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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Johns[edit]

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

This article has no verifiable sources and is mostly about people he claims to know, rather than himself. I don't think he is or his book is notable. I am also nominating the following related pages because it it about a book that has no verifable sources and it also appears to be non-notable:

Palm Springs Confidential: Playground of the Stars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Grahame (talk) 13:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 13:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Hiding T 13:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 16:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless substantial coverage can be found in reliable secondary sources. Jclemens (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, mainly because there is no information on the page thanks to this edit, and the previous edits:

1. Breached WP:BLP
2. No sources
3. Breached WP:NPOV

(At least, they did in my opinion. But I'm new to this.) James.Denholm®^{Talk to me...} 07:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Royal_Flush_Gang#Justice_League_Unlimited. MBisanz ^talk 22:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ace (Justice League)[edit]

Ace (Justice League) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 00:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete doesn't fully meet the requirements of WP:WAF either. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• comment any reasons why merge or redirect is not OK? Preferably with some reference to the actual article in question. DGG (talk) 03:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The events involving the character is important to the DCAU so I agree that it should be a merge. Schuym1 (talk) 04:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect: to Justice League (animated series). Schuym1 (talk) 04:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No evidence of independent notability & no need for a redirect or merge. Eusebeus (talk) 05:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The whole point of it being a merge is because the character doesn't have independent notability. Schuym1 (talk) 05:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And there is always a need for a redirect if it's a likely search term. Schuym1 (talk) 05:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect And move content to Royal_Flush_Gang#Justice_League_Unlimited which is where it should be. rootology (C)(T) 17:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non notable, and unlikely search term due to disambiguation parantheses.Yobmod (talk) 11:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Yobmod - not notable on its own and an unlikely search term. Karanacs (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as this character establishes notability independent of its series. With coverage in reliable third party sources, it is made up of necessary plot summary and unoriginal research. --63.3.1.1 (talk) 14:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't do any of this. This is simply a copy of the nomination, with the meanings reversed. -- how do you turn this on 18:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unreferenced, OR, not notable etc. I'd be happy for it to be redirected though, but not merged. -- how do you turn this on 18:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Royal Flush Gang#Justice League Unlimited. Ace is a member of this group, and is not notable enough for its own article. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Macbook Air#Advertising. Has already been done.  Sandstein  20:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Macbook air ad[edit]

Macbook air ad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Whilst a mention of the manilla envelope reveal and possibly the advertising campaign might be suitable for inclusion in the main article about the laptop I do not think the advert itself has received the kind of attention from reliable sources that will allow a verifiable article to be more than just a summary of the advert. The advert has been mentioned but as far as I have been able to find only in the context of describing the product itself, not on its own as an entity. Some adverts (such as this one) receive significant critical commentary and discussion from reliable sources in there own right I do not think that this ad/campaign has at this stage. Guest9999 (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Macbook Air — content, given proper sourcing, fits in perfectly with the parent article. MuZemike (talk) 00:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Macbook Air per MuZemike. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Macbook Air the policy for notability states that web content must have been "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". Bassbonerocks (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge- Good fit for parent article and likely non-notable. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 21:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge- Over 2 million hits on youtube, but I remember searching for it also, but only for the song title. Without any citations, I can't tell if this thing meets WP:NOTABILITY but the merge makes a lot of sense. Sentriclecub (talk) 23:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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  20:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vendor lock-out[edit]

Vendor lock-out (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The term 'vendor lock-out' appears to be a neologism that plays on the much more common term 'vendor lock-in'. The article was created four years ago but Google still only returns about 60 hits on the term, most of which appear to be blogs. The article also has no sources, and none are likely to be found. Warren -talk- 23:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a neologism. Alexius08 (talk) 08:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NEO. Stifle (talk) 15:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not UrbanDictionary doktorb _words^deeds 16:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No reliable sources exist. -- how do you turn this on 18:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G12 (Copyvio). Alexf^(talk) 22:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeann Low[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 23:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What does WP:PROF have to do with it? I see no evidence in the article that she is or should be evaluated as an academic. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as a copyvio from http://home.singtel.com/about_singtel/board_n_management/senior_management/boardmgmt_seniormanagement.asp, so tagged -- Whpq (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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  20:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Li Yuan (disambiguation)[edit]

Li Yuan (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a disambiguation page for people named Li Yuan, but the only other person than the most famously known Li Yuan (Emperor Gaozu of Tang) listed is a snooker player without an article and without showing of any notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 23:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unnecessary dab. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 12:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there's nothing to disambiguate. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per MichaelQSchmidt. If the other article existed, I may have a different stance. -- how do you turn this on 18:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) ~ mazca ^t|c 11:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Smallz[edit]

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

Contested speedy. Does not meet any of the biographical guidelines, especially WP:MUSIC. JBsupreme (talk) 23:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep ('Twas me who declined the speedy.) – According to The New York Times (July 20, 2006), "'Southern Smoke' is a brand name belonging to DJ Smallz, from Florida, and it’s among the most reliable brand names in the notably unreliable mixtape world." DJ Smallz was also mentioned in the same paper (January 28, 2008) for a different compilation, got some press for being nominated for the 2008 Mixtape Awards, and, as the article notes, he hosts a show on Sirius Satellite radio for which has received some press. These are not trivial mentions. There's enough for WP:N, or WP:MUSIC criterion #1. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep short article about a notable subject; the solution is to expand the article. The nominator has been making borderline bad-faith deletion nominations for weeks now in the subject of hip-hop. Chubbles (talk) 04:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Multiple interviews by independent publications proves notability. However, article needs to be expanded. LK (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Paul Erik, the sources cited suggest adequate notability to me. RFerreira (talk) 17:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 King of the Hill. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strickland Propane[edit]

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

Prod removed. Fictional store with no assertion of notability. Personally, I could not find any third-party sources for this through Google. Whatever can be found about the aforementioned that makes the store an important part of the plot can fit on King of the Hill. « ₣M₣ » 23:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. The store plays a central role in this long-running, important TV series. Majoreditor (talk) 02:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Sounds like you're proposing a merge not a delete. If so,close this, & try adding and discussing a merge at the talk page. DGG (talk) 04:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• To clarify, the article goes into detail about the store without specifying what makes it "play a central role in this long-running, important TV series." Whatever can be found about that statement can fit on King of the Hill. All it just basically says (without going into insignificant details) is that the main character has a job there. « ₣M₣ » 13:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Merge to King of the Hill where it has notability and merit. No need for a separate article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Get rid of this separate article somehow. No reliable secondary sources, and since the show uses an episodic format there's hardly a subject here to begin with. WillOakland (talk) 05:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to King of the Hill where it is currently inadequately covered. RMHED (talk) 18:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted as a blatant copyright infringement. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Shepherd[edit]

