Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 April 14

< April 13	April 15 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Floppy Movement

Non-notable social movement with very limited evidence of notability or, for that matter existence. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC) Mattinbgn\^talk 23:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly not notable and possibly non-existent. X Marx The Spot (talk) 23:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Renee (talk) 23:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could find no trace of this supposed movement anywhere. The one and only reference/external link in the article is to Google books but the target actually makes no mention at all of any such movement and a Google books search on the name gets 14 hits but none of them is about any type of social movement; mostly dance or medical stuff. Google news has no hits and a regular Google search gets 147 hits but, again, none is about a social movement. In short, no sign this alleged movement even exists, nevermind that it is notable. I hate to throw around the word 'hoax,' but it seems that it's either that or something made up one day. Either way, it's completely unverifiable and that alone is grounds for deletion. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 23:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Article is in all probability a hoax. —Moondyne click! 00:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor point: we don't speedy delete hoaxes. -- Mark Chovain 03:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. —Moondyne click! 03:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find anything either; looks to be a hoax. The article creator has made only a couple of talk page edits outside of this article. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Allegedly, a Buddhist movement that grew out of a contaminated municipal water supply. I can't say for sure it's a hoax, but still I'd play it safe by boiling it. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subject of the article would not appear to be verifiable. Probable hoax. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 21:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Do not delete. While this is a small movement it is one that has made an impact on the local community. The page was created as the local primary school is doing a class project on it and, as you have all discovered, there are no other references. The external article referred to in the page was placed as a link for the teacher (as it is obviously not something that could be read by 9 yr olds!!)PlumesPlumes (talk) 09:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without other sources, then the article cannot be kept on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on original research, verifiability and reliable sources for reasons why this is so. If it can't be verified, it can't be kept. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 09:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It just needs to be up until the end of the month, then they will be finished with it. Is it such a big deal if there is not specific references? Its just teaching kids how to research 124.189.36.39 (talk) 11:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Massacre

Local event with little or no references available. The term "Orange Massacre" returns no ghits referring to this incident, nor does the name of the alleged offender. Local media references from 1992 does not a notable article make. X Marx The Spot (talk) 23:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obviously non-notable event. The term "Orange Massacre" isn't really the name of the event; it was newspaper headline shorthand for "Massacre in Orange [California]". Does not have multiple, independent sources. While I'm sure the event is TRUE, it is not notable. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 23:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely non-notable. Renee (talk) 23:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local news story with no everlasting impact. Nate • (chatter) 00:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not sure if this is real. Yahel Guhan 05:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as part of a walled garden of hoaxes created by several single-purpose accounts. I can find no Google references to this alleged massacre, which was supposedly committed by a killer who was influenced by the rock group Popscops (article about this band has already been speedy deleted). Popscops, for which I can also find no Google references, was supposedly a right-wing rock group influenced by the obscure Founding Father Nathaniel Rall, for whom I can also find no Google references. I suspect that the creators of all three of the articles in question -- User:Choochoo9988 (contribs), User:Beboboo2300 all contributions deleted -- admins can check deleted contributions, and User:Jjjjjjjj409 (contribs), are, at a minimum, working in collaboration with each other, regardless of whether they are actually the same person. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at the least it's nn, and this term is not in widespread use. JJL (talk) 14:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sad story, but two people killed by a burglar is not generally considered a "massacre" except in a paper that uses "screaming headlines". Sad, but not any more notable than most crimes. Mandsford (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. With regard to Bagh (garden), per WP:SNOW and withdrawal of the original nomination. As to the redirect, that isn't an AfD matter, and belongs instead at WP:RFD. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 11:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bagh (word)

