer of many other programs on MTV. As for other producers on MTV, they might not be as famous as Raghu....if they are then u can create an article for them too....I just wanna say that many executive producers have their own articles and Raghu also deserves the same....The necessary tags have been placed on the page and i believe we shd give it enough time to evolve into a proper article. Thnx...Gprince007 (talk) 06:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Gprince

Well, I think folks like Seinfeld are much more well known than Raghu, so the comparison is not really fair. I do want to make the point that although Raghu is quite well known amongst the so-called "younger generation" , he may not be that notable to the population outside of that demographic.

Then again, this is all subjective. I don't have any particularly strong feelings on this subject, so if you believe the article should be kept, I am inclined to withdraw the deletion request.

How do we proceed from here? Do you want to wait and get a few more opinions? If you think not, then I am fine with removing the deletion tag.

Pramod.s(talk) Pramod 14:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-He's just not an executive producer, but an important character in the show as well. Plus he is relatively well known.--Shahab (talk) 06:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing Request for Deletion Since nobody else has turned up supporting the deletion cause, and Gprince007 and Shahab are both saying we should keep the article, I'm going to go and remove the deletion tag from the page. Pramod.s(talk) Pramod 19:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 19:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replicas of Michelangelo's David[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Replicas of Michelangelo's David (2nd nomination)

The article on David Replicas fails to meet wikipedia notability guidelines. There are multiple independent sources, but they do not contribute to the coverage of the replicas as a whole but instead the individual replicas by source. The sources also do not seem to provide "significant coverage" as one from the Victoria and Albert Museum is about an element related to but not the replica. The next from the Smithsonian appears to be a catalog listing, which provides support for the existence of a replica but no reason that it is notable. The daily titan article seems more appropriate for an article on college traditions rather than replicas. Additionally the daily titan does not appear to meet the criteria for a reliable source. Lastly none of those sources are independent of the subject. Swimmtastic (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Johnbod (talk) 23:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - and I think this is the first nomination - or where is the link to the first? Get real - subject is notable. Why on earth are the Victoria and Albert Museum, the Smithsonian or the Los Angeles Times not WP:RSs, or independent? The article has not been around long & more sourcing will no doubt be added, though much of the content comes under Subject-specific common knowledge. Add tags if you like. Johnbod (talk) 23:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete The V&A page references the V&A's own replica. This hardly seems independent.--Swimmtastic (talk) 04:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: above delete by nom. Ty 00:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The V&A replica itself has been published in enough books and catalogues to arguably warrant an article on its own, as has the replica in front of the Palazzo Vecchio in Florence. The sources, I'm sure, will be added eventually. I admit, the California State University, Fullerton student paper is probably not of the highest caliber, and I only copied it over from that article to provide a source for this newly-added topic. There is plenty of third-party, peer-reviewed, properly published information on the major examples, though, so I don't see any reason for not letting the article grow. Besides, it was split out of an article that is growing too large, so this process will inevitably repeat itself. --Stomme (talk) 23:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - The V&A and the Palazzo Vecchio replicas perhaps should have their own articles. But their notability doesn't lend to the notability of all replicas.--Swimmtastic (talk) 03:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided - This seems like an odd article on its own. Was the replica section of the original David article so long that it needed to be split off? It seems that swimtastic is arguing that because the source is the museum and the museum has the replica, that makes them not independent. The smithsonian link has information about a replica in Buffalo, so I don't know why that's not independent or reliable. I didn't see anything wrong with the LA times, except that the article emphasizes the number and placement of the replicas. Overall the sources of information look good and are getting better, but I think I share with swimtastic a lack of understanding of why the replicas are notable. Just because there's information about them doesn't seem to justify inclusion. Maybe this article needs writing about why the replicas are of significance. --15stamps (talk) 02:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. It would be hard to think of any subject related to the study of such a world-renowned artist as Michelangelo that was not inherently notable and worth keeping. I think we can sleep safely if we take it that the level of scholarship of a national museum such as the V&A can be relied on. Ty 03:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong delete~~. Many great works of art have been reproduced extensively. It would be hard to think of all of the replicas of any one work, even created by a world-renowned artist as Michelangelo, as being inherently notable and worth keeping. The scholarship of the V&A is not necessarily in question, but the manner in which the reference is used which is not in keeping with the alleged notability of replicas. The article is primarily about the fig leaf and the associated discomfort with full frontal male nudity. --Swimmtastic (talk) 03:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it is important to note the fact that there are other Davids out there. It also prevents articles for those replicas from popping up and being contested. Kevin Rutherford 20:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ because the other Davids out there aren't all notable. If some of them are then they can pop up and be contested. If they are contested, then there are procedures to determine if a consensus is reached and whether or not to keep them. Let them be tested on their own.--Swimmtastic (talk) 04:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per Tyrenius. I don't see the problem...Modernist (talk) 21:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Delete~~ If you don't see the problem, then say why you don't see it. --Swimmtastic (talk) 04:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. As the article points out, there are a variety of reasons for making a replica of Michelangelo's masterpiece, ranging from study by students of art, to tacky tourism. Mandsford (talk) 22:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ What do the reasons for making a replica have to do with whether or not the article should be deleted? Tacky tourism or studying, these reasons are relevant to an article on replicas in general, but not to the notability of this article.--Swimmtastic (talk) 04:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not entirely sure that mixing up genuine copies (sometimes to replace an original removed for safekeeping), plaster casts (for other museums), and tourist replicas is the right approach, but the article is good enough to stand on its own for now. For the 19th century practice of taking plaster casts, see Cast Courts (Victoria and Albert Museum). For another piece of sculpture, even more widely copied and cast, see The Thinker: "More than any other Rodin sculpture, The Thinker moved into the popular imagination as an immediately recognizable icon of intellectual activity; consequently, it has been subject to endless satirical use. This began in Rodin's lifetime.". It may be possible, one day, to do a large overview article on sculpture replicas and popular culture and tourism, and these subsections should be seen as a step along the way to that sort of article. Sometimes the layout of a topic in a series of article, or an article title, is not immediately apparent, and a bit of mellowing under the wiki-process is needed. Nominations for deletion tend to disrupt (or accelerate) that process, depending on your viewpoint. Carcharoth (talk) 07:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, one of those irregular verbs - I have a genuine copy, you have a plaster cast, he has a tourist replica! Johnbod (talk) 11:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And people probably pay different amounts of money as well! My genuine copy was made by a world famous artist. Your plaster cast was comissioned by a respected museum. His tourist replica was kitsch mass-produced in a factory... Carcharoth (talk) 13:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ecx2) I was going to say about Carcharoth's post - excellent points, very well thought through. Ty 00:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Be bold and create a large overview article on sculpture replicas and popular culture and tourism. As per Carcharoth, let this nomination for deletion accelerate the process.--Swimmtastic (talk) 04:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The David is an icon, a joke, a symbol, and a bunch of other things. This article needs to be here. If anything should be removed (opinion) it is the deletionists who insist on wasting hours of editors' time and then forcing us through this sort of process. Look at the vote. No one in favor of deleting it? One undecided? ( i just removed a possibly offensive section of my post and apologize to anyone offended.) Thanks for pointing out The Thinker, that's got me thinking about . . ... all sorts of stuff. Carptrash (talk) 14:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The David is an icon, but replicas are not. The section on replicas in the David article should be expanded, and linked to a list of replicas. The notability of the replicas listed comes only from the notability of David.--_{Wiki11790 talk} 15:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - FYI, the article was split off from the David article because the previous is getting too long. I am a little bit concerned that the two "delete"s and the one "undecided" are all from accounts created within the last two days with no history of involvement in visual arts topics. --Stomme (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re:Comment - I am concerned that all of the "keeps" are from accounts created more than 1 year ago with extensive history of involvement in visual arts topics. Is it possible that those with experience editing arts articles are developing a bias? Seems awfully similar to the Union of Concerned Scientists.--Swimmtastic (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or, even worse, might know something about the subject! Can't have that on WP. Anyway, from a quick look at his talk page, Mandsford does not seem a visual arts specialist. Johnbod (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been cutting my own toenails for years, you could say that I'm an expert and know lots and lots about my own feet. Lets make a WP article about my left middle toe. I could take a picture of it like User:Stomme did for the "Reduced-scale copies of David in Los Angeles, decorated for Christmas 2005". No conflict of interest there.--Swimmtastic (talk) 19:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your feet are not world famous icons, so the comparison is not helpful. We welcome free images for use on articles: there is a distinct shortage of them. Everyone is welcome to contribute to an AfD debate: the closing admin will review the strength of the arguments presented. Those editors with a particular interest in visual arts have, in my observation, been extremely conscientious and balanced in their AfD decisions (and article contributions, including featured articles), as well as knowledgeable, in a way which has helped greatly at times to reach the right outcome. I see no cause for concern there. Also check out WP:SUMMARY and WP:SPLIT. Ty 00:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, either as its own article or folded back into the main 'David' article. The number of reproductions says something significant about the popularity of the statue, and the reasoning in the nomination doesn't make any sense to me. --Lockley (talk) 23:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Delete~~ Numbers don't define notability. Lots of things have been reproduced in varyingly large quantities, that doesn't inherently make them notable. What specifically about the nomination doesn't make sense and why?--Swimmtastic (talk) 03:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll leave it to others to see if the nomination paragraph makes logical sense to them. Speaking of numbers, though, that the nominator has voted nine times during this discussion so far. The nominator is reminded that large quantities of votes does not make his opinion inherently more valuable. --Lockley (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left some advice on Swimmtastic's talk page about the !voting. Carcharoth (talk) 21:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Hard to see what the problem is.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Delete~~ Hard to see an argument against deletion.--Swimmtastic (talk) 03:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on multiple deletes by nom. Multiple "deletes" by nom struck through. Ty 00:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hmmmm it seems that Swimmtastic has a total of 21 edits, ...21 edits..and a lot of complaints. Something is very wrong here, and fishy to say the least...WP:AGF says everything is ok except the nom doesn't seem to respect any other editors opinion except his own....Modernist (talk) 01:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 19:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Threestate[edit]

Not notable band --DimaG (talk) 20:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Group fails WP:MUSIC, all releases are demos and they don't pass any of the other criteria.--Captain-tucker (talk) 15:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied as 100% pure spam. Grutness...wha? 01:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paradiso-fp7[edit]

Queried speedy delete ((db-ad)). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong~~ Speedy delete. In my opinion, the speedy was correct: this is pure spam for a non-notable... um... organization of some kind. AnturiaethwrTalk 19:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My bad, for some reason I thought previously speedied articles couldn't be speedied again. Looking back over WP:CSD I'm not seeing that now, so I recommend a G11. AnturiaethwrTalk 19:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're confusing it with ((prod)) - previously prodded articles can't be re-prodded. Anyhoo, it's gone now. Grutness...wha? 01:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 19:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DogTime.com[edit]

Non-notable website per WP:WEB. Prod was challenged. All supplied sources are either blogs, press releases, or trivial coverage. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found this, but I am not sure if this proves notability or not. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As far as I can tell, that's a press release, which doesn't help the notability cause. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Fails WP:RS and WP:WEB. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't judge its notability but this article really feels like WP:SPAM. Its discussion looks like a promotion for DogTime.com. Even its title directs viewers attention to this specific web site. I lean towards delete but don't know the particulars of this company. Artene50 (talk) 05:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP, no substantial or multiple independent sources cited or available to establish notability. --Captain-tucker (talk) 16:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 03:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scylla (Prison Break)[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Shadyaftrmathgunit (talk) 16:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page has no references/source of any type, and it is based on rumors Shadyaftrmathgunit (talk) 16:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsourced and per WP:CRYSTAL. All Google searching pulls up are fan rumors on various forums. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's crystal fancruft.--Pmedema (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced and about future tv show. AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Because it's May and things can change in three months, even a title, and all of this could also be a producer plant to spread misinformation on purpose. Nate • (chatter) 20:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per CSD G11, blatant advertising. brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RevaHealth.com[edit]

No reasons for notability. Searching on Google turns up promotional material. Bardcom (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G11 spam Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An opportunity for the editor to salvage the article might be a good idea. Also, there is a redirect page at RevaHealth... --Bardcom (talk) 16:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete in this state. Userfied to User:Douglasnicol/Blackwood & Morton Kilmarnock to allow further work. Sandstein 20:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blackwood & Morton Kilmarnock[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Blackwood & Morton Kilmarnock

Notability tagged since April...appears to try to claim notability from the carpets on the Titanic...however it wasn't this branch of the company that created those as stated in the article. They aren't notable because another division did something notable. Fails WP:N and WP:RS LegoTech·(t)·(c) 15:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The company that carpeted Titanic might be notable, but not this one. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This article is doesn't really establish WP:ORG. Worse still, its creator is a banned sockpuppet: [24] Artene50 (talk) 05:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:' Fails WP:ORG. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See the exhibits at Future Museum South West Scotland - Carpet and Linoleum Manufacture at http://www.futuremuseum.co.uk/Default.aspx?Id=217 (museums are usually reliable sources) --Eastmain (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if we can try and get some better info. Okay, here's the deal, I live in the same area as Kilmarnock and have quite a few books on the subject, I can try and put up some info on BMK if you like, if you like I can put some of the info from here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kilmarnock#BMK into the BMK entry and remove some of the messier formatting. After all, we really don't need to know 3 or 4 times over that the BMK office site was the site of a Safeways. If I do some tidy up and try to work some references in from published materials, actual books I possess would you be okay at least at me trying it? Douglasnicol (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, I'm removing non-relevant content first. The fact that a Safeways closed has absolutely nothing to do with BMK as at this time Safeways shop closure was to do with the Morrisons buyout, therefore not relevant, the AMH warehouse closure was due to flooding. If you give me time I can try and get a tidier and far more relevant article up. I might need some help in putting in the references, but that's not the material, its the technical side in how to cite them. Douglasnicol (talk) 14:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jordi Bolòs[edit]

Autobiographical and does not show Wikipedia:Notability (people) from any 3rd party source. Most external links are blogs. Triwbe (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: On the one hand, there's a COI issue; on the other, this is pretty shorn of puffery, just giving the basic stats and a publication history. Google Scholar returns 69 hits, which is rather a lot. Does nom have any reason to believe that the publication credits listed are illegitimate? RGTraynor 15:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. There is no doubt that he is prolific a publisher. --Triwbe (talk) 16:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep researchers are notable because of their publications. DGG (talk) 04:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 03:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saveria Moscati[edit]

Obscure 18th century minor noble, no assertion of notability, no reliable sources. The article has been unimproved since creation a year ago, and is based solely off of information from the creator's own website. Only a bare handful of Google hits, all from this article, said website, and various Wiki mirrors. Fails WP:BIO, WP:V. Ravenswing 15:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Charles 18:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. andy (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N, WP:V, WP:OR and WP:RS. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nomination says it all. Quale (talk) 16:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 03:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandre Moscati de Piro[edit]

Obscure 19th century minor noble, no assertion of notability, no reliable sources. The article has been unimproved since creation a year ago, and is based solely off of information from the creator's own website. Only a bare handful of Google hits, all from this article, said website, and various Wiki mirrors. Fails WP:BIO, WP:V. Ravenswing 15:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Charles 18:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. andy (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:RS, WP:N, WP:V, WP:OR etc etc. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nomination says it all. Quale (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 03:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giuseppe Said[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable alleged claimant to various extinct titles of nobility, created by the subject's son, who at one point [25] put himself in the article. There are only 11 Google hits on this fellow, all from his son's website, this article and Wiki mirrors. The previous AfD cited a three-year-old consensus to Keep at Wikipedia:Deletion_policy/Maltese_nobility, which posited that any noble title anywhere, and anyone who could ever make claim to one, was notable by definition; however, the only source positively connecting Said to these titles come from the son's website, which is a huge WP:COI issue. At the time, the consensus also held that all these Maltese nobility titles had to be improved; three years down the road, this has not happened. Fails WP:N, WP:V Ravenswing 15:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - another Tancarville special. andy (talk) 22:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:RS, WP:N, WP:V, WP:OR. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Maltese nobility may have had some significance at some time. Their great grandchildren (or whatever) have no significance now. The web.archive.org copy of a page of Tancarville's quotes ome of these descendants telling us I doubt the general population occupies any of its waking hours thinking about the nobility. Incidentally, while I'm not sure if the British have a "nobility", the British royles do have some minor significance; but even so, minor British royles do not automatically merit an article. -- Hoary (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Thinly veiled vanity article that fails verifiability. Charles 19:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Should have been deleted in 2005, but alas. Quale (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 03:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anatrim[edit]