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

Claims to be an article about a notable kickboxer, but is written like an advert and fails to offer any valid sources. Only source/external link is to a webshop (since removed, see in history [1]). Quick googling doesn't turn up anything to establish notability. Possible copyright infringement of [2]. Borderline speedy candidate. Twinzor ^{Say hi!} - Do I suck or rock? 23:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nothing borderline about this one, its definitely CSDA7 material. JBsupreme (talk) 23:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Copyright violation. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 00:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:The reason I didn't speedy this is because it's an old article, and it's hard to tell which one existed first, the WP article, or the linked one. Also, this might be a bona fide kickboxing legend, in which case the article would need a complete overhaul & sourcing. In it's current state it's little more than advertising. --Twinzor ^{Say hi!} - Do I suck or rock? 00:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete (G12) — Copyvio. Content was directly cut-and-pasted from http://www.ikfkickboxing.com/SteveShepard.htm, which is under copyright of the International Kickboxing Federation. MuZemike 03:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 07:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Makow[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:RS, has had 6 months for improvements. The entire reason for the page is the subject's conspiracy theories, which have not been properly sourced and probably could never be properly sourced due to their very nature. LowLevelMason (talk) 23:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete is not appropriately sourced nor does it appear that it can be JBsupreme (talk) 04:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep he invented the board game,Scruples how can he not be notable. Clean up and source, should be easy enough if true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.63.48.155 (talk) 07:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Much of what Makow says is abhorrent, but he is the author of two legitimate books (Long Way to Go for a Date and Cruel Hoax: Feminism and the New World Order) in addition to being the creator of Scruples. Much of what he spouts is BS, but there are sources to back up his notability, though not the views he espouses. I'm going to be in the air for much of today, but I'll beef up the article with citations once I've gotten back home. AniMate 16:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per notabiliy can be established [3], even if only for the boardgame. His beginning a newspaper column at age 11 will be an interesting citation as well. Notable? Yup. Lovable? Nope. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Did some cleanup, wikifying, and sourcing. I don't like this guy.... but he may have enough notability (read noteriety) to pass WP:Bio. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• What do you mean "I don't like this guy...." how is that even relevant? JBsupreme (talk) 07:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The problem is that his books have not sold, and if Wikipeida allows anyone with a book and a PhD (unrelated to most of his conspiracy theories, by the way) to have a article than were going to be covering millions of non-notable people. 69.134.34.140 (talk) 23:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Present on Google Books.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 22:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ANGEL Learning[edit]

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

Privately held company, fails WP:ORG--coverage that is documented appears to be non-independent and/or non-reliable, focusing on company products. Previously deleted as advertising in 2005, relisting for AfD on presumption that speedy may be declined due to the passage of time. Jclemens (talk) 23:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Impressive amount of effort expended on spam. --Quartermaster (talk) 23:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 23:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 23:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Another editor nom'd this as a G4 speedy, which I declined, as the current version is not substantially the same as this one. (It's close, but there's been an attempt to address the sourcing and notability issues.)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• (Actually, that was me, too) Jclemens (talk) 23:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as the "improved" article stills reads like a CV for investors. Remove all the self-prasing blurbs about their product line and the products-in-development and it would be more encyclopedic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete as the company is a notable one in the educational e-learning space. The links provide evidence of this company's notability. 1) Major companies provide content or integrations to their main product: Houghton Millflin, Pearson Education, and Wiley. 2) The company has been named a company to watch by the state of Indiana. 3) Michael Feldstein (a noted e-learning expert) estimates their market share has gone from 5% to 9% in a single year and the Kelly School of Business has recognized their growth as well. 4) Their main product has recieved two CODiE Awards, signficant recognition in the technology space. 5) Their products have been covered in main educational publications: Campus Technology and T.H.E. Journal. I've done some editing to help this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFezOn (talk • contribs) 13:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC) — TheFezOn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete - Awards are nice but don't represent significant coverage to me. Otherwise their products seem unremarkable for a keep. --147.70.176.164 (talk) 22:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete Distance learning and virtual education is one of the fastest growing educational movements in the country. While Blackboard is the biggest, ANGEL, Desire2Learn, and eCollege are all important products in this category. If ANGEL is deleted, so should Desire2Learn and eCollege. They are all, however, notable products and recognized in the educational market as important products. The CODiE awards are the "academy awards" of the software market, important designations as the best of in a given category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcapitald (talk • contribs) 12:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Article is clearly too promotional, but I think there has been enough small coverage pieces to establish weak notability. Tan | 39 18:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wikipedia is not a guidebook seicer | talk | contribs 14:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aviansie[edit]

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

Per WP:NOT, a guide to making money in Runscape should not be here. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 22:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 00:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Wikpedia is not a how-to. MuZemike (talk) 00:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 00:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong snowball delete per WP:NOTMANUAL and WP:VGSCOPE, these are a single type of enemy from a single dungeon in RuneScape, utterly trivial in the grand scheme. Someoneanother 00:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I had a feeling this would snowball like it did, but no speedy delete template seemed to fit, and prod would have probably taken even longer and run the risk of being removed with me noticing. Would you guys say there is sufficient support among the AfD regulars to revamp CSD a little? NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 02:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I probably would've prodded it myself if I came across it, but I think trying to leverage on CSD would very well be considered gaming. Just let the AfD play out. If there is a whole bunch of users unanimously voicing to delete, then admin might close it early under WP:SNOW. No one's going anywhere, I don't think. MuZemike 03:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wasn't trying to wikilaywer, honest. I was just thinking, in the future, what if there was a speedy deletion rationale for articles like this? NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 03:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd just add "speedy delete, if possible" to your rationale, to tip off the admin that if its a clear WP:SNOW case, they can deal with it. But as noted, this really isn't a CSD case. --MASEM 13:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NOT#GUIDE easily. Doubtful this can be put into any article under the Runespace topic (individual common monsters rarely get coverage in reliable source), but if can, redirect name to that article. --MASEM 13:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NOT#GUIDE, and if a character in Runescape belongs here it's under the name of the game itself. Otherwise, who's to say we shouldn't have thousands of articles for all video game entries? Also, as others have mentioned, the article is written as a how-to. -FlyingToaster (talk) 16:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per the guide comments, and simply not that notable. rootology (C)(T) 17:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:NOT#GUIDE, as with everyone above. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WolfTeam (Video Game)[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)).

WolfTeam (Video Game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable online game, created by a company whose Wikipedia page has been deleted on grounds of... notability. Delete.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating

• Wolf Team (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• The game is very notable, with many players. There are many servers, and official website, and thousands of players. The authors page shouldn't have been deleted either, because they are also the makers of the games Gunbound, which has an article. This is not a good reason for deletion. I have properly marked the article as a stub, and will have other add to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Techdude300 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC) — Techdude300 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 23:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — per nom. Not another MMORPG trying to assert notability with no sources present with a very strong sense of COI. MuZemike (talk) 23:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note — Rally cry from the WolfTeam forumites to defend their article! MuZemike (talk) 23:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not "trying" to make it "another" game. This is a valid game, with valid players, and if people want to find out more about it, they come to Wikipedia. If Runescape has an article, this should too. It's not how good YOU think the game is. It is a valid game, this is not trash, and Wikipedia could benefit with an article such as this. And no MuZemike, it's not an MMORPG. Read the friggin' article. It's an FPS like Halo you play with others online. Stop your stereotyping and why don't you actually check the game out at the VALID website of the VALID game played by many Valid players. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Techdude300 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC) [reply]
  • MMORPG, MMOFPS, what-MMO-ever! MuZemike (talk) 23:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good You went to the website. You get a cookie! If you can pull wikipedia rules out for your own selfish crap, I could easily say that the reason for deletion was pure bias, and that you are in violation of rules. And no, i'm not taking the time anymore to properly clean up my posts with fancy formatting. You can do it if you want uber censorship power, because that is what wikipedia is apparently about. If I was an admin, I could pull this crap on something you worked hard on. But, alas, I'm not an abusive admin. Stop YOUR bias, because if anybody contributes to the page, its because they want to, not because i told them. --Techdude300 (talk) 00:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lacks the non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources (reviews) needed to demonstrate notability, found an interview at MMOsite but no reviews from reliable sources. Someoneanother 00:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, delete the page, on one condition. YOU make an article, or find somebody who will, that fairly represents the game and uses your "quality" standards. Better get started, because I won't shut up about it until it's done. Good Luck! =)--Techdude300 (talk) 00:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can't. That's the point of the notability standard. Nifboy (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There do not appear to be any non-trivial mentions of this game in reliable sources to verify its notability. In reference to the comment above: That seems to be impossible without any reliable sources. As such, the page will be deleted. If your condition was possible to meet, the article wouldn't be deleted. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 00:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: no claims for notability. Alexius08 (talk) 08:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I find some better sources and work really hard on this. Thanks for the input (sorry I can't log in and officialy sign this at school) -Techdude300 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.48.138.28 (talk) 17:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC) [reply]

• Note — User in question has been blocked for harassment as well as block evasion. Corresponding IP account has also been school-blocked due to persistent vandalism. MuZemike 05:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; fails to meet WP:N and should be deleted. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha wheat[edit]