Dictionary definition. The article has already been moved to Wiktionary. Corvus cornix_talk 22:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:DICTDEF, this should be deleted. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 23:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closer During the discussion, a user moved bagh (word) to bagh (garden) and fleshed out the article considerably from a dictdef to something a bit more than that. My delete is only in relation to the bagh (word) article in both its dictdef and now its redirect form. My debate point is that bagh (word) should not exist as either an aricle or a redirect but that bagh (garden) in its expanded form should be kept. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 20:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nomination. Renee (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:DICTDEF X Marx The Spot (talk) 00:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Those who advocate deletion of this entry should attempt to name one dictionary (an English dictionary preferably, however failing that a dictionary in one of the following languages will be acceptable: Dutch, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Italian, Portuguese and Swedish) in which the word Bāgh is defined. It is certain that this word is not defined in OED (3rd edition), SOED (5th edition), Chambers and Mirriam Webster. A search with the English Google will show that about 1,600,000 references are made to this word on the Internet and to my best knowledge no site actually defines this word. Naturally, there might be some sites giving such bland definition as Garden, but my search prior to writing the entry on Bāgh showed that there is nothing, or nothing worthwhile (since I could not have possibly inspected all the above-mentioned 1,600,000 sites), available on the Internet that would satisfy the curiosity of someone looking for a proper definition of this word. I should add that the Wikipedia entry on Bāgh has been on the Internet since 25 March, so that it is possible that in the meantime some sites may have already copied the contents of the Wikipeda entry. The situation being so dire as regards the word Bāgh, is it warranted to delete the present Wikipedia entry? In my opinion, such a deletion amounts to a cultural vandalism of the first order. --BF 01:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. There is a big difference. The definition of words as you describe are more than welcome at the sister project Wikitionary. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 05:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The Encyclopedia Iranica has an article describing the whole history of this concept. [[1]]. If it is in a professional Encyclopedia, why should it not have an entry in Wikipedia? --alidoostzadeh (talk) 01:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then make it more than a definition.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree, we should just move it to Bagh. Actually this should be main article on Bagh, the rest of the articles should be (see other uses). So I think instead of deletion, that is a better suggestion. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 01:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete; definitions of words do WP:NOT belong on Wikipedia. Period. The author of the article makes it clear that it's purely a definition. QED.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment': Bagh (garden) is, while not a great article, encyclopedic and hopefully improvable. Bagh (word) still needs to be deleted, redirect or not.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be consistent in your reasoning: One cannot make something "more than a definition" if that something is deleted first. Moreover, the contents of the present version of the entry is far more than a definition. Have you read the entry, if I may ask? Finally, it cannot be my task only to make this entry complete; like any other Wikipedia entry, also this entry will have to grow through the contributions of other members of the community who feel qualified for the task. --BF 01:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can make it more than a definition when you're first writing it. Nothing in the article right now covers anything more than a good dictionary would. It's not everyone else's responsibility to clean up after you.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment We can change the entry from Bagh (word) to just "Bagh". The meaning/definition of the word is only part of entry. I think that is what some users might have an issue with. Else Bagh is a perfect Encyclopedic concept. See my comments above. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 01:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about this possibility myself when I was considering to create the entry. However, the problem is that there is already a Wikipedia entry whose name is "Bagh" (see Bagh). Using "Bāgh" as the name of the entry has its own problems: most people (in particular those who view pages from outside) do not know how to type "ā" into the search boxes of their browsers (I myself am one of them) so that they will never succeed in finding the entry. Interestingly, the search engine of Encyclopaedia Iranica, to which you referred earlier, does not return "Bāgh" on typing "Bagh" in the field of its own search engine! --BF 02:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually I think the onus is on those who would argue for the retention of this article as to why we should set WP:DICTDEF aside in this case. X Marx The Spot (talk) 01:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I said already in my first contribution to this page: give me the name of a dictionary (concerning the languages that I have explicitly mentioned) that defines this word. In that case I shall also call it a dictionary word and you may then proceed with removing the entry. --BF 02:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Behnam. I think the best suggestion is to rename this article to Bagh and then add the dictionary definition of Bagh to Wikidictionary. Also when expanding this article per Iranica probably, you can also give a definition in the introduction. I think the above users thought the article belongs to wikidictionary. So I think everyone can work with this suggestion? --alidoostzadeh (talk) 02:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the nomination The article has already been moved to Wiktionary. X Marx The Spot (talk) 02:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then this article should be moved to Bagh. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 03:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and move to Bagh. This article has the same relevancy as this, it is used as determination of a places such as Kara-bagh. It has potential to be improved and expended. VartanM (talk) 02:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please consult what I wrote above on the existence of the Wikipedia entry Bagh. --BF 03:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replace page with {{wi}} (I always prefer including that for people who don't know what Wiktionary is). It's a dicdef. Actually, so is the Iranica link. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Alternatively it can be moved to Wiktionary, but I don't think this needs to be deleted. If there's already a wiktionary article with that name, then it can be linked to it. But the info is useful and should be retained. Grandmaster (talk) 05:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Relevant. Nokhodi (talk) 07:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand per VartanM. Stifle (talk) 09:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's possible to expand this article far beyond the status of "dictionary definition". The article of encyclopedia Iranica shows that, it's on a variety of subjects, well documented, it's an encyclopedia article. So WP:NOT#DICT doesn't apply here, no reason to delete. Cenarium^Talk 13:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you care to explain how an article which has (word) in its title and deals with nothing but the definition and etymology of the word "bagh" can be expanded upon BEYOND just its definition and etymology and still be relevant to the title of "(word)"? Keep in mind when you answer this that there are already several articles regarding the concept of "bagh" as well, such as bagh (garden). Also, could you care to explain how an article that has (word) in the title and deals with nothing but the definition and etymology of the word is somehow excused from WP:NOT#DICT? I simply do not understand your argument as it makes no sense at all to me. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 20:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. User:Tahmasp has demonstrated that this is an encyclopedic subject which should have an article. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and suggest early close. The page now redirects to Bagh (garden), which seems a reasonably well fleshed out about a cultural variant on a kind of formal garden. The actual nominated page is a redirect, and the new page both now goes well beyond being a "mere definition" and shows potential for expansion in any case. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that this is a good fix, to be honest. The redirect of Bagh (word), which implies an article about the WORD "Bagh" (i.e. its etymology) is not really related to the CONCEPT of a Bagh garden. This would be a candidate ripe to go straight to WP:RFD for that very reason. This "fix" is sloppy at best and inappropriate at worst. A better solution, in my mind, is to redirect everything that currently points to Bagh (word) (there's only a handful) to Bagh (garden) or the Bagh DAB and delete the useless Bagh (word) redirect altogether. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 19:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ShinmaWa, I think I have by now corrected all the references to "Bagh (word)" --- this was relatively easy, since most, if not all, of those references had been made by me and I knew where to look for them. Kind regards, --BF 20:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the changes made to this article, I would be willing to withdraw the nomination. Corvus cornix_talk 02:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To Prosfilaes: What have you got against the entry? You first vote strong detete, then when people overwhelmingly support the preservation of the entry, you go and delete 2/3 of its contents on account of a dubious argument!!! Can't you bring up respect for the opinion of others? Or is it something that you have against knowledge? Please keep your hands off the entry and work on subjects that might interest you. --BF 03:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete If this is not a hoax, reliable sources are needed to verify this article. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cucuy cave