No assertion of notability, no reliable sources provided to establish notability. Non notable. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 15:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Much the same, quite aside from this being an attack page. Ravenswing 16:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable, numbers of spam sent on this subject is not a claim to fame. AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was going to fix this article up, but I don't think it's worth it. I could make an argument for notability, it sure got a lot of press as a scam, and there are reliable sources out there but I don't feel like being the sole evangelist for the article. Just redirect the page to Hoodia. I've merged the info in this article to the Hoodia article. -- Atama ^chat 16:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 03:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agri tourism[edit]

Violation of WP:NOR, and WP:NOT, guidebook section Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 15:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete par being the nominator Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 15:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a business proposal, not an encyclopaedic entry, that has clearly been copied from somewhere else Ged UK (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would almost say speedy delete, as the article says Prepared By Pandurang Taware Director Marketing & Sales. Appears to be pretty blatant advertising to me. TN‑X-Man 15:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did put it up for a speedy, but i think i put it on the wrong category. Ged UK (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The speedy was a G12 for copyvio, but there was no link specified. I agree that this could just as well have been a speedy, but by the rulebook WP:NOT is not a reason to warrant a speedy; So to prevent any speedy declines because "It is not in the rules" i decided just to list it here. I do, however, suggest a Snowball close, as this article can only end up getting removed anyway. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 15:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete either a copyvio or a personal essay Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and redirect the page to Agritourism. - IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOT#OR. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, personal essay, borderline original research. JIP | Talk 20:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 03:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rosalea Mompalao[edit]

Obscure 19th century minor noble, no assertion of notability, no reliable sources. The article has been unimproved since creation a year ago, and is based solely off of information from the creator's own website. Only a bare handful of Google hits, all from this article, said website, and various Wiki mirrors. Fails WP:BIO, WP:V. Ravenswing 15:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination. AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Charles 18:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. andy (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N, WP:V, WP:OR and WP:RS. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nomination says it all. Quale (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 03:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teresa Gauci-Beaujolais[edit]

Obscure 19th century minor noble, no assertion of notability, no reliable sources. The article has been unimproved since creation a year ago, and is based solely off of information from the creator's own website. Only 19 Google hits, all from this article, said website, and various Wiki mirrors. Fails WP:BIO, WP:V. Ravenswing 15:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Charles 18:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is one of a large series of articles created by or taken over by Charles Said-Vassallo, who claims Maltese "nobility" for himself and seems to be using WP to publish his self-referenced genealogies. See also
Delete: no assertion of notability. -- Hoary (talk) 13:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N, WP:V, WP:OR and WP:RS. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nomination says it all. Quale (talk) 16:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to America's Next Top Model, Cycle 10. Singu larity 03:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Katarzyna Dolinska[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This individual was a contestant on a reality show (ANTM), coming in 5th, and has not distinguished herself otherwise either during or after the competition. Suggest redirect to America's Next Top Model, Cycle 10. ... discospinster _talk 14:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It appears this article has been deleted once already. I don't see any new info that would help. TN‑X-Man 15:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Three times, actually. AnturiaethwrTalk 19:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: per G4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RGTraynor (talk • contribs)
Redirect - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 17:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to America's Next Top Model, Cycle 10. Hard to find an argument that she is non notable on her own. Montco (talk) 20:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to America's Next Top Model, Cycle 10. The current page should be preserved in the history, as like many other contestants of top model, she may gain sufficient notoriety later, and the work of the editors should not be discarded Misty Willows (talk) 01:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It can be recreated if she ever becomes notable. SKS2K6 (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, but the Wikifaeries wept. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meet Meline[edit]

Seems to be a non-notable short animated film. I could find no significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Polly (Parrot) 14:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources currently on the article are not sufficient as they are self-published. The IMDB link actually just goes to one of the creators. A google search turned up very few hits with nothing reliable to establish notability. Googling the creators also turned up nothing useful. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:CRYSTALBALL may cover this as the article states that the film will not be released until 2009, as well as WP:COI since most of the article was written by Sebastienlaban who is one of its creators. As well as no reliable sources to establish notability.--Captain-tucker (talk) 16:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, "Meet Meline" is a serious work-in-progress animated shortfilm. We started working on it since October of 2006. We maintain a production blog here. Since then, the blog has been visited more that 130.000 times and is rated 4.76/5. Sebastienlaban (talk) 16:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, since Meet Meline is a film the notability guideline that covers this article is WP:NOTFILM and its general guideline is A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The problem with keeping the article in wikipedia is that since the film has not been released so we can not find and the editors working on the article have not provided any sources that meet the general guidelines in WP:NOTFILM. It's great that the blog has been visited 130,000 times but that does not do anything to meet the requirements of WP:NOTFILM. In addition, there is a specific section WP:NFF that says "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles, unless the production itself is notable per notability guidelines." Once the film is released and there is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject then its highly likely that the article will meet the criteria in WP:NOTFILM. --Captain-tucker (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 03:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Central Saharan Republic[edit]

Micronation 5 km² in area and with a population of 25. The two independent external references do not seem to even confirm its existence. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 14:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no such thing. Punkmorten (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fictional land from the Marvell comic universe. Doesn't exist in the world as we know it. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 14:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A hoax, probably building upon the comic book reference, with its own website. Mandsford (talk) 14:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was there and did an interview with the president of the country for Playboy magazine. They're planning on announcing the government and being independent in two weeks. I am planning on going back for independence day as one of the few Western journalists to cover the story.User:AndrewSzabo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewszabo (talk • contribs) 15:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC) — Andrewszabo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

^{[citation needed]}. I'd love to read that article, if you have a link. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As it stands right now it gets around 24 independent hits from a Google search and something like 23 of them are about the fictional Marvell country. Delete until it actually gets into real news stories and credible sources. LonelyMarble (talk) 18:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A country of 25 people? It's a mirage. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , but modify. The Pitcairn Islands have only 50 people. The size of a country should not be a deciding factor. However, until it is not an independent country, confirmed by independent sources it should be under a separate category, such as "countries under construction". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.65.95 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC) — 81.182.65.95 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The deciding factor is not the size of it but if it has credible sources to back it up. As it stands it is mentioned in no known news sources and the only sources backing it up are not credible at all. It should be deleted until it gets those independent sources but if and when it does then it can simply be created again. LonelyMarble (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

20-Mule-Team Delete: Fails WP:V, WP:N, WP:HOAX and WP:BULLSHIT. I was going to summarize the five minutes of research I did into this one, but it's a plain hoax pushed by SPAs, so why bother? Ravenswing 21:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but if it does turn out not to be a hoax, to be real, and able to be verified (which would most likely be after independence is declared, if it happens), then it can be recreated. As it stands now, it certainly looks fishy to me. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...}^{protector of all...} 21:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A hoax (not a bad one, admittedly). Ecoleetage (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:V. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax, together with the Central Sahara redirect. - Ev (talk) 03:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 05:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If we don't, some local army may well do so anyway. Given the instability of the Western Sahara region, a country of 25 people has, well, WP:SNOW pretty much describes it... Anyway, the domain name was registered 2 weeks ago and is based in Kentucky, so I would say this is a very nicely done website project/hoax. Eauhomme (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under criteria G4 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SOCOM 4: U.S. Navy SEALs. Marasmusine (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SOCOM 4: US Navy SEALs[edit]

No sources and game is not even announced by Zipper Interactive or Sony Computer Entertainment America (the developers and publishers of the SOCOM series). Nominated due to WP:NOTCRYSTAL and WP:V Reorion (talk) 03:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Reorion (talk) 03:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : As per nom.--SkyWalker (talk) 13:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : I just found that this is actually the second nomination but it was under another name. Here is the other AfD nomination which resulted in delete. Failed to catch this as the punctuations are different from the two articles. Would an administrator fix this AfD to make this appear that this is the second nomination. Reorion (talk) 14:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, we don't merge original research, not even for the penguins. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Penguin Chat 3[edit]

This page should be deleted because it, like most Club Penguin pages on Wikipedia (except for the main Club Penguin page) are full of original research, and deserve no place on Wikipedia. Also, there is a Penguin Chat page, where all the Penguin Chat versions should go. --Vinni3 (talk) 14:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Club Penguin. I'm sure this didn't need an afd. --neonwhite user page talk 22:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Club Penguin. Pretty straightforward merge for a non-notable item. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, cuz we know when to fold 'em. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Madeleine Rowan (2nd nomination)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Completely non-notable poker player that seems to have been kept the first time around due to only focussing on whether its existance was a conflict of interest rather than the merits of the article itself. No achievments and only "notable" for being the youngest female in the WSOP ME in 2006 (which was beaten in 2007, and arguably is even further surpassed by the far more notable and successful Annette Obrestad.) Absolutely nothing in the article supports this article being kept. –– Lid^(Talk) 14:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD has been announced to Wikiproject Poker

Delete does not meet notability by a mile.Balloonman (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable coverage to establish notability... links in article show one Post story where she is not the focus, one cardplayer story where she is not the focus, and one blog article where she is. Also, the primary notability assertion (youngest female ever to play) is not cited, and that is probably because the assertion can not be proved. 2005 (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being the youngest female player to make it to the WSOP main event should satisfy notability. (Wasn't well sourced, I found one for that piece of information here.) JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 23:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Main Event is not a sports final that one gets into from consistantly good performance, it's an open event and anyone with $10000 can enter. Being the youngest to afford the buy in is not notable, and even more so when it's both unsourced and surpassed. –– Lid^(Talk) 00:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed, her being the youngest simply means she had money to spend at a younger age than most. Being the youngest to make the final table or win an event---now that is saying something. Being the youngest to have 10K to spend on a tournament... nada.Balloonman (talk) 00:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and convert to inline citations. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On what grounds? She has never cashed in a poker tournament, let alone won one. There is nothing in this to justify keeping it. –– Lid^(Talk) 06:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources, no notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources don't come close to meeting the notability guidelines. RMHED (talk) 01:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Big James may not be notable, but he's got a theology degree and can bench press four published, publicly funded particle physics theorists.. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Big James Henderson[edit]

Fails to meet criteria outlined in WP:BIO. No independent, reliable sources attesting his notability. Google search [26]on the subject returns 18 hits, mostly message boards and self published webpages. Quarte t 13:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My GoogleNews, GoogleBooks, and GoogleSearch was more successful. DoubleBlue (Talk) 13:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Few verifiable sources (if any) to establish notability (or any of the info in the article as it stands now). Also possible WP:COI with main article contributor.--Komrade Kiev (talk) 14:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 13:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A (former?) world record holder in a well-known discipline, and as DoubleBlue suggests there seem to be a good number of reliable sources that support that. Certainly seems notable and verifiable to me. ~ mazca ^talk 15:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. It may be verifiable that Henderson was the first man to bench press 700 lbs., however nearly all of the article as it stands now is original research (see section entitled "Controversial lift" as an example). A look through the links provided above as evidence that the article should be kept reveals very few sources that can truely be considered reliable by Wikipedia standards to verify any of the information that is listed other than the claim of first to press 700 lbs. WP:BIO states that "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)" are notable - however based on the sources I've seen so far Henderson does not meet this criteria. If one were to remove information from the article as it stands based on WP:BLP it would be a stub. --Yankees76 (talk) 16:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, mainly per the high number of g-news hits, but also the world record. It's true that this article has an OR problem, but that's not grounds for deletion- just remove what's not cited. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 23:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, basically what I was thinking. Parts of the current article are pretty awful but it's clear enough to me that the subject's notable, so it's more a case of cleanup than deletion. ~ mazca ^talk 12:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep Even a single world benchpress title would confer notability. He won the world title 5 years in a row. AfD hero (talk) 08:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs to be cleaned up, but seems notable enough. Dayewalker (talk) 08:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, because every time some mossy corporate take-over target gives an online English word game a faux-salon Latin name, another WikiFaerie gets snuffed out.. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Literati (game)[edit]

Article is unsourced (WP:V) and does not show how the subject is notable (WP:N). Prod placed earlier this month highlighting these concerns was removed without addressing it. Marasmusine (talk) 13:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Marasmusine (talk) 13:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteNo refrences(and it is required of all articles to site refrences(see WP:POLICY)). No refs mean that no one even knows if this game exists.Gears Of War 13:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You can confirm it's existence in a third-party source (eg here), but that's about it. I couldn't find anything else relevant in Books, News, Scholar, etc., and there are only 199 plain Google hits, none of which look suitable. Not notable enough for inclusion. Jakew (talk) 13:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not the article's fault you don't know how to use a search engine. [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] --Pixelface (talk) 06:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Lots of excellent sources; all single-sentence mentions though. Our coverage should reflect that by including one or two sentences in the Yahoo! Games article. There's nothing substantial enough there to satisfy WP:N, though. Marasmusine (talk) 13:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - So you're claiming this game is not notable? You're saying it's a non-notable Scrabble variant? --Pixelface (talk) 10:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Single sentence mentions are trivial. No-one has yet presented a source that "addresses the subject directly in detail," nor has anyone indicated that it may have won "a well-known and independent award." Marasmusine (talk) 10:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Look at the sources. They're not all "single sentence mentions." And I've already indicated it's well known. --Pixelface (talk) 11:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Ah, yes some of them are two sentences. Marasmusine (talk) 11:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Yahoo! Games is an acceptable source[45]. I find it hard to believe that 5,172[46] people are currently playing a "non notable" game right now. It's one of Yahoo's featured word games[47] and it's the 18th most popular game on Yahoo! Games.[48] --Pixelface (talk) 13:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yahoo Games are not independent of the subject, then. Jakew (talk) 14:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - So? --Pixelface (talk) 04:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - So, Yahoo obviously stands to gain something from hyping the game. See: WP:IS for more information. ZappyGun, his (empty) talk page, and what he has done for Wikipedia. 13:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - You think it was a Yahoo! employee that created the article? Yahoo! doesn't need to "hype" a game released in 1994 and ported to 2 other platforms and written about in dozens of publications and currently being played by thousands and thousands of people this very second. You want independent sources? Look further up the thread. --Pixelface (talk) 10:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless referenced in external sources. Also, couting the amount of players on Yahoo! is not a reliable way to assert notability. It is the same as saying that a website is notable because it has 23.000 pageviews a month. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 14:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Scrabble, it's information is relevant in the context of computerised versions of Scrabble, but not independently so. User:Krator (t c) 15:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found above. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The ones that show Yahoo advertising a game they host? Marasmusine (talk) 16:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones are "advertising"? --Pixelface (talk) 04:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising was the wrong word, sorry. I was pointing out that a Yahoo! Games webpage for a game they host is not a good source for WP:N; hardly independent. Marasmusine (talk) 13:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. It fails WP:N - simple as that. Una Laguna^Talk 20:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think so. [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] --Pixelface (talk) 10:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Yahoo! Games seems the obvious route. I would say it's one of the better-known outside the site, but may not be as popular with the rise of Scrabulous. --Dhartung | Talk 21:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Scrabble, this is a good instance of a variant, but not notable outside its tie to scrabble. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 22:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Yahoo! Games. No non-trivial coverage by reliable verifiable secondary sources. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Yahoo! Games, not notable on its own but worth a redirect and some info. JuJube (talk) 05:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:Gwen Gale, (CSD R3). Non-admin closure. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Neumann mathematician[edit]