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

References do not support notability -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 22:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Can't find anything that makes her notable. The article (and certainly the Chicago Reader ref) are more about her famous boyfriend.    SIS  23:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per both. Johnbod (talk) 01:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not meeting our notability requirements yet. rootology (C)(T) 17:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no reason whatsoever to not delete this article.....Modernist (talk) 00:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 15:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

READY[edit]

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

Unreleased album with little or no media coverage and no references from reliable sources. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums and WP:V. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 16:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 16:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Another WP:crystalball issue. Myspace isn't wp:rs, even if it is "official" site. PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 22:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or userfy Not enough information to warrant an article. The release date hasn't even been announced yet. Wait until the album is released, when more info and sources appear, then try again. SunDragon34 (talk) 06:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Let's get READY to delete that. Its subject is not notable. Alexius08 (talk) 08:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW Keep. NAC Schuym1 (talk) 03:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Oswalt[edit]

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

I think that this is most likely a hoax because I can't find any sources. Schuym1 (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Can't find any sources.[4] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Maybe not a hoax, see [5], but there may not be enough public info for article.John Z (talk) 22:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Maybe not a hoax but still not notable enough for this encyclopedia. JBsupreme (talk) 23:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This one turns out to be a clear keeper after all - spelling variation strikes again. "Eva Ostwalt" is how her name is usually spelled, and there's even a book about her. - see [6] and google translation, and a film about her - see the german wiki at de:Lust am Leben - Mit 103 in Amerika. [7] and [8] are two gnews hits about her. John Z (talk) 02:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 22:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colony of Gamers[edit]

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

Subect does not meet notability guidelines. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 00:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Colony of gamers is not a company or organization. It is a notable website and Internet community serving a unique network of affiliate websites. AniAko (talk) 02:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article fails to demonstrate that it is a notable website. It also doesn't appear to cite any reliable sources. Accordingly, it also fails verifiability. —C.Fred (talk) 02:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The website is composed of almost all the former staff of Evil Avatar, quite the notable website. Industry contacts have moved over and an established community has migrated with it. Simply because the name is new, doesn't mean the established value of the site is (which falls under "Alternate Criteria->Non-commercial organizations". Deletion of the article at this time will only result in other users adding it again and again, wasting everyone's time. Regarding "Primary Criteria->second sources", there is currently advertising for the organization going through the process of distribution (I'm not at liberty to discuss details, obviously) as well as the organization being international in scale containing many industry developers.
  Also falling under "Primary Criteria" is the audio show for the organization, In-Game Chat. The name change is new effective last week, however we still have the old DNS in place pointing to the new show moniker [9] You can see various sources for it and the notable guests/coverage performed by our organization (again, many sources do not reflect the new name change):
  Part of the All Games Radio Network
  Interviewing Game Developer Jonathan Blow
  Interviewing David Hayter (of Metal Gear, the X-Men movies and other fame)
  Charles_Duke - Noted that astronaut Charles Duke was interviewed on the show.
  Those are links I found in just a minute or two on google, I could form an exhaustive list if you require further sources. But again, it's rather moot. The only real issue at question here from what I can tell is that due to the community name change, it takes extra effort to find the notability at this time. That will change shortly enough. But removal of this article serves no one (certainly not users utilizing wikipedia for reference). This site is just as relevant as many others wikipedia has articles for (examples being Giant Bomb or 1UP). My apologizes if I sound curt on this, I'd rather just not see this turn into a "thing" and would rather nip this misunderstanding in the proverbial "bud". If there's more notability that you require for me to track down, please let me know. Note: I also fail to see how "verifiability" was called into question, when checking the wikipedia notes for that. AniAko is a new member on the site, it would seem silly for that to fall under any type of autobiography (why would someone who didn't know of the site write an article about it?), again I can think of numerous other examples where wikipedia articles were written by people in the same position (and just as in his case, are not directly connected to the organization to be biased, nor is any of the data in the article incorrect, from my reading it over).
  TrackZero (talk) 04:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability of one organization cannot be established because of the notability of a non-related organization (and the notability of Evil Avatar is questionable in itself, but that is the subject of a different debate). If the Evil Avatar site had simply changed names, that would be a different issue, but the fact is that CoG is a NEW organization, and will need to establish its OWN notability. If 15 engineers from Microsoft decide to form a new start-up software company, there is no guarantee that the new company will achieve anything notable. If the 15 engineers have become 500 within a year, and released a major national product, THAT would be notable. The fact is, Colony of Gamers is simply too new an organization to have established notability. The site may disappear next month. When the site has achied the required notability (e.g. independent press coverage in one of the major gaming publications), then someone can create the article. Also, I believe you failed to note the word except in the description of notable primary sources: the site's own advertising and audio show are explicitly EXCLUDED as reliable primary sources. Finally, I believe that TrackZero (talk · contribs) should not be involved in this discussion, as he has obvious ties to the organization involved, constituting a significant conflict of interest. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fair enough Dan, but I'll remind you that you brought me into this discussion. Again, you'll be seeing other people creating this article in the future (no, not me), so just be prepared to spend time hounding it. (Also, Giant Bomb during its launch was a new site as well, yet their wiki article had no issues going up from what I saw.) And again, In-Game Chat (part of CoG) WAS simply a name change, and all it's sources are valid.TrackZero (talk) 12:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - they aren't Evil Avatar, and as such this isn't just a name change for a web site. As a new site, it has not established notability. If it happens in the future, that's fine. I've no objection to recreation with reliable sources when it does establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 21:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Should In-Game Chat then split off it's own article? As it's notability is established and it is simply a name change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TrackZero (talk • contribs) 21:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Evil Avatar was made up of the staff as a community and the only reason it existed was the same reason Colony of Gamers exists, the community. Saying we aren't Evil Avatar is completely invalid for that reason. Colony of Gamers will only grow and have much more to add to the wiki as many other start-ups and new websites do.Aggort2 (talk) 06:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Aggort2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment What WILL happen is not yet known. Wikipedia can only base notability on what HAS happened. When your predictions come true, feel free to add the article then. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 03:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no notability outside a narrow interest community who cannot prove required sources. doktorb _words^deeds 16:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Cortez[edit]

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

Non-notable, no reliable sources. D.M.N. (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. D.M.N. (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Searches have not found notability in Releible Sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 21:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. Pro wrestlers don't often make waves in the traditional media. Mixed feelings here, but when I poke around he does come up a bit. I can be convinced otherwise. --Quartermaster (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Extra strong steroid-induced delete. Hey now, lets not resort to excuses. Either the article meets biographical guidelines for inclusion or it doesn't. This one doesn't. JBsupreme (talk) 23:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 15:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Flying clothesline delete Does not pass WP:BIO. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tanks Lake[edit]

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

No verifiable source indicates that this lake exists. Google Maps satellite photos of the area show no unnamed Y-shaped lakes. Google search for ["Tanks Lake" "Wolf Lake"], ["Tanks Lake" Chicago], and ["Tanks Lake" Hegewisch] return no relevant results. Official City of Chicago Hegewisch Community Map and Hegewisch.Net make no mention of the lake. Article has had verification flag for more than one year. Travisl (talk) 21:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If editors can come up with verification of existence, I'm not against having a minor lake cataloged in Wikipedia. I couldn't find anything in a brief search though. --Quartermaster (talk) 23:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unsourced, no assertion of notability. I was also unable to locate via USGS GNIS[10]. It does have Wolf Lake, but I can't see a Y shaped lake near it. --Dual Freq (talk) 00:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• No Tanks per nom and Dual Freq. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Tanks but no tanks per Clarityfiend. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Star Wars characters. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kinman Doriana[edit]