Subject is not verifiable.

Prior to this article, this cave was unknown to the caving community. While trying to verify, I contacted the Texas Speleological Survey and several National Speleological Society members who know San Saba County well and they had no record of a cave at the published location. The cave is now recorded in the TSS database as a rumored cave and that is the only known record of it outside of this article. There has simply been no opportunity to create a verifiable source.

Subject is not notable.

There are over 600 TSS records for San Saba County and a lot of them have bad air. There is nothing particularly notable about this one. WTucker (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nomination. Non-notable. Renee (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability- When measured, this cave will easily make the lists of Texas' deepest and possibly longest caves based on those lists published on the TSS website.

Verifiable- A photograph of the entrance was included to verify its existence when it was questioned. An expected Summer invitation to a few cavers to come as guests and measure it is rapidly evaporating with continued dogmatic insistence that it doesn't exist because its not in the "database." Thus, its absence from TSS records ( and thus, verifiablity through TSS) may ultimately be the result of cavers themselves.

A deletion nomination can be made based 'original research' without objection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skycrab (talk • contribs) 02:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability- no results on Google or Google News. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to exist. Gtg289m (talk) 14:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yihan Chen

I know that there is assertion that he's been referred to by several newspapers -- but is this really more than 15 minutes of fame? I don't think the article establishes persistent notability. Unless notability is further shown, delete. --Nlu (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if more reliable sources are added, and if the author lengthens the article. Dwilso 22:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I added two references and there were more. This little guy is pretty notable and likely to become more so as he ages. Renee (talk) 00:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - The fact that the editor proposing deletion did not take the 40 seconds it would have taken to notify the article's creator shows bad faith, and reinforces the suspicion that this is a disruptive proposal. Badagnani (talk) 03:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that this editor makes an optional notification supposedly mandatory shows that this keep vote is disruptive. --Nlu (talk) 03:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks notable to me. Please, assume good faith. Also, nobody's notified the article creator still; I will do so. They're an SPA, so this might be an autobio, but the subject is notable nonetheless. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per references in article. --Bardin (talk) 14:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. - Clear consensus that this BLP does not demonstrate notability. Possible hoax. ++Lar: t/c 21:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kamran Reyhani