Page already exists at John_von_Neumann Ged UK (talk) 12:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, copy of the other article, so nothing to merge, title is unlikely search term and thus useless as a redirect. Probably could have been speedied as a test page. Huon (talk) 12:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC) - Actually it's not a carbon copy, but a POV fork which differs by not calling Von Neumann an American mathematician. Still delete-worthy. Huon (talk) 12:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Komrade Kiev (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Either Full Protected Redirect or Delete. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At a quick glance it looks like a copy+paste of the duplicate article. If you look at the creator's other edits, it looks like they did it to be disruptive- they vandalized the talk of the original, then created this duplicate, then changed a bunch of wikilinks to point to it (and by piping them so that they have keep the existing blue-link text, no less). JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 23:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I redirected it to the real von Neumann article and tagged it ((db-r3)). I think that should take care of it. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, notable in the books maybe but nowhere else that anyone brought up here. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manpower Incorporated (Honorverse)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Apparently TW didn't save AfD tag on this page. Well, anyway: Trivial plot summary. No claim of real-world notability. Google search yields no hits that mention this topic even in passing in any sort of review, commentary, etc --EEMIV (talk) 11:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to/with Mesa (Honorverse). Manpower Incorporated is a major plot device in Honorverse, a bestselling book series. That said, I can see how it could be merged into Mesa (Honorverse) article, both cover more or less the same faction.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manpower Incorporated is a major plot device in Honorverse. With new sequels it will be more and more important (so even deleted it will reappear). Notability/real world context is all slavery/antislavery stuff.--Dotz Holiday (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be mighty helpful if you could provide some references to back up the claims of real world notability.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Are there any out-of-universe independent sources for Mesa (Honorverse) either? I can't seem to find any, so it would make little sense to merge this to an article which itself will need to be upmerged or deleted. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - For example, Mesa is mentioned in this review.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Passing mention does not strike me as "substantive coverage" and a third-tier review site seems not to be a reliable source. --EEMIV (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as with arguments from first AfD, no out-of-universe content to merge anywhere, and without secondary sources to provide out-of-universe perspective, this problem does not appear to be fixable. A transwiki to an appropriate in-universe or fan wiki may be appropriate. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Mesa article, or list of Honorverse organizations. 70.51.9.17 (talk) 06:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC) — 70.51.9.17 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, so that in 500 years, if some anthropologist can't remember which 21st century Chinese restaurant chain in Scotland served seagull, she'll have a bunch of dead links to sources which show it wasn't this one. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Chung's (restaurant)[edit]

No assertion of notability. Do we need an article on every restaurant the world has ever seen? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Abstain. not if they have not received coverage by independent third party publishers. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it has. You may want to improve your searching methods. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject is covered in reliable sources. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmmm, fair enough. I got a chuckle while reading the "restaurant accused of serving seagull instead of chicken" article but I'm still not entirely convinced. I've withdrawn my motion to delete for the time being. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It seems marginally notable; a few controversies have shown up surrounding it, including the aforementioned seagull thing. I've started to expand the article and make it less of a menu and more of an ... article. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 18:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage isn't significant, failing the notability threshold. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 19:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This isn't a restaurant, it's a chain. JamesMLane t c 10:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not convinced that this meets WP:N. Being the topic of rumors and the quality of the sources leaves me wondering. Nothing in the article leads a reader to believe that the chain is notable and clearly incidents at specific restaurants do not make the chain notable. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 11:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Probably on the lower end of the "notable restaurants" spectrum but it certainly seems to have had a fair amount of coverage. It's a subjective judgement in terms of interpreting WP:N but I think it's good enough. ~ mazca ^talk 11:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable. See Mzoli's for precedent on restaurants in general. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources that meet with WP:N here here covered and here here.--RyRy5 (talk) 12:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - appears to be a chain and has had some coverage. --Komrade Kiev (talk) 14:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has reliable sources. It may not be as notable as some other restaurants, but I don't think we are supposed to base our decision on those restaurants. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 18:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Weak delete, article seems to exist primarily to disparage the restaurant. JIP | Talk 20:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is a content problem, not a reason for deletion. Hobit (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a content issue which has resulted in deletion before. While this is an article about a restaurant, not a person, we regularly delete WP:BLP articles with these sort of issues on a routine basis. My stance on this article remains neutral but if content issues cannot be resolved in a reasonable period of time don't be surprised if this article magically disappears. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep multiple independent sources exist. Meets WP:N and WP:V. May need cleanup. Hobit (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As proved above the subject has coverage in multiple reliable sources. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a nine-branch buffet chain? Not notable; no assertion of notability either. Biruitorul ^Talk 02:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a chain...--MacRusgail (talk) 18:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, yes, but does that imply inherent notability? How large must a chain be to be notable? Biruitorul ^Talk 23:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - What standard of notability are you using? The subject is discussed multiple times in reliable sources, all non-trivial coverage. What more do you want? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'd like more than just incidental notability. Yes, Chinese gangs were once vaguely associated with the chain, and yes, they may have served seagulls. That doesn't indicate lasting or sustained notability for the chain itself - events associated with it just happened to make the news a couple of times. Biruitorul ^Talk 02:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, hopefully someone'll sweep up the dust bunnies before another Sternless good faith editor comes knockin' at Red's door. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red Peters[edit]

Apparently this article is about somebody who has a job (in his case, writing songs, singing and hosting shows), but I cannot seem to find independent, reliable sources attesting his notability, neither in the article nor with a quick Google search. Goochelaar (talk) 16:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for now Right away this is a name I recognize, likely due to the Howard Stern show, as many will. According to Wikipedia:Music#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles, I'd say he definitly passes 10 and 12. He has definitely had his own show on Sirius, broadcast nationally. He will certainly be tough to get great sources for, and it looks like there is some COI editing within the article, but regardless, I'd say he meets our basic notability standards.Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 19:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is Red Peters. I have checked this pages contents and approve of everything it says. It is all true and factual. For the gentleman above, Goochelaar, please Google me again. There are more than 250,000 entries for my name. To claim there are no reliable sources attesting to my notability, is being untruthful. If the subject matter or lyrics of my songs bother you, don't visit this wikipedia entry. But, don't prohibit others from viewing the facts about my life. It is all true. In America, we relish freedom of speech. And that is what my songs and show on Sirius celebrate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redpeters (talk • contribs) 21:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red, when you put your name in quotes, "Red Peters", there are no where near 250,000 hits, just for future reference.Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 22:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is Red again. Thank-you Gwynand for your clarification about putting "Red Peters" in quotations. You are correct. There are 2900. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.248.89 (talk) 04:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to the self-styled Red Peters - First of all, thanks for your answer. If there is one thing I find likeable about Red Peters (all I know about him is from this article, alas) is the tenor of his lyrics. As for the rest:

Be so kind as to not make assumptions about me, not knowing me.
Please reread Wikipedia's policies about reliable sources and conflict of interests. I'll be glad to change my mind (and perhaps to buy some of Peters' records) when I see references to magazines, newspapers, reliable and independent websites etc.

Thanks and happy editing, Goochelaar (talk) 23:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 11:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy to User:Redpeters. Does not seem notable enough himself. Stifle (talk) 11:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy or Delete par above. Doesn't seem notable. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 15:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep Seems the article just needs to include a few cites. Working with and being a guest on the Howard Stern Show makes him notable. That is an accomplishment in my opinion and it reveals how many people have heard his work. The same goes for the HBO show. We just need to see specific cites. The person who created this article simply needs to add those cites (Roodhouse1 (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

keep, for now per Gwynand. AfD hero (talk) 08:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable independent sources for notability. for a figure of with this sort of notability , 3700 ghits or so is more an indication of non-notability than notability. I pay very little attention to what he subject of an article says about his own importance or non-importance. DGG (talk) 22:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you look at this article from the 'musician' POV, it does pass WP:MUSIC#C5 since the artist has [70],[71],[72] albums released through Oglio Records and only 2 are required to establish notability according to WP:MUSIC.--Captain-tucker (talk) 17:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Topic fails WP:BIO in the warm, blinding glow of WP:COI. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Freeborn[edit]

ambiguous or unclear notability per WP:BIO; if I am grossly in error, please let me know, but I cannot determine the notability of this person at all. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 19:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment are the awards he received notable? I'm not familiar with notability guidelines there. If they are and then can be verified, then I'd lean keep _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 21:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, CSMs are generally as notable as commanders, but the article is a carbon copy of his PD air force bio (which is public domain) and needs to be rewritten. MrPrada (talk) 22:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 11:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've had a good try to find anything that might establish notability for this one. He seems like a great guy and the tone of the entry is encyclopedic. Nonetheless, the one Google Books reference is trivial and there's nothing else of any substance that would justify a wikipedia article. Debate (talk) 13:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate on the above, when I say trivial I mean, of course, trivial references not trivial accomplishments. To whit, "[photo] (Courtesy of Clay Freeborn)" p43, "Master Sergeant Clay Freeborn, Squadron Gunner for the 23rd [and another] ... performed instructor duties and were acting primary gunners briefly in the middle of the mission" p44. Debate (talk) 14:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Notable as a CSM for a MACOM. Article could greatly benefit from the inclusion of more sources, however. AfD hero (talk) 08:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Has there ever been any formal discussion in Wikipedia regarding this? It seems a very low hurdle for one to become notable simply because one has achieved Chief Master Sergeant rank. The pool of individuals this includes is surely huge. A quick google search, for example, finds that around 416 individuals each year achieve the rank of CSM in the United States Air Force alone [73]. If the equivalent rank was also notable in each armed service of every country in the world then the number of potential entries would be in the hundreds of thousands. The rank, while no doubt accomplished, is surely no more nor less than similar level business executives, public servants, academics that routinely fail WP:N when nominated for afd. Debate (talk) 09:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Hmm, vote withdrawn then~~. I wouldn't go so far as to vote delete though, as he does have a considerable list of significant activities independent of his title as CSM. AfD hero (talk) 10:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My statement that 'CSMs are notable' had the unwritten caveat, for MACOMs. As Xymmax points out below, he was the CSM of HQ Space Command, there are very few 4-star MACOMS out there (Northcom, Southcom, Pacom, Eucom, Jointcom, Socom, Transcom and Spacecom if memory serves), so he was basically one of the top eight CSMs. However I agree that the sources are currently lacking, although we have plenty of Generals who are nothing but primary source copies of their PD mil bio. MrPrada (talk) 01:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In light of this I change my vote back to keep. Looks like I'm doing more waffling than a house of pancakes. The military bio should suffice as a reliable source to verify the simple facts of what positions he has been in, though as usual the more sources the better. AfD hero (talk) 02:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I concur, the mention within the sources I can see are trivial, and otherwise I do not see anything pointing towards notability. I was not able to view the book page that mentioned his name, so that is not a factor in my consideration. In fairness to the gentlemen's accomplishments, I think that the assertion here is that he served as the highest enlisted person at two major commands, HQ Space Command and Strategic Command West. Only a select number of Chief Master Sergeants will accomplish something of this magnitude. Still, even acknowledging the scope of his accomplishments, I do not see the treatment in reliable sources to establish notability. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note here. STRATCOM and SPACECOM were merged, and it seems SPACECOM, at Peterson, continued on for a while as 'StratCom West' before being finally folded up. So really he hasn't had two full tours as CSM of two unified combatant commands. My vote is delete by the way (think about the number of all those thousand of senior enlisted people in all the four-star commands in the world since 1900, for a start.) Regards Buckshot06(prof) 09:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to establish notability under WP:BIO. The Google Books item mentions him in passing regarding the final gunnery flight. Because the coverage in this source is not substantial, Freeman's article would require multiple independent sources to establish notability. The other source lists him as the husband of an alumna of a university in a where-are-they-now section of the university's alumni magazine. I can't speak to this particular magazine, but these are typically notices sent in by the subject him- or herself, and, by definition, primary. Per WP:BIO, primary sources are acceptable for content, but not in establishing notability. Freeman sounds like a fine, upstanding man, just not notable. — Bellhalla (talk) 10:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment Because the article was created and substantially edited only by acfreeborn (talk · contribs), there is strong evidence that the entire article has WP:COI issues. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted. Debate (talk) 13:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet WP:BIO -- Trippz (talk) 02:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 03:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

North Court[edit]

Apparent dormatory, no assertion of notability, Wikipedia is not a directory, guide or an indiscriminate collection of information. Deprodded. Accurizer (talk) 11:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, from the guy who prodded it to start with. -- Roleplayer (talk) 11:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced plain trivia. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 13:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing indicating notability of this particular dorm. (FYI, since the article creator doesn't tell us, it's at the University of Aberdeen; I don't think it's worth a redirect.) AnturiaethwrTalk 14:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Completely non-notable building and probably could have been speedied. TN‑X-Man 15:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is no consensus to speedily delete articles of types not specifically listed in criteria A7, see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Non-criteria. Accurizer (talk) 02:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the hall of residence that this building is part of has also been nominated for deletion. The discussion can be found here. -- Roleplayer (talk) 22:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 this topic which lurks somewhere in the outer suburbs of notabilityville. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Brinkman[edit]

Delete, living person biography which doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, or anything else that might fit. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Tagged as such; no/ambiguous assertions of notability. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Founding member of Fort Thunder, notable for his comics[74][75], notable for his membership in Mindflayer (band) (which has released on the notable Load Records and includes notable member Brian Chippendale), for his membership in Forcefield (art collective) which performed at the notable 2002 Whitney Biennial. Reviews of Mindflayer on Pitchfork:[76][77][78] Kellen^T 21:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment none of the links provided above are about the subject, Matt Brinkman. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 15:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, the first two are. And the last 3 are to establish notability of a band in which he is a member. In any case, I think this applies, from WP:CREATIVE:
    The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
  - In particular, as a co-founder or whatever of Fort Thunder, covered here (mentions brinkman), here (mentions brinkman, page 2), here (mentions brinkman), here (mentions brinkman), here (hey look, the nytimes mentioning brinkman and his band forcefield), and here (about the same show, also mentioning brinkman). Kellen^T 18:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think you're missing the point. The difference here is between trivial and non-trivial mentions. Which one of these news items are actually about Brinkman, not something he contributed to? coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I get your point, that yes, none of the news articles are about him specifically (though the two bloggy posting things are). BUT I am asserting that he has "played a major role in co-creating" "a collective body of work" (that of Fort Thunder, which includes both comics and music e.g. forcefield) "which has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Kellen^T 18:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 11:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If he was part of a notable band I say keep due to his contribution to the band and his other creative projects.(Roodhouse1 (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

keep Sources imply notability of his works, per WP:N. Notability of his body of work implies that he is notable, per WP:CREATIVE. AfD hero (talk) 07:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I believe there is not enough notability for this article to exist. I've never heard of this person, and I believe the article doesn't have enough information.--LAA Fan 21:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CREATIVE. The multiple articles that User:Kellen` has linked are not trivial mentions of Brinkman; they establish Brinkman's prominent role in creating artistic work that has been featured at the Whitney Biennial 2002, his role in Fort Thunder and as part of notable bands. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment I think it is important to remember that not every notable artist is Damien Hirst or Andy Warhol. In other words, not every notable artist is a household name. Just because you have not heard of this artist does not mean that others have not. I agree that the Whitney Biennial mention helps to reveal his notability. Do you realize the number of works that are rejected?(Roodhouse1 (talk) 08:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, following the strong comments of musical notability which showed up after a rewrite and relisting, you go, Lafayette. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lafayette Leake[edit]

Delete makes claims which touch on notability, all unsubstantiated, and background musicians are rarely accorded notability by WP:N. He's sufficiently nn for us to not know when or where he was born, or even whether he is still alive. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:BIO as well as general notability. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've got to be kidding. Lafayette Leake was a legendary boogie, blues and rock piano player, with a well documented, extensive discography. http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&searchlink=LAFAYETTE%7CLEAKE&samples=1&sql=11:ajfpxqy5ldje~T4

A quick google search will address the "notability" and biographical issues.