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

No citations to any sources; no evidence of third-party coverage to establish notability. Prod contest five months ago; no edits to the article since then, and no substantial content changes in more than a year. --EEMIV (talk) 14:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect to List of Star Wars characters. Notability may be there... but it sure ain't here. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 21:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect Lack of sources, and Original Research. Would be happy either deleted or redirected. -- how do you turn this on 18:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep due to sources, which means unoriginal research.--63.3.1.130 (talk) 19:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nathalie Weinzierl[edit]

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

Non-notable figure skater, fails WP:V. At age 14, she's never even competed in senior nationals, which means she fails the WP:ATHLETE criterion of competing at the "highest level of amateur sport." With only 76 unique G-hits [11], almost exclusively Wiki mirrors and figure skating websites, there are no reliable sources evident that would fulfill the general notability criteria. Prod removed by creator without comment.  RGTraynor  14:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per RG. Fails WP:ATHLETE -Djsasso (talk) 19:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on the condition she competes at the ISU Junior Grand Prix event in Great Britain in two weeks. If she does, she's a notable Junior skater, who will make her Senior deubt this season. Kolindigo (talk) 20:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We don't keep articles on something that might happen. Even if she is at the Junior Grand Prix, that is not the highest level of amateur competition and still wouldn't meet the expectations of WP:ATHLETE. As far as figure skating goes, the highest level of competition would be competitors in the Olympics or the World Championships. Also in general "junior" anything is not considered notable because the competition is not the highest level available, the highest level available always has no restrictions on age beyond a minimum age. -Djsasso (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 21:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Proxy User (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Would you care to proffer any grounds for your view?  RGTraynor  16:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• delete I'm not sure we would accept competing in a junior event as notability, and we certainly cant accept the possibility of doing so as notability. 04:12, 7 October 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  20:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel Bar-Jonah[edit]

Nathaniel Bar-Jonah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I shudder as I write this rationale, but this entry is just about a run-of-the-mill child molester and murderer. There is nothing unique about his case. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral: keep it or delete it, I don't care. Lately the article has attracted the attention of an anon editor with unsubstantiated claims that Bar-Jonah was a "war hero." __Just plain Bill (talk) 20:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep Apparently his case was used in the context of lobbying/campaigning for sex-offender registration laws which makes him more than just a random criminal. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Unfortunately like a thousand other child molesters, why is it here in the first place? Good grief, there are other Web sites for listings of non-notable criminals. Proxy User (talk) 21:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:ONEEVENT. This is the second freak that I've seen in AFD today. Schuym1 (talk) 21:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I couldn't find any sources saying he was any more notable than being the murderer that the nom said. Changed to Weak Keep per Pixelface --Banime (talk) 21:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Nathaniel Bar-Jonah was a notable cannibal.[12] [13] [14] He was profiled on the 1st and 8th episode of the television series Most Evil. I don't think WP:NOT#NEWS or WP:ONEEVENT apply here at all. --Pixelface (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well they say accused cannibal, but I'd still say that's enough for notability. I'll change my !vote to weak keep. --Banime (talk) 21:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Vote changed to keep: Coverage other than articles that are newsy and featured in a television series. Schuym1 (talk) 22:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which counts as significant coverage. Schuym1 (talk) 22:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - ongoing notoriety due to appeals to Supreme Court of the United States. Bearian (talk) 22:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? He's dead. That makes the appeals moot, yes? JoshuaZ (talk) 22:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Bearian, was it the State of Montana Supreme Court, not the US Supreme Court? DGG (talk) 04:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Despicable, but evidently notable. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sick dude glad he's dead...Some one needs to ban the IP for the idiot who keeps changing it to "war hero". Isn't the fact he's overriding Just Plain Bill's edits over and over cause for banning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seattlehawk94 (talk • contribs) 09:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, press coverage demonstrates notability. Everyking (talk) 19:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Magykal Papers[edit]

The Magykal Papers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not yet released book. The title is speculation and in effect it fails a book's equivalent of WP:HAMMER. No reliable secondary sources to show why it doesn't fail WP:CRYSTAL, WP:N or WP:BK. Delete now, recreate when (if) sources become available. PROD already declined. JD554 (talk) 11:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, though there's a source (Amazon) for the title and the release date, the remaining content is unsourced, probably unverifiable right now. Huon (talk) 11:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 20:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. What more is there to say? Proxy User (talk) 21:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think its WP:CRYSTAL. Remake it later. --Banime (talk) 21:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article fails WP:BK, no reliable sources available, also WP:CRYSTAL applies. Captain-tucker (talk) 00:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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  20:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MACO[edit]

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

Entirely in-universe plot summary with no citations to any sources, reliable or otherwise. --EEMIV (talk) 11:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Star Trek:Enterprise 70.51.8.75 (talk) 06:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 20:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• merge as usual since no reason given not to. DGG (talk) 04:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Entirely in-universe plot summary with no citations to any sources, reliable or otherwise." - reason not to merge. --EEMIV (talk) 12:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — to merge we would need sources. Stifle (talk) 15:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Stifle, we cannot merge information which is not verifiable. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not a very significant piece of the universe to deserve an article even with references and since we can't merge without them, delete. --147.70.176.164 (talk) 22:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per DGG. There are sources mentioned in the article; just because they aren't listed as footnoted citations on the bottom doesn't mean they don't exist. The sources are the episodes "The Xindi", "The Augments", "Borderland", and "The Forge"; and the novel "Last Full Measure". In addition, a published source for information on MACOs can be found as well: page 263 of Star Trek 101. Maybe it's not enough to satisfy notability, but there's enough verifiable information to support a merge. DHowell (talk) 11:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Limited coverage. No good reason to merge. "no reason not to merge" ==/== a good reason to merge. Protonk (talk) 19:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was moot.. Nom has redirected the article, no delete votes.Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4x4 Garage[edit]

4x4 Garage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article should be deleted and redirect applied to bassline house. Also article is mostly nonsense. JV-CDX (talk) 14:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 20:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep only because the AfD contains very little in the way of description of issue. Proxy User (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While an article about this topic may well be written, the "keep" arguments ignore that the currently contested content is completely unsourced which means that, per WP:B (in particular WP:BURDEN), it has to go.  Sandstein  20:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Independent movie boom[edit]

Independent movie boom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A bit of undercooked WP:OR that adds nothing to the comprehension of its subject. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:OR, no reliable sources. States that "During this time it seemed more inependent films were made than ever" and "Film scholars have argued exactly when the start of the independent movie boom began, although most agree it was sometime in the 1980s". What's left of that article is more of the same. original research filled with weasel words. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 22:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Spot of Googling quickly shows up uses of the term to refer to a particular period of film history. Article is unsourced and needs cleaning up, but this is a viable topic, and the article is a viable stub in pursuit of that topic. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 20:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Independent movie. Doesn't look like there's enough material to support this specific facet of the "independent movie" topic to warrant its own page at this time, whereas that page already has substantial historical perspective. DMacks (talk) 20:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per DMacks. Proxy User (talk) 21:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since there is nothing to salvage from this article, and if there is any substance to this boom, discuss it at the article independent film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge To independent movie. rootology (C)(T) 17:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to History_of_film#1990s:_New_special_effects.2C_independent_films.2C_and_DVDs, no real content here that's worth merging anywhere. --147.70.176.164 (talk) 22:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of All Saints episodes. MBisanz ^talk 22:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justice for None[edit]

Justice for None (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is just a one sentence episode stub. Notability is not asserted or established. TTN (talk) 00:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I am also nominating the following related pages because they are just unnecessary plot reiterations that also do not assert notability:

Sons and Lovers (All Saints episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fearless and Searching (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bloodlines (All Saints episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Horses for Courses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

TTN (talk) 00:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per WP:EPISODE. No notability, Wikipedia is not a TV guide. Don't convert to redirect, no reason for that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Justice for None, but leave the others. They should also probably be deleted, but I wouldn't tie the AfD for a episode substub with one with actual plot summaries. (However unnecessary they might be.) JRP (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 20:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all that don't assert notability to List of All Saints episodes, per WP:EPISODE.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all to List of All Saints episodes. I honestly would just delete Justice for None afterwards as that seems like an implausibe redirect. JuJube (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all maintaining what content there is. I don't see how the name of any of the episodes is an implausible redirect, even if there will be almost no content in the merged list. DGG (talk) 04:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all into the respective season articles (not the LoE), reasoning per nom. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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  20:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Waiting[edit]