Doesn't appear to be notable. No reliable sources included in article.Aparhizi (talk) 22:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The person isn't notable enough, and format doesn't follow wikipedia. Dwilso 22:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I searched GoogleScholar[2], GoogleBooks[3], PublishOrPerish and came up with ZERO hits for this name. I also searched the University of South Carolina website under "Reyhani" (according to the artocle he was a director of some research center there), again with zero results[4]. Could this article be a hoax? Or a misspelling? Either way, it needs to be deleted. Nsk92 (talk) 00:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the article is looking more and more like a hoax. A search for "Biorhythmic" at the University of South Carolina website produces no results [5]. So the research center, of which he was supposed to have been a Director, does not seem to exist either. Nsk92 (talk) 01:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete No papers in Web of Science, no books in WorldCat. DGG (talk) 01:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- agree with DGG here. X Marx The Spot (talk) 02:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "five major books" should be easy to find. Delete. Gtg289m (talk) 14:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regular coffee for a regular guy

WP:NN publication, autobiography of unpublished WP:NN person, possible hoax. Toddst1 (talk) 22:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

speedy as patent nonsense hoax. Merkin's mum 23:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Crystal. 99.230.152.143 (talk) 00:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - probable hoax and wouldn't pass WP:N anyway.--Beloved Freak 23:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN autobiography, NN autobiographer. Probable hoax. —97198 talk 07:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possible hoax created by a SPA. Colin Sheehan himself doesn't have an article, not notable and no relevant Google News hits Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ...and in any case, not notable per WP:BK#Not yet published books. JohnCD (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Gtg289m (talk) 14:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my search only turned up the aticle page. Plus, it probably doesn't help that the author's page is a redlink. So, I would say it is more likely than not a hoax. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Nava

Prod removed by IP without comment. No verification or encyclopedic content, simply an unverified list of people and companies, and external links to commercial sites. Deiz talk 22:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep refs need to be put in the article, but they exist. 99 google news mentions [6]. Merkin's mum 23:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't address the nomination (no content) or lack of compliance with WP:BIO. We know he produces music videos, which is pretty much all the Google news references assert, but it takes more than working with notable people and passing mentions in online entertainment news reports, even 99 of them in various languages, to satisfy our notability criteria. Deiz talk 00:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be rather prolific, and it's difficult to find information on music video directors. I added an external link. JuJube (talk) 03:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've only scratched the surface of the Google news sources linked above and have already found 5 which show notability. How can Deiz say, "he produces music videos, which is pretty much all the Google news references assert" and, "passing mentions in online entertainment news reports"? Did you actually look at those search results? Phil Bridger (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because sometimes you need to light a fire under peoples arses :) Nice work.. Deiz talk 22:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Radici

Article clearly states album was never realeased. Does not pass WP:MUSIC. Links are to the band and are not independent references bout the album. Reywas92 ^Talk 21:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC and no RS. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 22:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Good article, but doesn't seem notable enough. Dwilso 22:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A privately recorded, unreleased demo just isn't notable enough for inclusion per WP:MUSIC. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 00:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, consensus is that the article does meet the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taraneh Javanbakht

Non-notable person failing WP:BIO. Not verifiable by third party sources.Aparhizi (talk) 12:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep A google search shows a few possible(?) RS such as 1. If kept, the article needs to be cleaned up. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 21:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, very weak if any claim to notability, no verification from reliable sources. No prejudice if sources are found. Deiz talk 22:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'~~Delete'~~Neutral Not notable at least as a scientist. No papers in Web of Science. Unless someone can show the poetry books are notable in Iran, she isnt notable. DGG (talk) 01:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Her notability is based on her poetry and story books (not as a scientist) and there is some notable media coverage on her work. Alefbe (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The media coverage listed here appears to indicate notability. The article in the Arabic Wikipedia is just a stub. The German one includes a partial list of her books, which I added to the article. The English article doesn't have any link to a Farsi-language article. --Eastmain (talk) 06:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is substantial media coverage in Persian media (for example an interview with Radio Zamaneh and articles about her in Kayhan and Shargh). She has written several books and her collective body of work seems notable. Alefbe (talk) 17:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral :we had same debate on fawiki and we conclude to delete the article for this person.--Mardetanha ^talk 13:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 06:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is notable in Iran as a young poetess and writer who lives abroad. her numerous books has been published by a famous publisher. She has been interviewed by Jam-e-Jam, a high-circulating newspaper, and also by Radio Zamaneh. Many Internet websites have written about her. News of her works can be found in Shargh and Kayhan. User:Mardetanha's claim is not true. Her article in fawiki (Farsi Wikipedia) has been deleted without reaching Consensus and with only 2 votes in favor of deletion. This unacceptable deletion has been a matter of debate in Farsi Wikipedia. Mostafazizi (talk) 11:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If what Alefbe sais about articles in RadioZamaneh, Shargh & Keyhan is right, Taraneh Javanbakht is notable and we should write her article in FarsiWikiPedia again.--Taranet (talk) 07:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. --Kaaveh (talk) 09:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Notability has not been established.. Fabrictramp (talk) 20:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tenebrae (album)