And what about the liner notes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.165.10 (talk) 04:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 11:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not assert notability, it's unsourced, and also fails to mention any hard facts on this person (when or where he was born or was he still living). Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 13:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not assert any real notability, not sourced. JIP | Talk 20:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I really think this is salvageable - there are lots of ghits out there and it looks like notability could be established without too much difficulty. I have made a small start on improving it. -- Ka renjc 23:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a few refs after Karenjc's rewrite: I agree with both Karenjc and the other editor above that he was a very well regarded Blues session musician. I gather that he tended to keep to himself, but his body of work is very impressive, and he has entries in both Komara's 2006 "Encyclopedia of the Blues" and Santelli's "The Big Book of Blues", along with other references that I haven't been able to get hold of yet. Seems to meet WP:Music in the end. - Bilby (talk) 03:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep The list of people he has backed reads like a whos-who of Chicago Blues. AfD hero (talk) 07:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Bilby and I have expanded the article and added sources and citations. A better discography would be helpful, rather than the current link to an external one, but I think it now stands more of a chance of passing WP:N. --Ka renjc 15:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, since last we heard, Wikipedia is not a genealogical database. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bitzer[edit]

As with other recent discussions, there is no evidence that this is a notable last name. A search shows only companies with that name and filtering for genealogy and associated research returns only false positives. While there are a number of (mostly red-linked) people with this name, there's no evidence that it's a notable name itself. WP is not a geneaology project and without any material to draw from, this cannot be anything but the currently existing OR. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 19:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N as it has no reliable sources, which also means that it can't be verified. This is one of those examples of an article that is in bad shape, yet has no hint of notability or a possibility of this becoming a potential article. Razor flame 03:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 11:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Razorflame. Stifle (talk) 11:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted A7. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rory Blyth[edit]

This is an article about a former Microsoft developer who as far as I can tell doesn't seem to satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria. I haven't managed to find much serious news coverage about him: although a search of Google News [79] turns up ten hits, none of them have more than trivial mentions in passing, and some of them seem to be about completely different people with the same name. Vquex (talk) 11:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, because there is a footpath between notable publishing and quiet local support for writers. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wordwrights (magazine)[edit]

This was a non-notable micro-magazine that became defunct without making any significant mark on the literary landscape. Its greatest claim to fame was that a story it published once won a Special Mention in the Pushcart anthology--not publication in the anthology, just a Special Mention. And while it is true that Nani Power is a published novelist, her books have never been particularly culturally notable or controversial in any way, and in any case notability is not inherited (WP:NOTINHERITED), so the tangential relationship between the defunct magazine and Nani Power isn't really relevant. Literary magazines like the Southern Review or Black Warrior Review are notable, because they consistently publish leading and notable authors. But Wordwrights was never in their league. Qworty (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N and WP:RS. Relies upon an unreliable blog citation and another to Amazon.com that is completely unrelated to the article. The Angelfire ref further illustrates the non-notability of the magazine. --Eustress (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 11:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep per Special Mention in the Pushcart Prize anthology, as well as being the origional publisher of "Blues for Beginners" by Podell. AfD hero (talk) 07:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, and the references aren't good enough to be used properly. Ironholds (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 19:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Architectural intentions[edit]

Obviously an essay. The subject matter is not encyclopedic. (also, original research - Miscreant (talk) 11:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)) Miscreant (talk) 22:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree that the page needs a good clean to make it more encyclopedic and less of an essay. However, it is very well sourced and I disagree that the subject matter is not encyclopedic - in my view it is a perfectly valid topic on which to have a page. Smile a While (talk) 01:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - is it original reaseach? or is Architectural intentions a real subject on that field?⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 06:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It is original research (which is something i stupidly didnt write at the top), and not a subject within the field (in the sense that you can go buy books about the exact topic). It would be like writing an article on 'economic intentions', quoting Marx and Adam Smith, then comparing these two different viewpoints in the article itself without reference to outside sources that have already done this (which is where the original research comes in). - Miscreant (talk) 11:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You did right the mistake was mine. It will be hard to prove that this article is violating the Wikipedia:No original research policy because it's fully sourced, it has over 100 source citations.

This article could be violating the Wikipedia:No original research by synthesising published material in order to advance a position, but I can't prove that.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 16:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - just some thoughts. First of all, it is important to note the page move. The original title Architectural intentions was poor and, I agree, not really a topic within the field. However, the new title Architectural design values is a valid topic, as well as being a more accurate reflection of the content. Certainly, I would maintain that design values is encyclopedic in this field. There are a large number of reliable sources to support the concept; one of many is here. To state baldly that it is original research is also not sustainable. As EconomistBR points out, the page is fully sourced and, therefore, it is only OR if it is synthesis. Now parts may be synthesis but in that case I suggest that they should dealt with by being fixed not by deletion. HTH. Smile a While (talk) 03:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree the name change was a good move. Sources are good, but I stop short of 'fully sourced'. The _base purpose_ of having an article of such a name would be to compare and structure these 'values' against each other, which is what is completely unsourced in the article (and makes it OR). I am speaking of "Aesthetic Design Values, contains seven values. The first value in this category is..." and the structure of the article that reflects this (even if such dubious lines are deleted). The ucl/cabe article you point to is a good start, if you can find a few more like that and create an article around them as a base I might be convinced. Right now its not 'encyclopedic' to me in the sense that the topic and structure are created by the author(s), not by outside academic opinion (lest you find some more sources like the cabe one to structure it from). If it is deleted, good references can always be moved to the pages that relate to each individual subheading. - Miscreant (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 11:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Smile a While. He changed the title so that that the article can become a valid topic, Smile a While also said that design values is encyclopedic in this field. Also the article is referenced in over 70 different sources.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 03:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete G1 (patent nonsense) by User:Anthony.bradbury. Non-admin close. ~ mazca ^talk 13:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Green yoda[edit]

Non-notable beverage. Fails WP:N and WP:RS. asenine ^{say what?} 11:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no assertion or evidence of notability, WP:MADEUP. Definitely falls into the spirit of a speedy-deletion candidate, though indeed there are no criteria that quite fit it. ~ mazca ^talk 11:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, silly nonsense. Wikipedia is not for drinks made up one day. Perhaps speedy G3? JohnCD (talk) 11:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy deletion as blatant advertising. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 13:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment qualifies for speedy deletion. I have deleted it. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 13:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, following no consensus. Topic is very thin, may be more notable culturally than as having to do with transportation infrastructure. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Zarrilli[edit]

this guy is not notable. he managed to get quoted by a boston newspaper, but nothing suggests that his boston bypass idea was even considered by mass highway Indexyears (talk)— Indexyears (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 18:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AfD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boston Bypass. I would support a rename back to that title. Powers ^T 18:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge with the Big Dig (Boston, Massachusetts). There are 13 different articles cited, and The Boston Globe is definitely reliable source. Whether they considered his idea or not, he attained notability by being the guy behind the idea. Beeblbrox (talk) 22:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: with the Big Dig. God, I remember those "Back the B.B" signs - they were hand-stenciled and nailed up to poles adjacent to highways in the Boston area for years, back in the day. That being said, Zarrilli was a lone wolf crank whose notion was considered by no one, and who got ink because the papers wanted to know who was responsible for the signs and what his deal was. To be honest, this ephemeral deal is the sort of thing WP:ONEEVENT was designed to address. RGTraynor 02:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
let me go over some of these points: 1. 13 different articles about him. bear in mind that the time span is nearly 20 years. are we going to create articles for everyone who has gotten an inch in a local paper biannually? 2. just because he came up with an idea doesn't make him notable. in this context, anyone can draw a line across the map and declare it to be their idea for a road. luckily for him, he was loud enough on what was then an issue already getting a lot of press (big dig) that some reporter interviewed him. are we going to start articles for everyone who has been quoted in the globe saying bad things about the big dig? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indexyears (talk • contribs) 18:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Merge the part about the Boston Bypass. RGTraynor explained this issue very nicely, Vincent Zarrilli is really not notable. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 20:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 11:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- WP:VER says "verifiability, not truth". Whether or not any of us personally consider him a "crank" is neither here nor there. Verifiable, authoritative links talk about him. So he satisfies the criteria for inclusion. Note, over half of a recent Washington Post article is devoted to Zarrilli. The Transport authority wrote him a letter, thanking him. The claims he is just a crank seem disrespectful to me. Maybe he has some form of OCD? But, if so, it didn't keep him from making a worthwhile contribution -- hence the letter. Geo Swan (talk) 01:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ken Maguire (July 24, 2007). "Analysis: More Crashes in O'Neill Tunnel". Washington Post. Retrieved 2008-05-30.

There were 614 vehicle crashes in the O'Neill tunnel during a two-year period ending in February, compared to 28 crashes in the aging Callahan and Sumner tunnels, combined, during the same period, according to activist Vincent Zarrilli. He obtained the accident data through a Freedom of Information Act request and shared his findings with The Associated Press.

The MTA has begun an evaluation of the accident data and the geometry of the highway and tunnel, authority chief of staff Stephen Collins wrote in a July 20 letter to Zarrilli... The letter thanks Zarrilli for his "diligence and concern for public safety." "I can assure you that public safety is of utmost concern to the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority and that safety issues identified in the engineering analysis will be appropriately addressed by the Authority," he wrote.

Zarrilli, a longtime civic activist who once proposed an alternative project to the city's Big Dig project, which included construction of the O'Neill tunnel, said he wants to see the O'Neill tunnel speed limit reduced from 45 mph to 30 mph. "They can erect signs before one enters the tunnel saying speed strictly enforced by video monitoring," he said in phone interview Monday. "If that signage were to take place the number of accidents per month would be reduced." Zarrilli said he's pleased that state officials are taking his concerns seriously. "I'll stay right on top of it," he said, referring to his frequent requests for public documents on accident data. "The public does deserve to know."

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

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

The result was Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mamadi Keita[edit]

Contested PROD, youth footballer with no first team professional appearances. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Angelo (talk) 11:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Angelo (talk) 11:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 11:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 17:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Does this confirm that he has first team professional experience? Article seems well written and sourced well enough, I hate to see it deleted without considering the article quality. It is better than a whole lot of articles on footballers.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 22:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, it states he has played with Blackburn Under-18 youth team. The fact the article is well written does not make the subject automatically notable, as the provided sources are definitely not independent of the subject (they are taken directly from the guy's personal website). --Angelo (talk) 07:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article is indeed well written. However most of the footnotes refers to this person's own web site: [80] If he is notable, there should be a bit more independent sources for him. Artene50 (talk) 06:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - additionally he did make 9 appearances for Hamburger SV II, in the Regionalliga Nord. But I'm nearly certain that's not a fully professional league, and HSV II won't even be one of the charter members of the 3rd Liga (which might or might not be fully professional). ugen64 (talk) 03:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Synthpop. Taken altogether, sources do not support this as anything more than a carelessly used search term. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Synth rock[edit]

This genre is an apparent neologism, defined only by the fact that they're rock bands with synthesizers. Thus you get bands of unrelated rock subgenres like progressive rock and New Wave thrown together. A Google search didn't turn up any reliable sources for this as a genre term. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 13:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I sympathise with the criticism, problems with definition are best addressed in the article itself. The term is widely used and legitimate. As popular culture terminology it's most likely not been the subject of a series of academic essays. Nonetheless, it is notable and worthy of an encyclopedic article. Debate (talk) 13:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need verifiable proof that it's "widely used and legitimate". WesleyDodds (talk) 21:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a widely used term. Andre666 (talk) 16:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment I find the above "Keep" arguments unimpressive, as they are notability arguments not backed by even one source. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the term is definitely in use: [81]. There's an entire book about Synth Music. Zagalejo^^^ 19:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need a proper context. How do we know it's being used as a genre term there and just a shorthand critical descriptive term? A problem like that resulted once when someone tried to argue that Rolling Stone "verifies" the genre's existance by linking to a live review of the Killers, where the phrase was merely used as critical short-hand. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let me ask you... would you consider synthpop a real genre term? Zagalejo^^^ 23:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are wandering off the topic at hand, which is Synth rock. These other terms are other issues not related to this AfD. The links you have provided do not really prove that the term is in wide usage. Beeblbrox (talk) 23:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I had a purpose for asking that. I was wondering if we could use synth rock as a redirect to synthpop. Zagalejo^^^ 23:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But for the record, there are also 581 Google News hits for "synth rock", so the term definitely is being used. How it's used is the question at hand. Zagalejo^^^ 00:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think "Synth rock" could possibly be redirected to synthpop, which is a well-defined and established genre. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm down with that, Merge/Redirect to synthpop. Beeblbrox (talk) 17:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was just reading this and it is clear that "it is in use" is not considered a valid argumant for inclusion of a neologism. Beeblbrox (talk) 20:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to synthpop. I have been considering this over several days, and have done an extensive search of both academic and popular sources, and I can only find one source that clearly defines the term other than one substantial reference, Dictionary of American Pop/rock (Shaw, 1982: p378). Synth Rock is used as an occasional descriptive term in music criticism, but as far as I can tell the term is not used consistently, and appears indistinguishable from the much better defined Synthpop. Debate (talk) 02:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the better defined synthpop per WD, the galactic president, and Debate. Dimitrii (talk) 03:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 11:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect - Redirect it to synthpop. asenine ^{say what?} 11:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to synthpop. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep This is a widely used term for an influential musical genre, and is distinct from synthpop. Has everyone here been living under a rock for the last 40 years? AfD hero (talk) 07:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've been trying to save this article, but I can't find any reliable sources. Widely used or not this article does not currently comply with Wikipedia policies. Anything you can do to help find some reliable sources would be welcome, since otherwise this article looks like it's going. Debate (talk) 07:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If strict adherence to the guidelines would cause us to exclude entire well-known music genres, then the application of those rules is detrimental to the encyclopedia. Thus IAR commands us to ignore such guidelines in this instance. (Hopefully we can just find some sources and it won't come down to IAR) AfD hero (talk) 08:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IAR does not apply to verifiying notability. I also find this editor's actions suspicious; they just registered, but their username is "AfD hero" and all but one of their edits are in AfD discussions. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IAR applies to everything. If a rule prevents you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore it. Period.