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

Off-key on non-notable band, fails WP:MUSIC. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No notable members, one self produced CD 5 years ago, and "has since played numerous clubs throughout the Cape Breton area". Google doesn't throw up much and neither do other music related sites. Can't find anything about that CD anywhere, either.    SIS  01:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 20:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC, can't find anything about this band either. --147.70.176.164 (talk) 22:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Non-notable assistant professor; does not meet BIO seicer | talk | contribs 14:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sophal Ear[edit]

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

I stumbled across this and myself didn't see any claim to notability, and then saw that similar concerns had previously been raised on the talk page. He has published some work in the field, but I don't see how he meets WP:PROF. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Assistant professors are almost automatically not notable, and this fellow doesn't seem to have any claim to fame other than activities normally associated with being an assistant professor. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 01:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete no claim to notability, per nom & RJC. Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and RJC. Misses WP:PROF. --Crusio (talk) 07:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per all of the above comments. A junior scholar, does not pass WP:PROF yet. Nsk92 (talk) 10:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and comments ^^^ coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 23:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grue (Freedom City)[edit]

Grue (Freedom City) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article has no sources to demonstrate notability of the particular fictional extraterrestrial race. It seems to be loaded with original research in the comparisons that it draws to other fictional creations, not backed by any reliable references. A brief summary of this material already exists at a merge target of Freedom City. My attempt at redirecting this article to that target was reverted, hence the reason it is here at AfD. --Craw-daddy | T | 19:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for similar reasons, i.e. there's nothing that demonstrates notability, and many seem to be the subject of original research in the comparisons to other fictional creations. Several of these have been redirected to the same target Freedom City but have been reverted. As above, please note that there are brief summaries of many of these already in that target page, hence I think there is nothing that need be merged there.

AEGIS (Freedom City)

Atom Family

Centurion (Freedom City)

The Collective (Freedom City)

Crime League (Freedom City)

Curator (Freedom City)

Factor Four

Farside City

Fear-Master

Freedom League (Freedom City)

Meta-Grue

Next Gen (Freedom City)

Omega (Freedom City)

Doc Otaku

Psions (Freedom City)

Star-Khan

Talos (Freedom City)

Ultima (Freedom City)

White Lion (Freedom City)

• Delete, or Merge to either Freedom City or better, Mutants and Masterminds. No notability outside that universe. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 19:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 19:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect as per Schmidt. BOZ (talk) 19:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all and replace with redirects to Mutants and Masterminds to discourage recreation. If there's any content that can be merged into M&M, by all means do so. Percy Snoodle (talk) 22:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge without removing content. Perhaps that;s why bare redirects were reverted. That should have been discussed elsewhere, but since you've brought it here, I note what has been said in various places against trying BOLD as a multiple redirect prior to discussions. It might be more strategic to try to get agreement first, and there's more likely to me agreement if content is preserved. See WP:Dispute Resolution for some suggestions. DGG (talk) 04:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, so we move all of the original research and editorial speculation into another article? Okay... no wait, most of it's already there as I pointed out above. Many of the "[this character] is analogous to [that character] in [well-known comic book X]" is already present in the Freedom City article. I don't believe there's any particularly relevant content to merge that isn't already there. --Craw-daddy | T | 15:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all and discourage recreation. Magioladitis (talk) 10:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all due to their notability and discourage renomination. Redirects should be discussed on talk pages, not in AfDs. Maybe if your attempt at redirecting was reverted it a show that the community wants it kept and not redirected. Now obviously you were okay with a redirect. Brining it to AfD a DELETION discussion is NOT the way to go, because it isn’t what you’re really after.--63.3.1.1 (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect all I'm not finding any solid RS for any of this. Delete is a reasonable option, but I don't know that there is a lot more to merge. Hobit (talk) 21:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, hmmm, CSD A7 will do ... and WP:SNOW. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Tyler[edit]

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

Fails WP:N. Poor writing. AlwaysOnion (talk) 18:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per WP:SPAM and WP:BIO Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}
• Speedy Delete Abhishek ^Talk 19:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per A7, WP:N, WP:SPAM and WP:BIO. Rosokokolapo (talk) 19:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per above. --Banime (talk) 21:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete (A7/Steak sauce) — First, nothing indicating anything remarkable about her besides her "abilities," which meets A7. Second, no content, which meets A1. I would also say borderline G10, but there might actually be some truth to that. MuZemike (talk) 21:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete it already por favor. JBsupreme (talk) 23:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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  20:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lost in the Light[edit]

Lost in the Light (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An EP by a band whose article was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flood of Red. No significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Does not meet the criteria for albums, singles and songs. Prod was removed thus this is here. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of reviews or other significant coverage about this EP-- Whpq (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Saint Laurent[edit]

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

This is a strictly autobiographical article written by an obviously extremely egotistical man. He is not notable in any way, shape, or form, and if he did not make this page, no one would continue to know who he is. He claims to be 'one of the most famous pro wrestling commentators in the United States', which is absolutely ridiculous. He operates on a lowscale level and if he's granted his own page, why not give a page to any two bit independent wrestler in the country? CraftyOlSal (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the article ITSELF doesn't appear to make any of the claims written up in the AfD nomination and it sounds rather pointy. I'm not finding GREAT sources, but there are some sources that seem to indicate he has done professional wrestling. On the other hand, the page creator claims to to be the subject of the article and obviously has some issues, since he *has* made the claims above (and some other hilarious ones aside on the article talk page). About 500 ghits once you strip out the shitty myspaces sites and low-quality YouTube videos, and one newspaper article that I just blew $2 to verify actually mentions the guy by his full name as well as wrestling name. Still, it's not a very strong claim to notability, despite his very high opinion of himself. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 19:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Not much else to say, CraftyOlSal hit the nail on the head. Proxy User (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete- not notable.[15] Sticky Parkin 01:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody delete this page already! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.52.84 (talk) 02:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter J. King[edit]