Fails to meet notability requirements (per WP:Music and WP:Notability). A self-released album with no significant coverage in any independent reliable sources. Dgf32 (talk) 21:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As nom mentioned, fails WP:MUSIC. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to notability requirement - i.e. "Notability is met if the musician has been the subject of a broadcast by a media network." It has been broadcast over radio and television. I will refer to one such broadcast: Punchbowl1030 (talk) 23:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[7] — Punchbowl1030 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

~~Keep~~ Another measure submitted as proof of notability is appearance on charts. It has been placed into rotation on CMJ radio and placed in the Euro Americana Charts in January. Here is a record of chart placement for Tenebrae from the Roots Music Report: Punchbowl1030 (talk) 23:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[8]

Please don't !vote more than once. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:MUSIC in more than one area. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Which areas does this album meet the notability requirements at WP:Music? Please remember that this is a discussion for building consensus, not a vote. Dgf32 (talk) 00:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment I can't see any sources via my usual touchstone, google news [9]. Merkin's mum 23:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's usually a bad sign when an album's artist is a red link. Closing admin: Please note that the artist in question doesn't appear to be sufficiently notable (the chart cited by Punchbowl1030 (talk · contribs) isn't a major chart by any means), and that there is no proof that the artist was played on CMJ radio or a major TV network. Therefore, the artist seems to fail WP:MUSIC entirely, and so does their album. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its a real album, made by a real artists who play real shows to real people. Keep it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramonalisa (talk • contribs) 03:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~Strong~~ delete. Album by a ~~non-notable~~ redlinked artist, with no assertion of notability of the album made in the text of the article. —C.Fred (talk) 03:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC), edited 19:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The footnote links seem to demonstrate some notability (although a couple are blogs). JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. X Marx The Spot (talk) 06:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Citation - Radio: [10] Radio: [11] WGN TV: [12] A simple search on artist/album yields other sufficient notability requirements.Punchbowl1030 (talk) 06:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of those is significant coverage, however -- they don't really show notability, they just vaguely mention the artist. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm. The Lake Effect piece is borderline. It seems to be an interview with the artist, but interspersed with live performances, but not all off of Tenebrae. The other two links are trivial coverage. —C.Fred (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would suggest maybe moving this page to Mike Mangione, since he seems to be borderline notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've clarified my deletion rationale above. I agree that, given the interviews, a case could be made for Mangione to have an article. I would not object to the article being moved to Mangione, and/or I would encourage an article to be developed for him, since we're getting close to enough sources for the multiple non-trivial coverage criterion of WP:MUSIC. —C.Fred (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete'. As others have argued here, Mike Mangione may be sufficiently notable for an article, but I don't think this album is. Terraxos (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anastasis Michael

Per WP:BIO#Politicians this person is not notable because he only got 0.03% of the vote on the presidential elections, and no other claims to notability outside of his failed political career are presented. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 21:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I can't find any important references about him in Cypriot or Greek newspapers. The fact that he participated in two elections (especially the Cypriot Presidentship elections) makes him a bit notable but since we don't have references I can't see how we can improve this article. Comment: The article was speedy deleted by A7. I think this was not the right procedure for this case and that was the reason I requested undeletion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any RS and as WP:BIO#Politicians states, just being a candidates doesn't make a person notable. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 21:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet notability requirements for politicians. A look on google fails to reveal anything to even suggest notability. Dgf32 (talk) 21:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass the applicable notability guideline. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 21:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is there an article on him in the Greek-language Wikipedia? Do you find useful references when you use his Greek name? --Eastmain (talk) 06:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. No. 540 Google hits. All about the the 2008 elections, mainly the electoral results, some about his candidateship (He didn't expect to gain the 30,000 votes required to take the 1,000 Cypriot pounds he gave in order to participate in the elections), and some about where and how he voted the day of the elections. No interviews, no other references. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on the information provided. I couldn't find anything about him at Google Scholar. If evidence of notability as a health researcher were added to the article, I would change my vote to keep. --Eastmain (talk) 08:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not apparently notable under any of the clauses in WP:BIO, and I can't find sufficient evidence of coverage for him to be notable per WP:N. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of credible independent sources. Guy (Help!) 14:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Non notable BLP. Clear consensus to delete, but BLPs ought to be deleted unless consensus was not a clear keep, hence would still need deletion. ++Lar: t/c 16:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Evans (Writer)