As for my participation in AfD's, I choose to participate in the project by voicing my opinion on AfD's. Nothing wrong with that, there are a lot of people who do basically the same thing (most tending to fall on the deletionist end of the spectrum, nothing wrong with that either). I tend to fall on the inclusionist side of things, but back up all my votes with solid arguments based on policy and the particulars of the article in question. AfD hero (talk) 10:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are both right, sort of. Ignore all rules means just that. We ignore a rule if following it would be bad for the project. I just don't think that it applies here in particular, and AfD hero hasn't really explained why a keep would be so much better than a redirect. Beeblbrox (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep would be better than a redirect because the two topics (synthpop and synthrock) are entirely different musical genres. This would be similar to if someone redirected rhythm and blues to jazz - two other musical genres that are related but clearly distinct. AfD hero (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That reasoning is fallacious in the extreme: synthpop to synthrock = rhythm & blues to jazz? Please. Ceoil (talk) 23:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that the analogy is not perfect. However, with respect to the parameter "related but distinct", the analogy holds. Synthpop and synthrock are related but distinct, as rhythm and blues and jazz are related but distinct. The point of the matter is that related but distinct musical genres should be given separate articles. AfD hero (talk) 02:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Term seems commonly used. See http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2006/10/16/pet-shop-boys-still-our-favorite-synth-rock-bum-outs/ for example. Hobit (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The debate here is getting bogged down, however, it seems to me the whole question about whether the term is in use is a distraction from whether the term can be sensibly defined and verified. Certainly the article as it currently exists is almost entirely OR. The debate therefore should be about whether the article can be improved or whether it's irretrievable. So far no one arguing to keep has been able to produce anything like a consistent definition - there are plenty of mentions in articles about one band or another, but none I can find about Synth Rock as a genre. Even a single compilation CD of the genre, something like "Best Synth Rock of the 80s", would help. After researching the term consistently the best I can say about it is that music critics throw the term around occasionally in the same way that a wine critic might describe a bottle of red as "bright and juicy, green herbal notes, blackberry and white pepper flavors" - sure, all these terms are in use by critics but this doesn't mean that each requires a separate article, or that each critic means the same thing when he or she uses them. There are thousands of music magazines published each year, and the fact that no one arguing to keep has yet produced a single article about the genre - think "a homage to Synth Rock" or "a retrospective of great Synth Rock" - seems pretty telling to me. Debate (talk) 01:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I've been looking for sources, the main problem I've encountered is wading through the tens of thousands of pages of junk ("check out our synth-rock band on myspace", "band X is incorporates elements of synth rock in their work", "see mp3s tagged with 'synth rock'", "singles interested in 'synth rock'", "revisiting the glory days of synth rock", etc etc etc etc etc...). Finding an article that is actually about synth-rock (rather than using it as a descriptor) is like finding a needle in a haystack. AfD hero (talk) 03:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That link provided is pretty much the sort of thing I was referring to above. Sure, they say "synth rock", but what, in an encyclopedic sense, those that actually mean? Nothing, really. It's the same problem that exists with pages like piano rock; instrument + "rock" does not automatically equal a valid genre of music defined by secondary sources. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect My impression is that where randomly used in published / web sources it's just as an idle discriptor, by a careless journalist. Redirect. Ceoil (talk) 01:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both sides of the argument have legitimate issues. Usage of a synthesizer by a band cannot be a genre definition. Whether a band uses a synthesizer or an acoustic instrument is totally arbitrary. If synth rock is a genre name that can be defined in specific musical terms such as other genres are defined, then it is a legitimate article. The article as it stands now seems to do both, and as such needs to be cleaned up. It also seems to talk about the genre without defining it.Jkolak (talk) 11:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

After having had new input on this and after over a year, still a lack of independent sources to show notability, I've switched this result to delete, for lack of notability and promotional content. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep following no consensus, topic has unknown notability and may indeed be promotional. Strongly suggest a rewrite to rm advertising slant. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paramahamsa Sri Nithyananda[edit]

Sri Nithyananda

Appears to be non-notable and promotional - if one stripped the promotion and OR away I'm not actually sure what would be left, and he talk page suggests this concern is not new, nor has it been addressed. Hence, I advocate its deletion. Orderinchaos 11:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This entry seems to be written by either an acolyte of Paramahamsa Sri Nithyananda or the sect's publicity division. It is so full of swarmy, fawning descriptions that an excision of them would leave nothing but the title. The style of this article is so remote from any semblance of objective information that I am surprised that it has not been deleted in 2005. It is a blight on the standards of the Wikipedia in so far as it lowers this site's reputation as an encyclopedia in the mind of everyone who comes across it and is not a follower of Nithyananda.124.182.208.168 (talk) 12:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Note to closing admin - I can vouch for the IP above - it is a person I know professionally who is the actual initiator of this action but didn't know the technical specifics of creating a deletion debate.) Orderinchaos 12:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is currently a weak article. The references are insufficently tied to the text. The article currently has serious POV problems. But if the guy has a significant number of followers, he is notable, without regard to whether or not we personally think his philosophy is credible. Geo Swan (talk) 00:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Unique Mother's Day at Vedic Temple". India Post. May 14, 2008. Retrieved 2008-05-30.
- Neil Nisperos (November 9, 2007). "Ceremony opens Montclair's first Hindu temple". Inland Valley Daily Bulletin. Retrieved 2008-05-30.
- Charles McDermid (July 13, 2007). "Richards finds solace in Cambodia; `I'm taking time off to feel myself out,' says the actor, who came under fire for his racist outburst last year". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2008-05-30.
- "Thank mutts for low crime rate". Deccan Herald. December 31, 2007. Retrieved 2008-05-30.

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 19:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EA (el Amarna)[edit]

as per contested prod, this is just a lengthy description of the abbreviation for Amarna letters Doug Weller (talk) 10:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We clearly don't need articles on all abbreviations included in manuscript designations, museum accession designations, and the like. The things themselves are covered in Amarna letters, and the abbreviation is covered in EA (disambiguation); that's all that's needed. Deor (talk) 12:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: contents already covered on this page. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 13:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per it already being adequately explained at EA (disambiguation) Yilloslime (t) 05:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fails WP:BLP.. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hitomi Mizutani[edit]

Non-notable manga artist. Fails WP:BIO and WP:RS. asenine ^{say what?} 10:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Normally I would say Keep, but it fails WP:BIO, so DELETE. This anime's article creator is Yelyos. This one, on the other hand, was created by WhisperToMe. Sgt_Pikachu5 10:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the grounds that you waited an entire friggin' NINE MINUTES after the article was created to nom it. See also WP:BITE. 208.245.87.2 (talk) 16:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 9 minutes and counting, either way this still fails WP:BLP due to a complete lack of sources. My searches have turned up empty handed as well. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 16:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable doujinshi artist. Doceirias (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I agree with User:208.245.87.2 that a nomination within minutes of creation is breach of WP:BITE, and an avoidable provocation. The wikipedia has a goal of engendering a culture of civility and collegiality. Unfortunately a subculture of incivility has grown up in the deletion fora such that breaches of civility are so routine they pass without comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geo Swan (talk • contribs) 00:08, 31 May 2008

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Not an outright "keep" because, frankly, the level of the discussion was often poor. Issues such as verifiability and notability were not seriously addressed by many "keep" opinions. (For the record, I'm listening to music on foobar2000 as I type this. It's good software, yes, but the article must refer to reliable sources.) Sandstein 19:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

foobar2000[edit]

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

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

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

Delete. While I cannot seem to locate any notability guidelines specific to software, this fails WP:N in general and lacks anything in the way of reliable third party sources about the subject. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Very notable for its advanced features, including Tagz (which is used by Winamp as well). --Kjoonlee 19:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is sourceable per WP:SOFTWARE. Google News Archive & a few Google Books results including this. --Dhartung | Talk 19:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Dhartung. -- Xompanthy (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But note the book Dhartung mentioned is not a good source; it's actually copied from Wikipedia. --Kjoonlee 00:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - So it is, so it is. Blasted preview mode! It's a 2006 book, too, and our wording definitely precedes that publication date. --Dhartung | Talk 07:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, foobar2000 in audioplayer with exceptional features (which are, of course, not obvoius at first glance) and a very small footprint. The range of features exceeds most other audio players for windows, especially iTunes and most probably also Winamp. I assume that foobar2000 is the preferred choice for people managing (as in tag, organize, share) and listening to a large (as in 100+ GB) library of audio files, so the article is definitely required to help people make an educated choice on which application to use. Also foobar2000 is a non-profit project and not used to advertise artists as winamp (owned by time warner) or a proprietary platform and rather expensive online store as in the case of e.g. itunes. As for sources, about halt the web sources cited for the winamp article are on the winamp.com pages, admittedly that ratio is slightly better for the itunes article. I totally agree, however, that the article on foobar2000 needs to be improved. --2008-05-31 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.110.199.118 (talk) 15:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep! foobar2000 is known across the internet for its extraordinary feature set, dedication to engineering quality, and modular, light-weight design. I have previously attempted to update this page, but it is quite difficult, as few of its features are listed by any external sources. As a result, the attempts to add information to this page are largely rebuffed by Wikipedia editors. I've since stopped bothering to try. Because of its non-profit nature, there is a lack of big media sources about foobar2000. There are boundless discussions about it on the larger web, however. Disclosure: I've been involved in the foobar2000 community since it began and now moderate the foobar2000 forums. -- Canar (talk) 01:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So in other words you admit that there is no reliable and non-trivial third party coverage on the subject, but since WP:YOULIKEIT we should retain the article? That doesn't fly. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 15:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comparatively, there are many other articles about subjects much less notable than foobar2000, objectively. WP:N fails at dealing with topics that are primarily online such as this one. Anyhow, I'm done here. Do whatever your Wikipedian legalism says you should do. This kind of nonsense is why I don't bother much with Wikipedia except when it involves something that matters to me. -- Canar (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also, by your criteria, please also nominate XMPlay, Songbird_(software), TrayPlayer, RadLight, NicePlayer, Media_Center_(software_application), and Media Player Classic. That's a quick browse through Comparison of media players, and most of those entries should also fail by the criteria given for foobar2000's deletion. There might be more, but I'm not wasting more of my time on this. -- 199.175.244.55 (talk) 20:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Things like this is why I stopped bothering with WP. If foobar2000 is deleted because of noteability, then I fail to see how any other non-Microsoft music player for Windows except iTunes and Winamp and RealPlayer can have an article in Wikipedia. (RealPlayer is really noteable, isn’t it? Do you know what lengths some people go to in order to get rid of it?) By the same logic, any third-party audio player for MacOS should also be deleted (I fail to see how any of them is more notable than foobar2000, even if some are invaluable to many people, as they support formats that Apple does not care about, like FLAC or WavPack), and, also, all Linux music players. Is any of them notable? Which one? Amarok? Why? Because it is part of KDE? Rhythmbox? Why? Quod Libet? Hmm... Maybe this one has some noteability now thanks to the Debian incident -- by the way, if it wasn’t for Quod Libet I would not be able to use Linux, because no other audio player does what I need; but, by this logic, I would never hope to find an article about it in WP, and maybe I wouldn’t have learnt about it in the first place. -- I think whoever put this notice in the foobar2000 article is ignorant (that is, has no idea about audio players for perconal computers) or troll, or acts in bad faith. dkikizas (talk) 09:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, as per above. Eclipsed Moon (talk) 02:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, as per above. --BrokenStoic (talk) 03:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, as per above. Yinepuhotep (talk) 04:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC) — Yinepuhotep (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Strong keep, as per above. admiraljustin (talk) 09:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC) — Admiraljustin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Strong keep, as what (english-language, as germans magazines report on it a bit more in-depth) reviews i have seen about it over the years usually failed to perceive why one would need an audio player with more features than what winamp has to offer by default. Most magazines seem to be mostly concerned with the features (and uses) that are 'traditional', and most apparent to 'the average user' (ie. their audience), and since foobar2000's 0.95 default UI overhaul is arguably still fairly recent, they might not've caught on to the fact yet that Foobar might now be more marketable/'relevant' to their intended audiences these days. (Yes, i'm aware of the 'speculation on future coverage cannot be considered a currently valid source' guideline) Boombaard (talk) 08:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, foobar2000 is a very famous audio player. enough said. I don't know why would anyone want to delete its article, since a lot of much less known softwares have their pages. --Deathkenli (talk) 10:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, foobar2000 has also been mentioned a few times on the Lifehacker blog (which has, in turn, been linked to a few times by Slashdot) --124.169.98.50 (talk) 12:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment Internet fame means nothing unless mentioned in stuff that passed WP:RS.Geni 14:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Updated comment While I am seeing a large number of WP:PERABOVE type comments, none of them are hashing out the problem outlined in this nomination. There are no reliable non-trivial sources about this subject. It continues to fail WP:N and WP:SOFTWARE. The book cited by Dhartung on Google Books which mentions Foobar2000 lifted their text from this very Wikipedia article. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 15:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just because the Google book lifted its text from this article does not mean that the book is now irrelevant. Just because the author did not know enough about foobar2000 to write the content himself/herself doesn't make the source more trivial. It just means that Wikipedia has become an important source of information for even knowledgeable people. --75.108.70.127 (talk) 23:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot find anything to establish notability. This software seems to be confined to the realm of blogs and forums, and as fine a piece of code it might be, it's for the best if it stays there for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.122.120.62 (talk) 02:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think good faith would be best established by considering other media players listed in Comparison of media players for deletion as well. The list Canar provided was a good starting place: XMPlay, Songbird_(software), TrayPlayer, RadLight, NicePlayer, Media_Center_(software_application), and Media Player Classic. -- 75.153.11.50 (talk) 02:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Perhaps merge the articles about 'less notable'/niche audio players into a single article about them. This is because, obviously, these programs do have a nice little core userbase; however, this userbase does not quite push them into the realm of mainstream software.11:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep Other than what I've mentioned in my above two comments, I just wanted to mention that, in the case of the article's subject-matter not being verfiable, it seems that only the claim of supporting a "theoretical maximum sampling rate can be as high as 192 kHz" can't be verified, as far as I can tell. Everything else does seem to be mentioned on the software's website (which seems to fall under the category of a secondary source of information - see WP:PSTS), and could, possibly, be considered to be a form of general knowledge as the features mentioned can certainly be verified by anyone who happens to use the program (akin to having to verify that the sky is blue, and so forth) so it may not be entirely necessary to have other sources for such information. On the subject of notability, the lack of any current guidelines regarding software notability does make things tricky. However, as mentioned before, foobar2000 has been the subject of a few articles ([82]) on the Lifehacker blog (note that this is not a personal blog; rather, it is operated by a few editors, and is owned by a parent company, Gawker Media. Thus, I believe, that it falls under the category of reliable), as well as having an article about it ([83]) on Techspot - another reliable source, I believe. This is in addition to the numerous personal web sites, personal blogs, download sites, and community forums that make reference to foobar2000 (and can be found via a search engine). Hence, I believe, the article does meet the requirements set in WP:WEB for notability. Also, note that I am following these guidelines, rather than the more general notablity guidelines, as they do take into account the nature of web-based content, such as programs. --13:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.5.240 (talk)
- Does Wired Blog counts? here it is: http://blog.wired.com/music/2007/10/minimalist-audi.html --154.5.57.42 (talk) 05:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Max sampling rate is actually 1000000 Hz according to the SDK. --Kjoonlee 22:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While it's true that "me too" comments provide no info on notability, other comments do. If you search for foobar2000 on Google Book Search you can find "IPod& iTunes - Page 267 by Gerald Erdmann, Charlotte Stanek - 2007 - 704 pages" --Kjoonlee 22:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Work on It Keep, it's notable. But, the features section is more like an ad (with just a list of features). SimpsonsFan08 ^{talk Sign Here Please and get Award} 10:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting note: The "keep because it is good software" comments above are not helpful for establishing consensus. Further discussion should concentrate on whether the sources provided by 124.169.5.240 are sufficient with respect to verifiability and notability. Sandstein 09:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Kindly note there were other people who mentioned other sources. Please don't forget those. --Kjoonlee 14:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep - Are you kidding me? This is one of the most widely used media players, and it does assert notability. asenine ^{say what?} 10:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree there is a problem with paper sources, but here is a recent one: [84]--Doug Weller (talk) 10:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per common sense. Widely used software. --neonwhite user page talk 22:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I'm not an expert on the subject, but it has few/no reliable references, doesn't seem to be notable, and doesn't seem to offer any information that wouldn't be found on its website. I also agree that most or all of the other articles mentioned should also be deleted, by the same criteria. Mr. Absurd (talk) 05:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very famous piece of software, and removing this article would be detrimental to the encyclopedia. Thus IAR compells me to vote keep. AfD hero (talk) 07:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep - notable software, 2.5 million ghits.--Michael White^T·C 13:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Google hits are a poor indicator of notability. I can present to you any number of porn stars which receive equal if not more Google hits than this one. So far I have seen nothing in the way of non-trivial and independent publications about this subject, just a heavy reliance on WP:IAR and "PER ABOVE" type comments. If the community wishes to ignore our "rules" on verifiability and notability, then so be it, but that will probably increase the likelihood of this article being renominated down the road if the underlying issues cannot be corrected. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 16:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Lifehacker review, CNET review, Softpedia review.--Michael White^T·C 17:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Very good. Now lets analyze those links you've provided a bit more closely. How about we start with this supposed "CNET Review". In actuality it is not a CNET review, but a user-submitted review. Guess who the reviewer is. The review was submitted by the author of Foobar2000 himself [85] along with an unsigned "editor review" attributed to no one. The other two are the equivalent of blogs. I fully understand that the "consensus" here is willing to ignore all rules, including Wikipedia:Reliable sources, so who am I to argue at this point? It won't survive much longer at this rate. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Lifehacker is the 6th ranked blog according to the Technorati 100 and Softpedia is a top 300 website. How are these not reliable sources? And the CNET page does have an editor review.--Michael White^T·C 18:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Between WP:N, WP:WEB and Michael's links, it would really seem to me that foobar2000 is, indeed, notable by Wikipedian legalism. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." foobar2000 has received significant coverage all over the internet, and even in a few "reliable sources". -- Canar (talk) 14:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:' Per the references given above. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:' The question that comes to my mind is, if this fails the standards for retaining, how many other pieces of software mentioned on WP also fail the same standards? Do we really want to open up that large of a can of worms? Yinepuhotep (talk) 03:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Vquex (talk) 17:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:DOSPAGWYA --154.5.57.42 (talk) 09:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blogs do not meet WP:RS; if it really is notable, we will not need to rely entirely on them to establish notability. Vquex (talk) 17:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And so you ignore all other sources. Maybe you're reading the wrong blogs as well. Language Log and the Freakonomics blog come to mind. --Kjoonlee 00:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Articles like the one on foobar2000 prove to be a serious problem wikipedia has not yet begun to solve. While entirely based on a commnuity effort for its content, the word of that community itself weighs near to nothing when debating WP:N. Blogs, forum threads and private pages are to be disregarded entirely, thus excluding phenomena and entities that are of relevance to a significant part of society. I have always assumed WP:WING to be true, simply because wikipedia allowed me to find relevant information about certain topics much faster than on google. That includes but is not limited to finding high quality free and opensource software for a given purpose, something that is VERY relevant to the majority of wikipedia users, and foobar2000 matters here, and not only because it does not open up your machine to potential attacks as the windows media player does. I agree that there is a thin line between spamming wikipedia with irrelevant articles and excluding relevant ones, and views differ which one is the safe side. In my opinion these matters cannot be solved by weighing guidelines alone, I think everybody discussing this issue also needs to read up and form an opinion on the subject, i.E. foobar2000, itself. There is no comparable audio player on windows in terms of light footprint, number of features (native and through plugins) and customizability. Regrettably I cannot prove that, there's plenty of webpages that explain a lot about foobar, and I could write another one, but alas, we are to trust only reliable sources. (talk) 07:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 MastCell says, there are apparently no sources intellectually independent from the inventor (and, apparently, article author) who are covering this. Sandstein 20:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scrambler therapy[edit]