Peter J. King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

At first glance, this article appears a credit to Wikipedia. It is is detailed, has many external links and mentions several respectable publications. It's thoroughly wikified. But Peter J. King is not notable according to WP:TEACH. There is not a single reliable source listed in the article. Every external link leads to something written by Peter King or his associates. There are no third-party reliable sources about Peter King. Nothing in the article shows that he is notable, merely that he is a living academic. Matt's talk 18:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:PROF defines as satisfying inclusion requirements those academics who are "more notable than the average college instructor/professor". Dr. King has held lectureships in philosophy at several colleges of Oxford University, ranked by the (all-too) authoritative Philosophical Gourmet Report as the second best department in the English-speaking world. His work One Hundred Philosophers: The Life and Work of the World's Greatest Thinkers has been translated into several different languages, and his papers have been published in journal s of such prestige as Think and the Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. That King is an academic of greater note than average should not be in doubt, to say the least. the skomorokh 19:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:GNG and WP:Notability (persons). He is a respected reviewer. He has a notability that can be searched. Unesco.com, Experiencefestival.com. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see where you're coming from, but I'd be grateful if you could elaborate a little. What info are you getting from the Experience Festival link? I'm just seeing WP mirrors. Also, note that Dr King holds copyright to the UNESCO article, so there's still not a single third-party RS. The Human Nature review is a useful find, but do you think one book review is enough for notability? Matt's talk 21:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His views are so respected that he was invited to write an article for UNESCO. No surprise he retains the copyright. He is a respected reviewer. These sources speak toward his notability and with conjunction with the points epresented by User:skomorokh show he is qualified per WP:Prof. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. He's a stipendiary lecturer at Pembroke College[16], i.e. he's not a college fellow, and he's listed on the staff list of the philosophy department under "Researchers, Temporary Lecturers and College Fellows" [17], below the 70+ "Senior Staff" and the 20 "Permanent and/or Senior Postholders in other Faculties, Colleges etc". This implies he's paid by the college (not the university) to give college tutorials (not university lectures) and doesn't have an office in the philosophy faculty building. I see no sign he fulfils any of the nine criteria at WP:TEACH. If his one book is notable (not that i'm sure it is), there could be an article on the book. Qwfp (talk) 20:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. (by M.R.Forrester). —David Eppstein (talk) 23:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• weak delete does not meet WP:PROF in my humble opinion, there have been no reviews of his book in the mainstream press, nor has he been called upon to comment there and there are no mentions of him.[18] He has written essays/contributed to a few books, but is neither well-known to the public in the slightest, not the head of a department at a university. Plenty of people have a Ph.D and are lecturers, they are not noteworthy unless they are a head of a university department or something, or have popularised their ideas and had them commented upon to a more than average for the field amount in WP:RS.Sticky Parkin 01:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no major research publications, and teaching at a notable college does not make one notable--no matter how important the college. Qwpf seems to sum up the situation properly. DGG (talk) 04:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per Qwfp & DGG. Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the detailed analyses of Qwpf and DGG. --Crusio (talk) 07:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per QWFP and DGG. If we were to keep this primarily on the basis of one book "One hundred philosophers..." (which seems to be a book of a reference nature rather than of novel research), I would want to see more substantial and explicit evidence of its importance and influence. Nsk92 (talk) 10:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- He appears just about to meet the criteria. Several of the works listed appear (contrary a statement above) to be in academic periodicals. I suspect that the arguemtn as to paymetn by college/university is a spurious one for Oxford and Cambridge, and is merely the result of their unusual structrue. Note: the subject is a namesake of mine, but unrelated. I have no conflict of interest. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• query I've been looking through Google scholar [19] for evidence of academic impact, ie evidence that he meets criterion #1 of WP:PROF, but havn't seen any so far. Can you provide evidence that his work has had a notable impact on the work of other scholars? Or suggest another criterion met in WP:PROF? Pete.Hurd (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Thank you for joining the debate; it's fun to have a Peter King discussing Peter King! But I'd like to back up Qwfp's point about the uni/college thing. An Oxbridge university lecturer is a senior, permanent position. A college lecturer is a the lowest rung in the hierarchy, renewed on an annual or termly basis, and can be a doctoral student (as was the case for Dr King). In North American English, a teaching assistant. Cf. this discussion and some examples. Matt's talk 13:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep --- I'm coming down to keep on this one, but mostly because I don't want a user named "peterkingiron" to be a reason to keep an article about "Peter J King" -- but in all seriousness, the article looks good and helpful to me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per DGG. rootology (C)(T) 17:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Needs some expanding to show the impact of philosophy work - between the website and writings but I see this as a borderline keep because it has gaps and the writing could be better. I don't fault those who are unaware it's better to overref and bludgeon the reader with the obvious in the lede - these are then WP:Problems to be fixed. -- Banjeboi 20:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• comment if there was any evidence showing any impact of his philosophy work, then I'd be tempted to chanve my !vote to "keep". But as it is, there is no WP:RS evidence of such impact. Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, does not meet WP:PROF or any other standard. His work is not widely cited (figures on GS are single-digit). Association with Oxford colleges is casual, and in any event notability is not inherited. I'm hoping to see a higher-quality decision on this AfD, in comparison to some of the "no consensus" decisions we sometimes get when there are several keep votes: in this instance, as I see it not a single keep vote here gives an argument that is both (1) true and (2) relevant to WP:PROF or some other standard of WP:N. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sheryar Nizar[edit]

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

Non-notable musician; does not pass WP:BAND. Can't find any independent references. Lists playing at universities and winning a battle of the bands contest as major accomplishments, which isn't too promising. His "album" appears to be an Internet release. Claims (without reference) to have played the Roskilde festival, but I can find no independent verification of that (granted, Roskilde is in Denmark and I don't know Danish, so I could be missing something). Likewise, the North American tours are unreferenced and too vague to be verified. Article was started by User:Sheryarnizar (and much work has been done by IPs who seem to be him or close associates as they add personal information), strongly implying WP:COI. — Gwalla | Talk 18:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and could have been speedily deleted. Utterly non-notable and not a reliable source to be found. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 19:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I was giving it the benefit of the doubt, but the editor in question doesn't really seem to respond, so meh. Kill it with fire! ;) Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 23:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This page, under various names, has already been speedily deleted at least twice (see the author's Talk page). Speedy was declined here due to a claim of international touring being an assertion of notability; this is (arguably) valid, but doesn't apply here, of course. Merenta (talk) 16:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua T. Harris[edit]

Joshua T. Harris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable service casualty. While I'm sure he served honorably, he received no major decorations - despite the links describing him as "highly decorated," he topped out with a Bronze Star - and fulfills no elements of WP:BIO. Prod removed by creator with a bare "Josh Harris meets Basic and some Additional criteria of WP:BIO." Wikipedia is still not a memorial.  RGTraynor  18:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The death was notable enough to be covered by the Washington Post and New York Daily News. The third footnote in the article links to an article that list at least 13 medals that were awarded. The article does meet the basic criteria and an additional criteria of WP:BIO. The article was notable enough to receive a class promotion from an established editor. This article doesn't fit any of the reasons for deletion listed on WP:DELETE. Out (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Those would be WP:BIO and WP:NOT. As far as the mass of medals awarded, most of them are service ribbons and medals that every soldier in-theater receives; "highly decorated" is a term far more often reserved for the Medal of Honor, the Navy Cross or the DSM. As far as the coverage, it was much the same as awarded to most battle deaths in the Middle East these days, and I question whether Harris would have received as much as he did were it not for the erroneous presumption that he was the 500th battle death in Afghanistan.  RGTraynor  20:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:BIO criteria does not require a "mass of medals". Is the Bronze Star not a notable award? Apparently most of the medals awarded were notable enough to have articles on wikipedia. The words "highly decorated" don't even appear in the article but 17 service medals is considered highly decorated. I hope we come to consensus based on wiki policy and reliable sources and not one editors speculation that is based purely on opinion. RGTraynor I suggest you take your own advice and "take five minutes to follow up a few Google hits and realize the genuine notability of the subject." The article meets policy requirements and the sources are reliable. There really isn't much to discuss about this article. Out (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I expected to see the traditional memorial page -- born, enlisted, died in service to his county, and little more -- but found a reasonably-thorough and well-sourced biography of someone who was not the typical deceased soldier. Harris' art background and the display of his work at notable sites, covered by reliable and verifiable sources, establishes notability above and beyond a memorial page. The multiple reliable and verifiable sources about Harris as a person from a broad range of sources across the country satisfies the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 20:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sad story, but none the less not notable. Proxy User (talk) 21:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate a little please? Out (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is a traditional memorial page. Sad, but since a Silver Star doesn't confer automatic notability, neither would a lower decoration, and one art exhibition doesn't do it either. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How did you decide that a Silver Star or a Bronze Star were not notable awards? Are Valor devices not notable either? Out (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tens of thousands of Bronze Stars get awarded.  RGTraynor  03:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Nobody said the awards weren't notable, just the awardees if their notability primarily depends on them. I didn't pull this out of a hat. It appears to be the consensus. I recall someone with a much higher award being Afd'd. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as per nom Masterhatch (talk) 05:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Although my heart goes out to Mr. Harris’ family and friends, he simply is not notable by WP:BIO standards. WP:BIO states, “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.” With the exception of Mr. Harris’ obituary, there is no published material available about him (results). As far as his artwork goes - the only mention of that is in the obituary; I cannot find evidence of it anywhere else. The Bronze Star is his highest commendation; the rest are majoritively awards granted to anyone who has been in a particular theatre of operations. The Bronze Star itself ranks just above the Purple Heart and as such does not make Mr. Harris notable; thousands are awarded every year. Sabes3 Chatty? 06:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While a tragic story. He does not meet WP:BIO. -Djsasso (talk) 14:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete while tragic this does not meet WP:BIO and Wikipedia is not a memorial wiki either. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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  20:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thakkiya[edit]