Possibly a vanity article. No references provided and no ghits on the subject. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 21:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete obviously created by subject, fails WP:BIO Paste (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 21:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO; no RS. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear to be notable. There are results for multiple Hugh Evans' on g-books, but none seem to be this person based on what little the article says. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Impaled Nazarene

This article is technically speediable as A, since it makes no assertion of notability. It also lacks reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 21:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Not a good speedy candidate at all, since the subject has received coverage in news. One of their albums was apparently banned in Germany. Apart from their album getting banned in Germany and the few trivial mentions in mainstream publications, there isn't much notability to be had. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 21:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 21:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple albums on Osmose records means they pass WP:MUSIC. Although I haven't followed it for many years, they've had significant coverage in magazines such as Terrorizer. Prune the unsourced crap, but a proper article can be written. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My gosh, is this band notable. A look at the interwikis should give some indication, as will a peek at their Bio at Allmusic. Chubbles (talk) 21:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Apparently, they were on the Finnish charts. Combined with the other coverage, that's notable enough for me. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are needed for the article, but Keep per Chubbles. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 21:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep RS should be added, but otherwise the article passes WP:MUSIC. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 22:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:MUSIC#C5. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keeep per 71 google news hits [13].Merkin's mum 23:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Keep. MrFish^{Go Fish} 00:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously passes WP:MUSIC. Could do with some work, but definitely notable band. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the above. I'm not even remotely familiar with black metal bands from Finland and even I have heard of this somewhat notorious band. --Bardin (talk) 04:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Passes point 5 of WP:MUSIC - several albums on indie labels, plus all of the above. Lugnuts (talk) 07:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. This is an unsourced BLP about a non notable mayor of a small town. Cambrassa's argument is refuted by WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and Dendodge's by the lack of any sources showing notability. It could be argued that there is no consensus, but the delete arguments are more compelling, and further, for low notability BLPs we should be deleting on no consensus rather than keeping. Therefore, by all these arguments, delete. ++Lar: t/c 21:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Earl J. Field

Doesn't appear to be notable. No reliable sources included in article. D.M.N. (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 21:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Norridge is town of 15,000 inhabitants - that's twice the size of Totnes! And he is none less than the mayor. Cambrasa 21:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to have a quick look at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My argument was not that an article on Totnes exists, but that Totnes is a well-know town in the UK, and that this helps us to put Norridge in perspective. Cambrasa 23:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:POLITICIANS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk"
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Norridge, Illinois. There might be reason to include bio information on that article, but not enough notability for a separate one. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Current mayors are notable. ...... Dendodge.Talk^Help 15:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While this may exist, notability has not been established. Fabrictramp (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the Gorgon's Head

No independent sources show notability for this student "order". This was previously nominated under the title Gorgon's Head and the result was to redirect to this title, but I don't see where the notability is under any title. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A google search comes up with no RS. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: It may be noteworthy, but we have no way of verifying that this "secret society" actually exists, other than to confirm that something called "Gorgon Head" is registered with the government, which tells us nothing about what it is. Thus I think it constitutes Original Research and should get the axe. Further, it was deleted before, under a different name: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Order_of_the_Gorgon's_Head_Lodge. Fogster (talk) 15:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I don't think it constitutes original research. It has cited to sources and really doesn't contain much more than basic factual notes. Also I don't think it should be deleted just because it can't be found on google or very little is know about it. Wikipedia is suppose to be a place where people share their knowledge about everything and unless the creator is shown to be acting in bad faith, I think it should be kept as it appears to be an interesting organization that may have some importance. Blahblah5555 (talk) 06:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. If we count noses, there are more keeps than deletes, by one. (discounting Monkey80, a now indef blocked sock of the article creator), or even steven if we include the nominator. But AfD is not about nose counting, it is about strength of argument. While the subject does have a Barron's mention, and a fairly lengthy one, as carried on the subject's own website, (Barrons itself only has the opening para for free, but it's a match with the subject's copy so it's highly likely to be as the site has it) it's a bit of a puff piece, and Barrons is a daily that needs fodder every day. The NY Sun article is also somewhat puffy. I find it odd that his father's article seems to be a redlink. HIS notability seems pretty clear, CEO of major corporation, etc. But his son? Not so much. 40M in assets under management is not a whole lot, really. It's too bad that the father didn't have an article, we could propose merging this into his... but this article? It smacks of a promotional piece, and I'm not seeing the notability. Note that this search on Google gives 636 ghits, (which is hardly "all over the place" as Monkey80 says) and I have 26000 last I checked... and I'm not by any stretch of the imagination notable. So that's a bust. The delete arguments to me outweigh the keeps, there clearly is no consensus to keep. With a non notable or marginally notable BLP, unless the outcome is clearly "keep" we ought to be deleting, not keeping. Therefore, delete. ++Lar: t/c 23:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Tsai