Contested prod. Theory of pain control proposed by a single engineer. Two PubMed hits (PMID 16012423 and PMID 12555009), both by the inventor. No evidence that it works, only limited evidence that anyone is using it. Creator of article has username identical to perhaps the only website that gives airtime to this treatment, and is the site run by the company headed by the original inventor.[86] Delete on notability grounds. JFW | T@lk 09:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Against deletion, but in favor of improving the article. Reasons:
1) Anybody reading about Scrambler therapy and who wants to know more about it, should be able to find this information in Wikipedia.
2) The two articles that are cited have been accepted by PubMed, originally by the journals Minerva anestesiologica and by JOP : Journal of the pancreas. Lova Falk (talk) 09:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not everything on PubMed is notable. Pubmed, incidentally, doesn't "accept" anything but collects abstracts of papers published in peer-reviewed journals. How do you address the possibility of promotion? JFW | T@lk 12:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - But the journals accepted the articles, didn't they? Anyway, I agree with you that the article is probably promotional, but I would prefer to start with a strong encouragement to improve the article rather than just delete it. In this improved article, it could be mentioned that the therapy is based on a novel and untested theory, and that it is not an evidence-based method. Lova Falk (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence is here only a minor issue; we have long articles on treatments proven to be ineffective (e.g. Echinacea). The issue is notability. I just randomly typed a PMID code: PMID 4532561. It discusses the seaonal incidence of urinary calculi in Puerto Rico. Does that mean we need to integrate this wisdom into Wikipedia? JFW | T@lk 19:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You don't need to be ironic with me, please. Articles in scientific journals are valid sources of reference, even though the one you quote is rather old. I thought the main issue was the quality of the article, not notability. To address notability: "Scrambler therapy" gives 954 hits on Google, which I personally think is enough to qualify for an article in Wikipedia. To address quality: I agree that the article needs to be improved. Lova Falk (talk) 19:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hope you don't mind that I turn the question around: why is this notable, given that it has not been proven and we cannot demonstrate that many people are relying on it? With all the "social media" stuff that friends of the professor have posted, it is rather easy to clock up Google hits, and Google hits are not frequently the determining factor in AFD debates. JFW | T@lk 23:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per nom. The evidence of notability is too feeble. This certainly does seem like self-promotion. I note, also, that if the article is to be kept, the very dense technical language will need to be smoothed out. Tim Ross (talk) 11:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um...huh? that has to be one of the most densely-jargon-laden passages I have read in a long time. It is impossible to get a sense of what it actually is from reading it, which raises doubts in my mind. I'd have to say I lean towards delete at the moment. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the only significant contributor had conflict of interest. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 13:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I agree that this article does need a lot of clean-up. However, there are two sources listed, one of which apparently deals directly with the subject. I originally prodded the article as a straight copy/paste, but it has been cleaned up since then. Can anyone check on those references to see if they are legit? TN‑X-Man 15:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete with no prejudice against re-creation pending further sources. Very borderline, if there were any sources that indicated it was being picked up by other researchers it'd be a keep, but two publications, neither of which are Science, both by the same author, means it's not catching on (yet(?)). With time it'll either die off (and deletion is appropriate) or get more interest (and the article can be re-created). Given that you can't discuss the topic without discussing the author (since he's the only one who is using, testing, publishing, developing it), COI and self-promotion are big concerns. Given the inappropriate insertion of the link, I'm not inclined to be charitable. WLU (talk) 17:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article appears to be a lift from a technical journal, yet at times seems promotional in nature (see a link from an organization that has "worldwide distribution rights"). Author appears to have COI problems here (check the contribution history and see the red flags). Delete per WLU. B.Wind (talk) 17:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Bottom line is that there don't appear to be enough independent, useful sources to write a neutral, non-promotional encyclopedia article. If it catches on and some additional work is published by someone who hasn't invented/profited from it, we could revisit it. MastCell ^Talk 21:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - perhaps keep prose as a research directions, section in pain or nociception LeeVJ (talk) 23:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From Deltard. I was astonished to read the request by a user to cancel the page.The page contains scientific reference regarding traditional medicine accredited in Medline indexed publications backed up by scientific data produced by one of the most important Italian universities.The page contains no publicity, or anything violating copyright. I believe that the request for the page’s removal is unfounded. I am therefore asking for the page to be retained as Wikipedia is a resource for knowledge and information.
- Note1: Deltard Profile.Researcher, Bioengineer, Contract teaching activities at Department of Biology of “Roma Tre” University of Rome. National affiliations: Special agreements in support of clinical studies with: "Tor Vergata" University of Rome, “Salvatore Maugeri” Scientific Research Institute of Pavia, Scientific Research Institution of Ospedale Maggiore of Milan. Other research collaborations:Istituto Superiore di Sanità (Italian Higher Institute of Health) [87].
- Note2: Engineering is very different from the bio engineering and the bio engineering science it is different from the bio-engineering technology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deltard (talk • contribs) 09:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note: creator of page. JFW | T@lk 09:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Deltard, could you provide evidence that scrambler therapy is widely used? Are you aware of any evidence of its efficacy that for some reason hasn't made it onto PubMed yet? I am not questioning your credentials or your department's ability in conducting research. But Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopedia that will generally only cover topics that are notable and well-established in their field. I apologise for mixing up engineering and bio-engineering. JFW | T@lk 09:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - From Deltard to JFW. JFW,h can understand your remarks. In Italy we do not enjoy many economic resources for doing research. I therefore had to wait for a US sponsor before starting up new international studies on a large scale. One of these studies, involving a control group on class 4 drugs, is awaiting publication. Further larger-scale studies are being organized in US hospitals and in Italy involving PET verification.
  - Each theoretical innovation is always marked by delays and doubts in the scientific community but is the only response that can provide objective data. Existing data confirm the method’s effectiveness and that its theoretical basis is correct. Other data based on non homogeneous case histories of over 2,300 patients collected over ten years by the Tor Vergata University Polyclinic show the same trends as those published. Furthermore, it is a fact that in several neuropathic and oncologic pain types the placebo effect has no clinical significance. This means that it is legitimate to study patients that do not respond to class 4 drugs or other therapeutic protocols for the relative pain type in auto-controlled mode as was done in the publications contained in the bibliography.
  - Other indirect references:Lundstrom BN, Fairhall AL. Decoding stimulus variance from a distributional neural code of interspike intervals. J Neurosci. 2006 Aug 30;26(35):9030-7.
- So you agree that this is experimental? Would you expect it in an encyclopedia? JFW | T@lk 12:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, article should be improved to a useful stub. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you think it is notable or not? If so, on what grounds? JFW | T@lk 12:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- FROM DELTARD TO JFW. (...and all) JFW, I certainly cannot consider as experimental a treatment that has been in use for ten years in our public hospitals and that has been used successfully on thousands of patients where all other therapies failed.Nor can I consider as experimental a therapy authorized throughout Europe (and in the near future in the US), a therapy that for the time being is the only solution documented in scientific literature and clinically verified for the treatment of pain that is untreatable by other methods, that is, pain which if not treated effectively often leads patients to demand euthanasia.

I therefore deemed it more correct that non scientific users should be informed about it and how it functions via Wikipedia since its use in hospitals throughout the world has begun. I could not do this before on my own as I am a researcher not an industry. The fact of continuing the studies is part of my mentality and that of the scientific community in general. However, this does not imply that it is experimental, at least as far as the clinical results are concerned. If you think that only a scientific user should be informed about the therapy and how it functions, Medline would be enough, as that is our information point of reference. If on the other hand you consider that such "exclusivism" is not correct and that Wikipedia is at everyone's disposal, I think the time has come to end the discussion and leave the page without the request for cancellation, or else remove it and leave all the information to Google and Medline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deltard (talk • contribs) 10:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nuke the fridge[edit]

It is highly unlikely, and thus far unproven, that this phase has become a part of the common film lexicon. There's quite a jump between a single discussion thread and a phrase becoming part of cinematic dialect, and new colloquialisms aren't apt to be fully established within a week of a movie's release. A phrase a couple of IMDB users toss around in a single thread is not a new colloquialism. Vianello (talk) 08:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete: it was coined by a bunch of kids on a message forum? Hardly notable and definitely not verifiable. Also WP:NOTDICDEF comes into play here. ——Ryan | t • c 09:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with (nuclear) fire. Thread started yesterday. Users discuss the lack of a Wikipedia article on page 5 (out of 6). I think I can connect the dots here. Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article itself supports deletion: "This phrase is not in common use." Definately non-notable. ~QuasiAbstract {talk/contrib} 09:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources retaining to the popularity of this phrase. Alientraveller (talk) 09:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although at some point in the (near) future I would support to have it introduced again. The phrase is quickly becoming a known catchphrase. Still, only time will tell if it keeps popular. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 11:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: obviously non-notable. -- Roleplayer (talk) 11:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not for words your IMDB buddy made up one day. Without usage in reliable sources it's just another non-notable neologism that is not necessary. At least it gave me a good opportunity for some alliteration. ~ mazca ^talk 11:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article is about a recently made up neologism. Was created as a phrase similar to "jumping the shark", but instead for use for movie series. Actually, the phrase "jumping the shark" can apply more to just television. This phrase was just someone's poor attempt at trying to coin a catchphrase. Non-notable, no secondary sources aside from the imdb.com message board. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 12:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. A few people's personal views about Indy 4, with a few forum posts as a "source", in no way shows notability. Gran² 13:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For my part, I loved this movie. And I didn't like Speed Racer. But I'm not going to pretend that I'm Roger Ebert. Mandsford (talk) 15:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and preemptively salt as this will keep coming back. (Yes, I know it's out of process, but this is surely the time to IAR). "This phrase is currently not in common use as it is a new term. The term originated at imdb. Youtube videos can be found dedicated to Nuking the fridge." What more needs to be said? — iridescent 23:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People are trying to "establish" this word using Wikipedia.[88]. Doesn't deserve any mention on any page. Radagast83 (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just someone trying to publish an inside joke. Not wikipedia worthy. I would say CSD when it was first put up. --~**_mustafarox_**~ (talk) 01:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and add some salt this will come back. It's one of those that you just know it will. We do have enough for a WP:SNOW closure too...Undeath (talk) 06:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is merely an excuse to forcibly spread a weak web-meme from one message board to the next. It would do better as a footnote in a 'Jumping the Shark' wiki entry, but merits nothing beyond that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhumbug (talk • contribs) 12:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retain it' This term is sweeping the globe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RossyG (talk • contribs) 11:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gracious. Do we have a WP:SNOW situation on our hands here? - Vianello (talk) 03:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retain it' It might not be big yet - but it is going to be. Why not keep it??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.24.52 (talk) 12:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You're just kidding yourself. Seasoned moviegoers expect a bit of hyperbole in an adventure film. Somehow, Indy hasn't been hit by any of the bullets that have been fired at him over the years. A person whose reaction to films is "Yeah, right!" probably needs to watch documentaries instead. Mandsford (talk) 13:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the rest due to lack of verifiability and established notability by reliable sources. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:' Fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia's role is to recognize when something has become notable, not to help make it notable in the first place. --nertzy (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per CSD A7. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony Appleyard (talk • contribs) 14:08, 26 May 2008 UTC

Zelda Power[edit]

Non-notable video game website. Only sources are forums and blogs, no critical outside coverage. MBisanz ^talk 08:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Delete. "Blog" and "critical outside coverage" aren't STRICTLY mutually exclusive. Just most of the time. If any of these are blogs of any real note or importance (I'm afraid I really wouldn't know), that changes the nature of things a bit. If not, then it's more or less as stated. - Vianello (talk) 08:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't think of any other reason to want to include it on Wikipedia other than to promote the website so I vote delete per WP:SPAM, the website is hardly notable not like websites listed here associated with Harry Potter (IE: HPANA) ——Ryan | t • c 09:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy deletion as an article about a website that that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 13:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, with no consensus but some hope this topic can be more thoroughly sourced. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Drew[edit]

Barely notable professor, seems to touch more on notable institutions than actually being notable in his own right. MBisanz ^talk 08:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable professor. However, I would support the creation of Manifestoon, as it appears there are sources available for that. Subject of this article could be listed there. TN‑X-Man 15:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any reliable, secondary sources that speak to the subjects notability. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Full disclosure: I made the page. It's a stub, and there's more that needs to be added. Give it time. Drew has had his fingers in the pot of multiple media activism projects and has created several notable pieces in the field of video art. He's not documented well online, I'll admit that, but much of this work was done in the 80s and early 90s. But hopefully with this stub up others can contribute - that's what wikipedia is about right? I don't see the harm in keeping it. --Dronthego (talk) 02:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I found more references. The guy merits coverage. Geo Swan (talk) 23:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Fies (June 14, 2007). "Can Movies Make a Difference?". ABC News. Retrieved 2008-05-29. Are the gadfly director's ambitions for his movie unrealistic? Jesse Drew, who teaches documentary film at the University of California Davis, argues that documentaries can alter policy and culture. He thinks "Sicko" will amplify the pressure on policymakers to reform health care. "It will open to a mass audience," he said, "and it's not going to be lost on politicians. They know that many of their constituents will see these issues raised and there's going to be a link made that they have to deal with some of these issues."
Chris Rue (May 22, 2008). "Technology in Culture". California Aggie. Retrieved 2008-05-29. Here at UC Davis, the intersection is explored in Technocultural Studies, an undergraduate program with an assortment of interdisciplinary courses and innovative media equipment available for students. Jesse Drew, director and co-creator of the Technocultural Studies (TCS) major, said he sees the interaction between technology and culture daily.