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

As per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary Abhishek ^Talk 18:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:DICDEF. MuZemike (talk) 21:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DJ DMD[edit]

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

Non-notable producer/musician, fails WP:MUSIC, unsourced. Boffob (talk) 17:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Do any of these serve? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelQSchmidt (talk • contribs) 17:34, 6 October 2008[reply]

Comment - If you have particular sources that you feel show substantial coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the artist, please cite them specifically. (From the first five pages of that Google search, I see a whole lot of nothing (blogs, myspace, etc.) and a link to Rolling Stones website mirroring AMG's info: a bare bones discography with no other info.) - Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No... no particular cite at all. I was just posing the question. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Non-notable, per WP:MUSIC. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, fails the everything test. RFerreira (talk) 18:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:MUSIC and the nominators reasons. AlwaysOnion (talk) 19:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:MUSIC and the reasons cited above by the nominator. JBsupreme (talk) 05:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Two albums charted, although not as high as I'd like to see for a strong keep.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per Fabrictramp; please add more reliable sources if possible. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 22:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Garguillio[edit]

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

Self-promotional, vanity article which, despite its many links, has no actual reliable sources to establish notability. Boffob (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• very weak keep While I agree that the artice feels a bit like self-promotion aqnd vanity, and most sources in my search are blogs that address his work, I did find [20][21][22]... as well as a lot of podcast and video stuff. Its minor... but its there. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}
  • Comment: all the links you posted are either a press release (not acceptable to establish notability), a self-published message and something without any reference to Daniel Garguillio at all. Web presence is not the same as notability.--Boffob (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Can't find anything that shows notability. There's not even a mention or claim on his own website[23]. The blogs and such show that the man really exists, which I don't doubt, but notable? No.    SIS  20:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - there aren't reliable sources about the subject. -- Whpq (talk) 21:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The subject has been a guest on Coast to Coast AM with George Noory (which led to my writing the article in the first place), as well as many other real-world media outlets. He is a well-known, if controversial, figure in the paranormal investigations field. DaimonHellstorm —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's It Gonna Be (Beyoncé Knowles song)[edit]

What's It Gonna Be (Beyoncé Knowles song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

See discussion on the talk page. All of the sources in the article are primary sources or provide primary information. There are no reliable third-party sources that actually discuss the song, and it doesn't look like there are any that could be added. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 16:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fancruft. I mean, seriously, why does everyone make pages on songs the instant they're announced by the artist? Wikipedia isn't going anywhere anyitme soon. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete or merge to Beyonce Knowles Discography. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:NM. Song wasn't an actual single and failed to chart; it just appeared on the Japanese edition of Dangerously In Love, Live at Wembley DVD, and so on. DiverseMentality^(Boo!) 22:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 22:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linnea Mellgren[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Non-notable teen figure skater, fails WP:ATHLETE for never appearing in senior competition  RGTraynor  16:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. See this Google News archive search for evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources that passes the general notability guideline. -- Eastmain (talk) 17:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per coverage shown by User:Eastmain. Notabiliy is established. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What I'm seeing on that "search" is six links, all to brief competition recaps. Eastmain, you know full well that "significant coverage" means an in-depth article about the subject, not - to take the first link - a seven-sentence recap of that particular competition which mentions Mellgren twice. So far, it looks like you're just sticking up indiscriminate Google searches and declaring the list as passing WP:BIO on the strength of that, well, there's a Google list. (Heck, googling MY name returns three times as many general hits.)  RGTraynor  18:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, those sources don't meet any standard of proving notability. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 19:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per above Rosokokolapo (talk) 19:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC) — Rosokokolapo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  RGTraynor  19:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I think she does meet the WP:ATHLETE requirements, having "competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing": Gold in 2006, bronze in 2007.    SIS  20:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Read the next line WP:ATHLETE. Must compete at the highest level of their sport. Junior is not the highest level, the highest level would be senior level events like the Olympics or World Championships. -Djsasso (talk) 21:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A matter of interpretation, I think. In her league she is at the highest level. According to your logic only senior Olympic or Worldchampions would be notable. I'm not sure if that's the case.    SIS  22:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No I don't believe they have to be Olympic or World Champions, but I do believe they have to compete at them. -Djsasso (talk) 02:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would be a very strange "interpretation" indeed to believe junior competition to be the "highest level" in that sport. It is, of course, senior competition.  RGTraynor  03:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I said "in her league", not "in that sport".    SIS  11:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • A five year old can be at the highest in her league for 5 year olds, but that doesn't mean they warrant a wiki article. -Djsasso (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The text of WP:ATHLETE is "Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports." Her standing at her own level of competition is quite irrelevant; as Djsasso correctly points out, your POV declares any kid who's at the top of his T-ball league to be prima facie notable.  RGTraynor  15:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • You're using WP:WAX?? We're not talking abot an article about a 5-year-old who is best at his mini-league in T-ball... and if that 5-year-old does get an article, we can discuss that one then. We are speaking here about a young woman who has competed at the highest level for her age group, and who has won numerous medals. When she competes in senior division or in professional divisions, that will be added to her article. You cannot be saying that young women cannot in any way be notable until they hit some arbitrary age? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • • No, I'm saying that young female athletes who fail to pass WP:BIO generally cannot in any way be notable unless they pass WP:ATHLETE, which requires that athletes either compete in a fully professional league or at the highest level of amateur sport. In figure skating, the highest level is senior competition, not novice or juniors ... and here I'm being generous, because a number of people think that senior international competition is the highest level. Until she does, she is no more notable in Wikipedia's eyes, and has achieved no more, than the aforementioned T-ball star, who likewise has outshone his age group. Now if you disagree with WP:ATHLETE, feel free to go to its talk page and try to win support for your POV, although broad consensus is for tightening up the criteria, not loosening them. Here's not the place to argue around WP:ATHLETE's provisions.  RGTraynor  15:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails to meet WP:ATHLETE and is missing non-trivial sources, those sources mentioned above are trivial. -Djsasso (talk) 21:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete not notable enough for own article. sorry but true. Masterhatch (talk) 05:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Franz Streubel[edit]

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

Another in a string of non-notable teen figure skaters who fail WP:ATHLETE by way of never appearing in senior competition.  RGTraynor  16:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:GNG. Google search and Google News. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Would you mind citing some specific reliable sources that are, as WP:GNG states, "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." That's just the top page of a Google search. Googling ME returns three times as many hits, for what it's worth. Your methodology is also terribly sloppy if you're claiming a 3-hit Google News search, the top one of which is plainly a WWI era soldier.  RGTraynor  18:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• inre WP:Athlete & "Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports. Are we allowed to ignore his 2005-2006 Montford Trophy? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• We sure are, given that the Montford Trophy is a novice competition award. We're just as free to ignore the trophy Streubel won for being tops in his 8 year old skating class. Look, if you have genuine evidence that this fellow has appeared in senior competition or genuine, specific evidence that he passes WP:BIO, feel free to present it, but these sloppy trivialities just waste our time.  RGTraynor  15:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I am sorry that my input to this discussion is considered by yourself to be a "waste of time"... it was a discussion after all. And where might one look for evidence that an medaled 8-year-old has competed in adult sports? Sorry... just musing over your helpful suggestion. Delete as you will. I withdraw from this discussion as you have yourself deemed it closed and pointless. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails to provide reliable non-trivial sources. The sources linked to by the google search above are trivial at best. Fails to meet WP:ATHLETE as mentioned above as well. -Djsasso (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete sorry, not notable enough for own article. check out WP:Athlete Masterhatch (talk) 05:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ICER Brands[edit]