Unremarkable businessman, article created by subject, speedy delete tag already removed by author. Paste (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy delete - will retag and caution creator. – ukexpat (talk) 20:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom Toddst1 (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 21:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination now that speedy has been declined – ukexpat (talk) 21:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obvious conflict of interest problems aside, the article cites some fairly extensive and reliable sources, including this one: [14] from the New York Sun, and [15] published by Barron's. He meets notability guidelines as spelled out in WP:BIO... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Jayron32 mentioned, the article cites RS. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As mentioned a number of times, the article references a number of reliable sources and the name in question actually pops up all over Google and in important business and art publications. Monkey80 (talk) 22:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ It is also worth mentioning that the article does not seem to fall under any of Wikipedia's deletion criteria. Monkey80 (talk) 22:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Duplicate !vote by Monkey80 struck through. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The comment is actually by a suspected sockpuppet of User:Ctsai1 (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ctsai1) the creator and subject of the article. ++Lar: t/c 23:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination. X Marx The Spot (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I wish I could assume good faith here but an anon user has removed the Afd notice and new user Monkey80's only edits are to this Afd debate, the article itself and its talk page. Sockpuppet anyone? – ukexpat (talk) 00:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This article is now being repeatedly added to by a single anonymous editor User:68.173.46.204 who is in all liklihood the subject. This project is being made a fool of by this currently banned editor/subject. As to notability one can find third party sources about just any CEO/MD of a medium to large company, it does not make the subject notable. Paste (talk) 20:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has enough references to establish notability. --Eastmain (talk) 05:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jayron32 and others, I see zero problem with this article and there are more than ample third party sources published about this person. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g1, nonsense, probable attack page. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steven McKinney

Appears to be a test page/nonsense. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 20:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 17:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frictionless Man

Band "known locally" in Swansea. Doesn't come anywhere near WP:BAND. Article obviously created by a pal of the band, even quotes band member as "recently declaring that 'it's a bit up our own arse to have a Wikipedia entry!'. Let's save them the embarassment and Delete. Camillus (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 21:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "It's a bit up our own arse to have a Wikipedia entry!" Hey Dude, glad to help out there. Delete as article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

roflmao, should be kept for posterity.:)Merkin's mum 00:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability close to WP:MUSIC guidelines. Google news has no hits; a regular Google search does yield some relevant hits but they are the band's website, Wikipedia, MySpace, etc.; I saw nothing that would meet WP:RS guidelines and also satisfy WP:MUSIC notability guidelines. Plus, I would hate to think that we were responsible for someone having an encyclopedia up their arse. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 00:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Although Branson03 makes some impassioned argument, the counter arguments are strong, and the consensus here seems clear, this ball player is not notable. And even if the consensus was not clear, marginal notability BLPs really ought to be deleted. ++Lar: t/c 16:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kasey Kiker

Very non-notable baseball player. Notability comes in the Major Leagues, he's still pretty low in the minors. Wizardman 19:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He plays in a professional league, which is notable according to WP:N. Many other minor league players have articles about them. Branson03 (talk) 19:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Plus, the notability policy states "competitors and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league" are notable. Fully professional = Major League Baseball, not the minor leagues. Wizardman 19:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fully Professional Baseball is not limited to MLB. Branson03 (talk) 20:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Branson03 on this point. The minor leagues are "fully professional". Kinston eagle (talk) 20:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, there's also the Cuban League, the Central League in Japan, etc. The minor leagues do not count under fully professional. If they were they wouldn't continuous fold and move to different major league teams all the time. Wizardman 20:53, 14 April 2008 UTC)