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

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

The result was Delete. Does not meet WP:ATHLETE. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dolf Kerklaan[edit]

Kerklaan hasn't yet played in an official match in a fully professional league, which means he doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE. A ecis^Brievenbus 08:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. A ecis^Brievenbus 08:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom on failure to meet WP:ATHLETE. KTC (talk) 10:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, here is google translated Sparta Rotterdam web page for player saying "his player does not have official matches played for Sparta." [89]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 03:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole, South African Mucisian[edit]

Fails Criteria for musicians and ensembles on Wikipedia:Notability (music) Triwbe (talk) 07:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This appears to be true. The page is also devoid of any sort of third-party support or mention so far as I can tell offhand. - Vianello (talk) 07:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete. Nicole works independant of record companies and hence does everything herself, from production, distribution to marketing of all her shows and CD's - Elnu (talk) 10:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not sure how this is relevant. Would you mind expanding on that point a bit? - Vianello (talk) 08:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. From the notability requirements that are established it will be hard for an independant musician to every be listed on wikipedia, its much more difficult and hard work when you work independant of big record companies especially in South Africa, hence I feel that the article shouldn't deleted just because it doesn't satisfies the notability criteria. All the information can be verified from her website and by simple email to her. - Elnu (talk) 10:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Unfortunately, verifiability isn't the issue, it's noteability. And yes, it IS difficult for obscure artists to become notable. That's part of the very definition of obscurity. But the idea that a non-notable artist should have the notability criteria relaxed for them simply because they are non-notable is an unfathomable contortion of logic. If that were the case, there would be no purpose to notability criteria in the first place. To avoid cluttering this up any further, I'll consider my piece on this matter spoken. - Vianello (talk) 08:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - Per above. The creator should note that her status is irrelevant. Asenine 12:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, following no consensus. This is a helpful article but the sources are a bit thin. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brian McGilloway[edit]

Has a few Google hits, but most are for other people of the same name. Page was deleted once before, according to the log. Currently has only his webpage as a reference. Blast Ulna (talk) 07:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: it had no independent sources. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 08:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I added a little detail and two references from reliable sources, this author was shortlisted for a Crime Writers' Association Dagger award for a debut novel, citation in article.

Added two more citations to the article.--Captain-tucker (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Internet phenomena. Singu larity 03:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beer Looter Dude[edit]

Seems a bit iffy Ziggy Saw dust 06:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources for either the original incident or the internet meme. No Google News hits. Huon (talk) 10:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Internet phenomena, as it is a recreation of Lootie (which is current;y redirected there). Nobody of Consequence (talk) 15:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Nobody of Consequence. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. non-notable internet celebrity. Ironholds (talk) 13:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect While the article could stand as an article by itself, it has only one source. It is also uncategorized.--LAA Fan 22:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uncategorisation or categorisation really shouldnt't play a part in your decision. Alternately you're just suggesting something that needs to be done, i may be misinterpreting it.Ironholds (talk) 23:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 02:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The truth about Orpheus[edit]

Seems to be unsalvagably botched vanispamcruftisement Ziggy Saw dust 06:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN YouTube/AOL video/Dailymotion/etc. (yes it's on all of those and probably more). No reliable sources in article or found in search. Total GHITS <100. --Dhartung | Talk 07:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as a non-notable film. I do, however, heartily endorse the term "vanispamcruftisement". TN‑X-Man 15:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable film, contents of article seem to be a personal essay. JIP | Talk 20:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fragmentary article about less than notable fictional beings. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linyaari[edit]

Its a species in a modern Science Fiction series, although it is by Anne McCaffrey it is unlikely to ever get the third party coverage needed to have standalone articles on each element of this particular series. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 04:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuild as the series article for the Linyaari series. 70.51.11.94 (talk) 05:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe under Acorna? The books each have their own article, but I could see it fitting in under the title character's info? LegoTech·(t)·(c) 05:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acorna the character and the series should be different articles. Besides, the second set of books doesn't feature Acorna. 70.51.9.17 (talk) 06:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC) — 70.51.9.17 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete or Merge with the book article. Not enough as it stands now. Undeath (talk) 06:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable fictional race. -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

NFTY-NE[edit]

The result was Redirected to NFTY, non-admin closure TN‑X-Man 15:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other similar articles such as North American Federation of Temple Youth - Mid-Atlantic Region have already been merged into the main organization's article due to lack of notability. Skiasaurus (skē’ ə sôr’ əs) 04:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nomination... why are we here? -- saberwyn 04:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close and WP:TROUT the nom. Why did you take this to AfD when you wanted it to be merged? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Look at the article... there's nothing there to merge. Skiasaurus (skē’ ə sôr’ əs) 04:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect then as likely search term. (Can I rollback a trouting?) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (Forgot to support when I nominated.) Skiasaurus (skē’ ə sôr’ əs) 04:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to do that. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per TenPoundHammer. Better idea. And no offense taken at the trouting... I've never heard of that before, and I find it hilarious. :-) Skiasaurus (skē’ ə sôr’ əs) 05:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to NFTY all the coverage of the organisation that I can find deals with the main organisation, even when the branch is referred to it seems to only go on to "...is a branch of". With this in mind I do not think an article can be built on the sources that are available which does not amount to substantial duplication of the main article. Guest9999 (talk) 13:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (Non-admin closure, removed by nominator)

Toronto West Detention Centre[edit]

PROD tag removed by user. It has only about 2 lines, which really doesn't qualify as a stub Lego K^ontribs T^alkM 04:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (creator)...it has a lot more detail than most stubs. "X is a person" or "Y is in Paris" is not a formal stub, but three footnotes on a prison, its year of construction, address, director, capacity and security ranking are plenty of information for a stub. In fact, it's better than the vast majority of 360 prison stubs, and it's one of seven Maximum Security facilities in the country. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 04:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Decent stub, contains four sources and sufficient verifiable info (and now a category too). Needs expansion if anything. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Supposing this article is notable and verifiable (it seems to be, from a rough estimate), are there policies or guidelines that would qualify it for deletion based on the length alone? AfD hero (talk) 07:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no indication in either WP:Deletion policy or WP:Stub about how long or short a stub needs to be, or any way in which length would qualify it for deletion. The basic criteria for not getting a stub article deleted are that it needs to provide enough context for people to figure out what the article is about (which this article certainly does), and some indication of notability (this article also appears to do that). — λ (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Perfectly fine stub article, meets ideal stub article guidelines, contains references, and has been improved and expanded since deletion tag was added. — λ (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I am very disturbed by this nomination. Nominator justifies this deletion because the article creator removed an earlier ((prod)). Nominator did not see fit to mention that the article, when ((prod))ded, was just a single sentence long, and has been expanded since then. [90] Nominator has not seen fit to provide any justification for deletion, other than the removal of the ((prod)). I would encourage the nominator to either withdraw this nomination, or to supply a justification for its deletion that is actually backed up by the wikipedia's deletion policies. Geo Swan (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've linked it to the Correctional Facilities of Ontario, Canada entry. I'm also going to work on expanding the article. --JeffJ (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True to my word, I've expanded the article and added more authoritative references re the facility itself. I believe the article now qualifies as a legitimate stub and the deletion tag should be removed.--JeffJ (talk) 22:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Anything encyclopedic has been merged. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diclonius (Elfen Lied)[edit]

This appears to be a large abstraction on a fictional concept which includes plot summary, and original research. I suggest either trimming and merging into Elfen Lied (which already has a short section on the topic), or just deleting it outright. 十八 03:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —十八 03:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a merge would not require an AfD. 70.51.11.94 (talk) 05:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, but on the off chance that a merge fails, deleting it seems to be the sensible option (especially since merging most of this info into Elfen Lied would bloat the article, and even I would be opposed to a merge of that massive scale).--十八 05:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But then you'd have tried the merge, and since you say it would likely succeed, there'd be no need for an AfD. You can trim as you merge, so that it'd be smaller than the whole content now. The redirect left behind will contain the edit history, should anyone care to look at the more expansive version. 70.51.8.46 (talk) 06:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think what tiny fraction of this was needed in the article is being merged there, and the rest can go. Doceirias (talk) 04:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability to meet WP:FICT. Already summarized at Elfen Lied. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 02:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bollarum Golf Course[edit]

Unsourced ~ a kendall 03:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not assert notability, and has unsourced claims.--十八 03:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm finding no proof that there even is a golf course in Bollarum. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It exists (I found it in a list on a Yellow Pages website), but it still definitely fails WP:N. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomader (talk • contribs)
1 is an article which talks about this,
2 listed here with a respected golf website. Randhirreddy 07:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

keep The golf course exists, apparently, and I think sources probably exist for it, though they will obviously be much harder to find since it is in India. The style of the article should be changed however, as it reads like a bit of an advertisement ("best golf course"). If these style changes are made (which would be trivial), then the article does no harm and will likely improve over time as the sources come out of the woodwork. There is no deadline for the encyclopedia. AfD hero (talk) 07:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no assertion of notability. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 08:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Not notable. --Komrade Kiev (talk) 14:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice to recreation if sources establish that it is the oldest golf course and that it is importance because of that. gren グレン 08:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted under A7. Non-admin closure. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Quit[edit]

This article fails WP:MUSIC and makes the least significant unsourced assertion of notability I have ever seen as a basis to decline speedy deletion. An album, a few years playing, and a claim that you're on the radio in your home market isn't enough for an article here. Erechtheus (talk) 03:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not assert notability per guidelines set out at WP:Music#Criteria for musicians and ensembles.--十八 03:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the A7 rationale. Erechtheus (talk) 03:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Joseph B. Zambon[edit]

Non-notable person; article created by the subject with no citations or media references to establish credibility ~ a kendall 03:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Hopefully the speedy will go through and this will just be a formality. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singu larity 02:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prostitution in Denmark[edit]

Not notable enough for it's own article, should be merged into a new article- prostitiution by country. - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 03:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For now as it seems to be part of a series. Possibly the whole series should be merged into a "Prostitution in Europe" article, but that'd be a different discussion. I do think "Prostitution in Liechtenstein" should maybe go though as I don't think series have to include European microstates if they're not notable for said topic.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain merger is a good idea, but as I stated openness to it I'll withdraw. I do think you did this a bit backward, but maybe you're new.--T. Anthony (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not new, but I realized i did do this kind of backwards. Next time i should just set up the redirect instead of nominating anything for anything...- -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 02:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the nominator wants to merge the article, then why is it listed for deletion? Kevin (talk) 03:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A quick search reveals many books related to the subject. I think there is easily enough info for a good article on the subject. Further to my comment above, being badly written or too short are not grounds for deletion, only for fixing. Kevin (talk) 03:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Prostitution in Denmark along with its relatively recent legalization is quite encyclopedic. The topic has generated a lot of its own scholarship specific to Denmark itself and its unique legal codes, just it would if say Las Vegas were to legalize prostitution (it hasn't and doesn't appear to be on the verge either). --Firefly322 (talk) 04:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm copying all the articles into the article for Prostitution in Europe. - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 04:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you were going to merge it, why did you list it for deletion? -- saberwyn 04:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Topics can have some overlap per wikipolicy. Legal prostitution in Denmark is something legally and culturally unusual. And there lots of analysis of citations that could be added to show this. So I still say plain Keep --Firefly322 (talk) 04:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I think it should be deleted since it's such a small article, and basically the entire article is copied to Prostitution in Europe, which is more than 'some' overlapping. And i listed if for deletion because i've now merged it into the main article, and it's so small it doesn't need it's own article. - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 04:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well now that you've copied it, we have no other choice but to redirect to preserve the contributions history for GFDL legal mumbo-jumbo purposes. -- saberwyn 07:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "I just copied all of the content into this other article" isn't a very good argument for deletion, especially when the copying doesn't occur until after the AfD is started. Maxa megalon 2000 05:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Now , Prostitution in Europe is an article in wich the majority of info from this article is in, so how about a redirect from this article to Prostitution in Europe#Prostitution in Denmark - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 05:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support anchored redirect per nominator merge and GFDL compliance until such a time as someone is able to write up a larger, verifiable, and reliably sourced article on the subject, at which point it can be split back out again. Outright keep as second option. -- saberwyn 07:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valid subtopic using valid slicing (by country). Just because an article is slim does not mean it must be merged. --Dhartung | Talk 07:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nomination proposes merger which is not deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs expansion, not deletion (or merging). Deor (talk) 12:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Prostitution in Europe#Denmark until and unless this undergoes expansion. Biruitorul ^Talk 16:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Prostitution in X country articles are valid topic. The article needs more referencing and expansion, not deletion. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I see nothing wrong with this article. JIP | Talk 20:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per many of the above comments. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic is clearly notable, and the article seems like perfectly reasonable stub. Klausness (talk) 11:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, WP:SNOW as well. bad article on a notable subject. It happens. gren グレン 10:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Prostitution is legal in Denmark? I didn't know that. Topic definitely merits coverage. Advantages of replacing this article with Prostitution by country or Prostitution in Europe seem specious to me, and an example of imposing arbitrary camps on topics. Geo Swan (talk) 23:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 without prejudice to any future editorial merge proposal. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statue of Brothers[edit]

This page has no references and is just a dictionary with a photo and a transcription of a plaque. There is a Wikitravel website which this would be more suited for. Non notable for Wikipedia. Notable for Wikitravel. This article has been around for 3 years and nobody has improved it. Even the talk page questions it's importance. At best, merge with Korean War. Kis2 (talk) 03:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to War Memorial of Korea. Doesn't seem to be quite notable enough for its own page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per User:TenPoundHammer. Seems like a good solution. Kevin (talk) 03:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a 3-year old stub. Age of stub status is not a reason for deletion. --Firefly322 (talk) 04:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I found a couple of Google Books treatments, both substantive. --Dhartung | Talk 07:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to War Memorial of Korea - it's a notable topic, but there's plenty of space there, and users wishing to find the statue will easily be able to do so in the Memorial article. Biruitorul ^Talk 15:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Dhartung, the two references found in a google book search [91],[92], which are in the article establish its notability. There also appear to be at least 2 valid news references [93]--Captain-tucker (talk) 11:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as blatant advertising of the band. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amalgam Digital[edit]

This article was deleted via prod back in January. It's back and weaker—there are no sources in this incarnation of the article. Unsourced article that fails to make a clear case for notability under WP:CORP. —C.Fred (talk) 02:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of WP:RS, thus failing WP:CORP. Will re-evaluate if article improved. Erechtheus (talk) 02:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (edit conflict): Written as an advertisement, violates WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV as well as WP:CORP as brought up by the nominator. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 02:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP, WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Blatant violations, see above.--15stamps (talk) 02:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hard delete: blatant advertising, fails notability guidelines and unsourced. Tagged for a G11. Maybe we should salt it. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 08:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 criterion G4. Consensus in the last AfD was to delete. This article does not seem to cure any of the ills that were noted in the last article—and makes them worse, to the point that it secondarily qualifies under criterion G11. —C.Fred (talk) 02:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas Tanner[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This page looks almost like an advertisement, and the user name of the author signifies that it is the author creating the page. I don't believe the notability is there for a full article. ~**_mustafarox_**~ (talk) 02:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. This page has been deleted before in a previous AfD and violates criteria G4. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 02:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted under criterion A7. —C.Fred (talk) 02:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One True Sakred[edit]

Non notably band Duffbeerforme (talk) 02:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A7 Absolutely no assertation of notability. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per TPH, fails WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. No support for notability, article is mostly platform for an advertisement. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Educaching[edit]

Article has no valid sourcing other than one commerical website where the neologism of its subject originated. There is nothing notable about this topic and it is a minor twist on geocaching (using geocaching/GPS in a lesson plan, basically). ju66l3r (talk) 02:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Specifically, it reads like a poorly written advertisement.--十八 03:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I believe it is a poorly written advertisement (not that there's anything wrong with advertising or even possibly some grey COI in extraordinary cases, but this sure ain't one of them.) --Firefly322 (talk) 04:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 08:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Geocaching. There is a little bit of useful information here, but at best it should be a section in the Geocaching article. — Val42 (talk) 02:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per previous post Dbiel ^(Talk) 03:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Mostly original research with little likelihood of enough sources showing up to support an article of this depth. Moreover, the plot is not widely notable. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of D.Gray-man terms[edit]