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

No notability. None of the references specifically mention ICER at all (at least, from what I saw). Smacks of advertising/PR. Perhaps some of the info can be merged with Nobody Beats the Wiz. Also, note that article creator is essentially dodging a repeated speedy deletion of ICER Brands, LLC - right or wrong. Tan | 39 16:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I tagged the original ICER Brands, LLC article for Speedy Delete when it first came online. Time to cut the spam again. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:SPAM failing WP:CORP. Reads like a WP:CV for investors. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note... WP:CV deals with copyright problems. I assume Michael Q. meant to say that it reads as an investment CV or similar. Tan | 39 17:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry. I did mean a corporate curriculum vitae. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Speedy-worthy spam. Bongomatic (talk) 02:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, possible speedy delete, no showing of importance at all. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can only echo the reasons above. doktorb _words^deeds 16:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Denis Wieczorek[edit]

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

Non-notable teen figure skater, as with other recent AfDs fails WP:ATHLETE by way of never even appearing in senior nationals.  Ravenswing  16:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep per this and WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Would you mind citing some specific reliable sources that are, as WP:GNG states, "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." That's just the top page of a Google search. Googling ME returns three times as many hits, for what it's worth.  Ravenswing  18:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails to provide reliable non-trivial sources. The sources linked to by the google search above are trivial at best. Fails to meet WP:ATHLETE as mentioned above as well. -Djsasso (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete fails to meet WP:ATHLETE Masterhatch (talk) 05:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Daniel Dotzauer[edit]

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

Non-notable teen figure skater, fails WP:ATHLETE by virtue of never appearing even in senior nationals.  Ravenswing  16:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep as squeeking past WP:GNG with this

• Would you mind citing some specific reliable sources that are, as WP:GNG states, "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." That's just the top page of a Google search. Googling ME returns three times as many hits, for what it's worth.  Ravenswing  18:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails to provide reliable non-trivial sources. The sources linked to by the google search above are trivial at best. Fails to meet WP:ATHLETE as mentioned above as well. -Djsasso (talk) 21:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per WP:ATHLETE and there is no non-trivial reliable sources. Schuym1 (talk) 22:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete fails to meet WP:ATHLETE Masterhatch (talk) 05:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to lack of non-trivial coverage and failure to meet ATHLETE guideline. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 23:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Dobbs[edit]

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

Non-notable 15 year old figure skater, fails WP:ATHLETE by virtue of never appearing even in senior nationals.  Ravenswing  16:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• keep as passing WP:GNG with this. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Would you mind citing some specific reliable sources that are, as WP:GNG states, "... published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject?" That's just the top page of a Google search.  Ravenswing  18:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails to provide reliable non-trivial sources. The sources linked to by the google search above are trivial at best. Fails to meet WP:ATHLETE as mentioned above as well. -Djsasso (talk) 21:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete fails to meet WP:ATHLETE Masterhatch (talk) 05:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have removed myself from this discussion as the nom has made it clear that it is impossible for a gifted minor to ever gain notability in their sport. This Afd is closed already. Discussion is unaccepted and unneccessary. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The nominator is certainly happy to make clear that whether a gifted minor achieves notability or not in novice competitions has nothing to do with WP:ATHLETE. An athlete can pass WP:BIO in one of two ways: qualify under the general notability criterion (which this subject does not) or qualify under the specific criteria of WP:ATHLETE, which requires nothing other than having competed professionally or at the highest level of amateur sport (which this subject has not). You have been asked for specifics to back up your assertions of notability in several of these skating AfDs. You have failed to provide a single one in any of them. Demonstrably, one of the governing philosophies of WP:ATHLETE is that no level of competition below the "highest level" stated in the black-letter guideline can be considered notable, however well a particular athlete might do in those lower levels.  Ravenswing  04:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No... as I have never spoken toward WP:Athlete and have been specifiacally told by the nom that my partcipation in these discussions is a "waste of time". The nom seems to have already made up his mind that Amanda Dobbs does not meet WP:GNG, and so then must have already decided However, can it be assumed that continued coverage of her in "Amanda is the only Junior level competitor from the US to be sent twice to the Junior Grand Prix", "Olympics or bust", "Junior Grand Prix (JGP) Mexico results", "Intermediate Dance and Pairs Skate for Gold at U.S. Junior Championships", "U.S. skaters score three golds at JGP Mexico", "U.S. Wins Three Gold Medals, One Silver at JGP Mexico", "Ralph, Hill and Witkowski in medal contention", et al do not constitute notability through WP:BIO. I never claimed she met WP:Athlete. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: Let me reiterate some of the elements of WP:GNG for you:

• "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.
• "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
• "Sources," including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc.
• "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc. Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of interest by the world at large.
• "Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion.

• So let me go down that list of links for you. Dobbs' skating club's website is not an "independent" source. An online hometown weekly's website is not often held to be a reliable source. A skating website's list of winners isn't "significant coverage." www.usfigureskating.org is probably reliable, and when it talks about Dobbs at length a lot more than a mere "Rounding out the medalists were Danielle Seitz and Brandon Moore (Indiana World Skating Academy), and Amanda Dobbs (Peninsula SC) and Christopher Trefil (St. Moritz ISC), who placed third and fourth, respectively," we'll talk. icenetwork.com is a "reliable" source? Finally, I believe Slam sports is a reliable source, but once again, the reference is trivial: "In women's singles, Americans Amanda Dobbs (50.46) and Alexe Gilles (49.91) are in first and second respectively ..."

• Finally, I have not said that your participation in these discussions is a waste of time, which would be very uncivil. I have said that throwing up waves of trivial links and Google search pages is a waste of time. We need significant, reliable sources discussing the subject at length. Match results do not qualify. Trivial mentions do not qualify. Google search pages filled with obvious links to other people do not qualify. What will qualify is something like that hometown weekly piece, only in the San Francisco Chronicle, an interview on network TV, something along those lines ... and nothing short of it.  Ravenswing  16:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete" The only criteria that could possibly warrant her being here is placing in the national Figure Skating Championship, and 5th place isn't really placing at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.240.61.234 (talk) 06:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Has just qualified for the JGPF. Can someone please give me a list of all the figure skaters who have just been nominated for deletion, and also please list them at WP:FIGURE? I've been off wiki for a few days and I come back and see a list of AFDs. Can they please be listed together if they all have the same reason for deletion? Thanks. Kolindigo (talk) 22:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Junior competition is not the "highest level of amateur sport" and thus does not meet WP:ATHLETE; when she competed at senior nationals (and only when she does), then she'll be notable. As far as a bundled AfD goes, it's inappropriate. There's no particular thread linking them, beyond that they're figure skaters who have not yet competed at the senior level, and I preferred to list them separately.  Ravenswing  04:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Pack (group). Black Kite 22:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stunnaman[edit]

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

Fails WP:NM, non-notable person that asserts no notability and has no substantial third-party coverage. DiverseMentality^(Boo!) 16:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete a.s.a.p No notability whatsoever.[24] Sticky Parkin 02:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No claim to notability. Bongomatic (talk) 07:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability?[edit]

He was signed to Jive Records along with The Pack -He has collaborated with major artists such as TYGA and Too Short. He is featured on Too Short's recent album along with The Pack http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/16/entertainment/main3374265.shtml This article states his name as Keith "Stunnaman" Jenkins along with the other "The Pack" members. He is also known as "Stunna" and "Young Stunna"

more: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/fashion/11skaters.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5090&en=15e1d5b348cce6d0&ex=1352437200&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-17450553_ITM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnmhorn (talk • contribs) 23:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A passing mention doesn't constitute "significant coverage". Bongomatic (talk) 00:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does prove that he does have credibility and he's not some random person. He fits in the guidelines of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.150.195.156 (talk • contribs)

No he doesn't. Read Wikipedia:Notability again: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. A single-sentence mention in article about a completely different performer is not significant coverage. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 19:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

he does fit the criteria of band member page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.150.195.156 (talk • contribs)

Sadly, no he doesn't. DiverseMentality^(Boo!) 17:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]