The article has no sources or out-of-universe info, meaning it's filled with original research, for one. For another, a similar list of terms was deleted back in 2006; the result of the debate can be viewed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of terms in Shakugan no Shana. Plus, there is certainly a large amount of plot information given, and Wikipedia is not a plot summary. 十八 02:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —十八 02:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge if anything is of value); in-universe, nn D.Gray-man material. JJL (talk) 02:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Kind a gray area. I say keep. --Firefly322 (talk) 04:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the information can be found on other pages; the fallen one term is used once, twice maybe. Many can be moved. itzjustdrama (talk) 01:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NOT#PLOT. Should be summarized in a "Plot" or "Setting" section in the main article. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 02:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alenty[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Alenty. Has a few links but they seem to be press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines. Advert. Hu12 (talk) 01:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spam --15stamps (talk) 03:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the article had no purpose other than to promote the subject. Therefore, it's spam. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 09:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:SPAM User NobuNobu who created this article was blocked indefinitely for spamming and promoting, you guessed it, alenty.com: [94] Artene50 (talk) 06:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ORG. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snowball keep with consent of nominator. Daniel (talk) 09:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current senior Australian Defence Organisation personnel[edit]

Non-encyclopedic original research of what are current defence personal. Very little in outside independent sourcing, and lacking notability of this as a topic (as opposed to the individuals or the institution they're associated with). MBisanz ^talk 01:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This nomination is misguided. This is not original research as all the positions and their occupants are listed on the Department of Defence and/or Government Online Directory websites. These websites are authoritative and are only being used to identify the current holder of the position so the fact that they're published by a related organisation is, if anything, a plus as it verifies that the information is up to date. This topic is very notable and encyclopedic as these are the men and women who head Australia's largest government organisations and they're regularly interviewed and quoted in the specialist defence media and general media and their performance will inevitably be covered in military history books. The claim that the topic lacks notability is also not correct on the grounds that most people on the list are individually notable as officers of two-star rank and above are considered automatically notable. Most of the positions they hold and organisations they run are also individually notable. Moreover, as this is listing is restricted to very senior people it doesn't fall foul of WP:NOT#DIR. Nick Dowling (talk) 06:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Mr Dowling here. This article informs the people on exactly what senior officer is running the different sectors within the Australian Defence Force, and the individuals listed on this page are, in fact, particually notable people. I do not understand the claim that this article is "Non-encyclopedic" as the text clearly states how the ADF is structured, and how these senior positions fit into the said structure. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 06:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 06:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per nick. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep As per Nick Dowling's comments - This nomination is a waste of people's time PalawanOz (talk) 08:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Not one of the claims made Mr MBisanz is explained, nor do they seem to be accurate - either that or I simply don't understand what he's on about: "Non-encyclopedic" It's exactly the sort of stuff that appears in encyclopaedias (refer above). "original research of what are current defence personal" There's not a word of original research in it - all of the information is derived from ADO and/or ADF publications. "Very little in outside independent sourcing" Don't understand. "lacking notability of this as a topic (as opposed to the individuals or the institution they're associated with)" It shows the structure of the Australian Defence Organisation; even in the USA an organisation of around 100,000 people is notable. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep per nick. This is the perfect sort of topic for an encyclopedia to cover. AfD hero (talk) 09:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, encyclopaedic. Buckshot06(prof) 10:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nick. David Underdown (talk) 21:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ADF, NickDowling, Abraham and these, which allow for expansion, especially the first. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 23:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 02:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive Me (Leona Lewis song)[edit]

Deleted PROD. Fails WP:MUSIC. WP:CRYSTAL, because single hasn't even been released, yet. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 01:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:RS, as the main source is a blog. Once the album is made, this could possibly be recreated. Happyme22 (talk) 01:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MUSIC, WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Spirit (Leona Lewis album), as the song does appear on at least two editions of that album if I'm reading the article text right. This is a non-notable song per WP:MUSIC standards. Erechtheus (talk) 02:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC) Delete When deciding what to advocate, I forgot this was an article name that had to be disambiguated with a parenthetical. This isn't a realistic search term, so deletion is the right way to go. Erechtheus (talk) 03:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Erechtheus about the reading of the article. But this doesn'te need to be an article, nor does it need to redirect. No one is going to search for this. No one will link through this.--15stamps (talk) 03:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No one will link through this'... ahem... 13 inbound article wikilinks -- saberwyn 04:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable as song is only found on certain releases of Spirit. Plus, I just love Leona. :-) --Firefly322 (talk) 04:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That means the song is rare, not that it passes Wikipedia:Notability (music) guidelines. Cool fact for the article on the album, if sourced. -- saberwyn 04:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm far from an expert in wiki-music articles so I probably won't ever master the policy enough to be able break it with confidence and style. All the same, any wiki-policy is just supposed to be a guideline. Exceptions can and should be made as encouraged by wikipolicy itself: WP:SNOW and WP:COMMONSENSE (there are probably more appropriate examples). --Firefly322 (talk) 05:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- per Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Songs. --Cameron (T|C) 14:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and this single clearly does not come close to meeting Wikipedia:Music#Songs. Gwernol 14:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:CRYSTAL isn't a valid application of policy with release dates of media. This track has a release date in a week or so, whereas the article of 2009 Star Trek film won't be released for another year. --Firefly322 (talk) 23:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course WP:MUSIC applies: "In forward-looking articles about unreleased products, such as movies and games, take special care to avoid advertising and unverified claims.... Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. ". Since this event is not notable, WP:CRYSTAL does apply. Mind you, given that your reason to keep is WP:ILIKEIT, its perhaps not surprising that you ignore the core issue here, which is notability, per Wikipedia:Music#Songs. Gwernol 23:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't confuse a sense of good humor with someone's lack of what policy is and isn't. Humorlessly suggesting such nonsense is just nonsense. Applying WP:CRYSTAL to soon-to-be released music singles and not to much longer range media projects such as a movie weakens the AfD proces and the credibility of the crystal policy. --Firefly322 (talk) 01:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Every single does not deserve it's own page. Movie release dates are often known well in advance, then there's casting and shooting, so there will be plenty of verifiable information of a highly publicized and anticipated movie even years in advance, thus making it notable. There is no need for a separate article for this song until an official announcement of it single release has been made, which according to the article it hasn't. Until that time DELETE per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:MUSIC#Songs; the album page that this song is contained on is sufficient.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Wide notability not verified by independent sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citizen Prime[edit]

This appears to be a non-notable fictional series, failing WP:NOTE The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia.--十八 01:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could find no reliable source to establish notability and none are provided in the article.--Captain-tucker (talk) 11:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) --MPerel 01:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Svidersky[edit]

AfDs for this article:

WP:BLP1E. Only received news coverage for her death (she's kinda cute tho). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial, and every day criminal cases are not notable just because of news coverage. Thousands, if not millions, of murders happen and are covered in the news every year. The previous deletion discussions found encyclopedic value and some unique notability in that this was a noted case of mourning sickness. However, that article now has a subsection just on Svidersky, and there is no reason for keeping the entire biographical article on that basis anymore. In addition to our policy on not being a memorial, the current article is salacious and even violates the biographies of living persons policy in its treatment of her murderer. For example: it calls him a sex offender, but the source says that Sullivan was convicted of "fourth-degree assault and unlawful imprisonment with sexual intent", and does not say he was registered as a sex offender. The man was acquitted on grounds of insanity, and the tablod-like article that stands now does not respect his right to privacy and decency as outlined in our BLP policy. In light of the sensitive effect this article has on the still living person it largely concerns, and that Wikipedia is not a memorial for the murdered, this must be deleted. Also, as a side note, I will say that Vancouver is my hometown, and this is not a unique and remembered event in the city's history. VanTucky 01:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into mourning sickness. In historical context her death is notable for its impact on social relations via the media. (see Philip Rayner, A Need for Postmodern Fluidity? Critical Studies in Media Communication, 23:345-349) Rockpocket 01:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A merge is redundant, considering that Mourning sickness#Anna Svidersky has all content relevant to the her death as an instance of mourning sickness. There is nothing more to merge. VanTucky 01:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MERGE:You may find that some or all of the information to be merged is already in the destination page... If there is no information to be added to the destination page, you can simply redirect the other page there, but please make this clear in the edit summary. Therefore merging is not redundant to deleting, which appears to be your suggestion. Rockpocket 02:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the policy says you're correct in terms of merging procedures, but did you consider the BLP aspect, that things like the false naming of the acquitted, mentally ill defendant as a sex offender? If there's no content that needs merging, I think it would be better to not have that history. VanTucky 02:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a BLP issue (and I'm not entirely sure there is, since there are plenty of sources that quote the police describing her killer as a "registered sex offender" [95]), that can be dealt with separately. The closing admin should be skilled enough to merge only what is appropriate. What is important during the merge process, is that the article is redirected to assist those who may search by her name, and that anything that is merged meets GFDL requirements. Rockpocket 02:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mourning sickness#Anna Svidersky . Already merged per Vantucky. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All the above arguments were debated to death during the second AFD, which ended in a Keep, like the previous one. Only new arguments, that haven't been rehashed in the past should be presented. Crum375 (talk) 01:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be forgetting that our policy dictates that consensus can change, and it doesn't require completely new arguments. A fresh discussion on an old topic is perfectly legitimate, and arguing "it was kept before" is not a reason for keeping it in light of a new discussion. VanTucky 01:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not forgetting anything — and consensus can in fact change. But rehashing the same arguments over and over is not productive. At the very least, everyone should carefully review the last AFD, and build on that. Crum375 (talk) 02:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mourning sickness#Anna Svidersky. Redirects are cheap, and since a subsection on her already exists, this is natural. The page history will remain if her notability should be later established. JJL (talk) 02:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Anna Svidersky" gets 19,000 ghits, while "Mourning Sickness" gets 10,300. My guess is that Mourning Sickness would get very few hits on its own, if the example of Anna Svidersky were removed. If anything, Mourning Sickness should be redirected to this, more notable, article. Crum375 (talk) 02:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A notable, in fact unique case, which gained international coverage. The memorial argument is false: a memorial is where people express their feelings and pay tribute to the deceased. This is neither that, nor salacious: it is a factual record based on reliable sources. The argument that there is factually incorrect information about the assailant is a reason to amend the information, not to delete the article. In fact the information has been amended. However, the very minimum of research on google would have brought up reliable sources that say the information is correct.[96] It is stated specifically in The Guardian, Sydney Morning Herald, snopes and crimelibrary, amongst others. The argument that it is not remembered in Vancouver is blatant orginal research. The significance is its international effect. It is inaccurate to classify it under "Mourning sickness", as it is equally about the internet, particularly MySpace and Youtube. This article has a stronger case to exist than Mourning sickness. Ty 02:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article seems notable for a number of reasons, and meets wikipedia criteria for notability. With proper maintenance it could avoid becoming a memorial, and it doesn't seem to be one now. It should be kept both as a example of mourning sickness and a unique case on its own. A redirect from mourning sickness would not be appropriate as it encompasses a number of features irrelevant to that article.--15stamps (talk) 03:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Key Internet event. Her death is one event, and her mourning a second event. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well sourced - NYTimes and Guardian mentions make the sources more substantial than those for many articles. Reggie Perrin (talk) 20:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep adequately sourced. I point out the parenthetical phrase in the nomination is an irrelevant and inappropriate comment, considering the nature of the article.) Probably retitle, Murder of... DGG (talk) 22:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The girl's death received international press coverage and became a well-known Internet event, as Richard says above. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 20:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We've been over these "not a memorial" complaints many times over. A neutrally written encyclopedia article about a notably memorialized individual is not itself a memorial. Also, if you spot a legitimate BLP violation about her killer, be a dear and remove or correct it.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I believe the premise for nomination is mistaken. Comparisons between Anna Svidersky and Pricess of Wales are exaggerated. But a google search shows she continues to be mentioned in news article long after her death. Geo Swan (talk) 23:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ryan Knutson (August 14, 2007). "Grave site to Web site, now mourners can grieve online". ORian. Retrieved 2008-05-29.
- Paul Craig (September 30, 2007). "Arches indeed golden for local couple". The Colombian. Retrieved 2008-05-30.
- Rick Taylor (July 3, 2007). "Man who murdered McDonald's teen committed to mental hospital". KGW. Retrieved 2008-05-29.
- Stephanie Rice (September 11, 2007). "Mother to use insanity plea". The Colombian. Retrieved 2008-05-29.

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

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

The result was Nom Withdrawn and no consensus to delete. —Travis ^talk 03:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zelezny[edit]

This articles title should actually be Helena Zelezny but the ghits for that name are only 15, and if you use the hyphen (Helen Zelezny-Scholz) the results are 2. I believe this fails bio, so delete. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 00:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article cites print references which appear to be sufficient. Note that the subject of the article died in 1974, so Ghits are not a good measure of notability in this case. --Eastmain (talk) 00:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Rename to Helena Zelezny, just needs to be wikified and it's fairly good to go. treelo _talk 00:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First of all, per WP:GHITS, Google hits shouldn't be used in this discussion as they are not always an accurate representation of notability. The article definitely needs to be cleaned up and renamed, but if she's been covered in the secondary sources provided in the article, then by WP:BIO#Basic criteria, the article should not be deleted.--十八 01:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Helena Zelenzy and Keep. The print refs assert notability; also, given that she died back before the Internet really was in big use, Google hits don't matter. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Possibly a poorly-translated copyvio, didn't think of that. Could be notable given the print refs, but it'd need a ton of work. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wow. I wasn't using ghits as a reason to delete. Where did I say I did? I was using google to find any mention on the articles title, or what the title should have been. When I didn't find anything of worth, I figured it should be here. Especially since the inline citations and references are not in english. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 01:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ of current article. Umm, everything in this article after the first two sentences is clearly a (poorly translated) copyvio of some reference work. It just can't remain in its present state, and there's not enough sourced, non-copyvio material even for a stub. Unless someone shows some interest in creating a proper article about the artist, it will have to go. Deor (talk) 01:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing opinion to keep per improvements in article. Deor (talk) 00:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move (very weak keep), and convert Zelezny into a dab page. Jan Železný, anyone? Or Vladimír Železný? Železný Brod? 9224 Železný? Grutness...wha? 01:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral it needs a lot of work, but the figure appears to be notable. It should be renamed to Helena Zelezny, however, and rewritten to aviod copyvio accusations. Happyme22 (talk) 01:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment. It was taken straight from here, a blog. Have an reliable sources been found? SynergeticMaggot (talk) 01:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the author of the blog post was "niels aage jensen" and the author of this article was User:Niels Aage, I think we can assume that they are one and the same. I still contend that the formatting—all-caps surname; section divisions "Works", "Bibl.", etc.—are indicative of direct copying from some source. Deor (talk) 01:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then lets go with WP:VUE as well. Fails WP:V. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 02:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs some rewriting work and wikification, but otherwise seems like a perfectly viable topic for an article considering the availability of print references. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 05:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Whoops. I thought the references were on the subject, not about the subject. Searches of academic and news databases that carry material from that period of time don't seem to have anything on the subject. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 05:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment looks like copyvio. 70.51.11.94 (talk) 05:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That can be fixed by rewriting it; deleting it isn't the only solution to that problem. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 05:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep If the artists works are really in all the galleries listed in the article, then that is evidence enough of the artists notability. AfD hero (talk) 10:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. Its been massively cleaned up. The references still appear to not be in english, but the articles subject appears to be notable. Great job everyone. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Result was speedy keep, as MP's are automatically notable. Non-admin closure TN‑X-Man 16:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bill McKnight[edit]

Unknown small figure of a politician. Fails WP:Politician Motomoto19 (talk) 11:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and Close. Bad faith nomination. Plenty of notable coverage. The subject clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN judging by the offices he held. This strikes me as personal objection from an account whose only contributions are around nominating this article to be deleted, eleven minutes after having created their account. WilliamH (talk) 15:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Canadian members of parliament and Canadian cabinet ministers are automatically notable. --Eastmain (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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