Delete: The standard for WP:BIO requires that a person has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject, and Kiker meets that standard:[16], although there's not much evidence of that in the article as it is. The standard for WP:ATHLETE requires that a person has played in a professional league which Kiker has done. The standards for notability by WP:BASEBALL standards for minor leaguers is: "Have played in at least a whole season in AAA baseball, played in the All-Star Futures Game, won a notable Minor League Baseball award, or been selected for any minor league baseball All-star game in the affiliated minor leagues." From the information at hand, I don't see where Kiker has accomplished any of those things. Should someone find evidence of one of those standards being met, I would be more than happy to change my Delete to a Keep as I am an inclusionist who would like to keep all minor league baseball players. But, we have to live with the compromises that were arrived at through consensus. Kinston eagle (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BASEBALL has suggested guidelines and are not policy. You say Kiker met WP:ATHLETE (which is in WP:BIO), which is one of the suggested guidelines written by the Baseball WikiProject. Branson03 (talk) 20:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It took a very long time for me and some others to wring those suggested guidelines out of the wikiproject. Prior to them, ALL minor league players were being deleted routinely. One had to play in a major league game to be considered notable. I am all for opening up the standards, but until they become more open, I will abide by the compromise arrived at through consensus and apply the 3 prong test for minor leaguers: WP:BIO - WP:ATHLETE - WP:BASEBALL. The standards now are actually much more open than they were last summer. Since that time many new minor league player articles have been written and kept and some have survived the chopping block thanks to the new suggested guidelines. They are working, and until they stop working, I will abide by them. Kinston eagle (talk) 20:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 21:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO, WP:ATHLETE, you said that he is considered notable according to those guidelines. According to WP:BASEBALL, if any player meets WP:BIO, that player is considered notable. Because you already said he is notable according to WP:BIO, he must be notable under WP:BASEBALL. Branson03 (talk) 21:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is A-level minor league baseball really fully professional? This definitely doesn't pass WP:BIO, and there's no way that he can pass the ideas of WP:BASEBALL. Nyttend (talk) 01:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you read what User:Kinston eagle wrote, you would see how it passes WP:BIO, if it passes WP:BIO, it passes WP:BASEBALL, according to the notability guidelines. Fully professional means not part time, playing baseball may seem to be only 3 hours a day, but it is a lot more with practice, workouts, and lessons from more experienced players. Playing in MiLB is not a part time job. Maybe Rookie or Short Season leagues are part time, but A, High A, AA, and AAA are full time. Branson03 (talk) 01:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per current guidelines. No awards, all-star appearances, only brief "A" ball appearances. Spanneraol (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He has won awards, although not very notable (pitcher of the week). He played in a High School All-American All-Star Game. It has only been 10 games into the California League season, he will finish the season in High A, unless he gets promoted to AA. Delete per what current guidelines, he meets all current guidelines I have read. Branson03 (talk) 17:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kiker passes WP:BIO - must be published by a reliable secondary source: [17] - Done

Kiker passes WP:ATHLETE - compete in a fully professional league - California League - Done

Kiker passes WP:BASEBALL standards - Meets the requirements for WP:BIO - Done

As you can see, Kiker is notable according to all related guidelines and policies. Branson03 (talk) 18:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

High School All-Stars games are not currently accepted by WP:BASEBALL. There has been much debate about if "A" ball would be considered "fully professional" and there certainly isn't complete agreement on that matter. WP:BASEBALL has specific guidelines in addition to the bio guidelines for the very reason to clarify which minor leaguers should be included. Previously the answer was none, we have lots of them now.. but they need to be more established than this guy. Spanneraol (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BASEBALL guidelines are not policy and therefore need not be followed. Kiker is the #8 prospect in the Rangers organization which I can say makes him notable [18], the same way you say playing in High A doesn't make him notable. Just because other High A players don't have articles about them, it isn't a reason to delete this article. Just as Wizardman pointed out, the fact that other High-A players have articles about them isn't a reason to keep Kasey Kiker. This AFD is for Kasey Kiker, not for all High-A players. So you shouldn't say delete just because he plays in High A, which you think is not notable enough, even if he is notable enough to pass WP:BIO [19]. Branson03 (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I disagree with the argument that he meets WP:BIO, which includes the statement, "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." The articles from the Google News search generally include only brief/trivial mentions of Kiker (he hurt his arm, he was assigned to Bakersfield), not enough to source an article that is more than a stub. (I also note that there are WP:V problems in the current version of the article, which doesn't cite all of its sources.) There certainly is not a consensus that players in minor league baseball meet WP:ATHLETE—even though the players are paid (making them literally professional), the leagues are essentially a training program for the major leagues, which I don't think represents the intent of the criteria of a "fully professional" league. I think that the notability standards set by WP:BASEBALL represent a reasonable compromise and I support them. Kiker doesn't meet these notability standards. The article can be reintroduced when he meets the notability criteria. BRMo (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even sure why I'm bothering to save this article. I didn't write it, and only edited it once before it was nominated. I don't really feel like trying to prove that he is notable anymore, I can wait until he makes an all star game this year or some other year. The one thing we should learn from this is to make the WP:ATHLETE standards clearer... What exactly is a "fully" professional league? That should be decided for WP:ATHLETE, and not WP:BASEBALL's guidelines. If AAA is the only level of fully professional baseball, all articles about AA, High A, A, Short Season, and Rookie baseball players should be deleted, because they are ONLY considered notable if they compete in a "fully" professional league. Branson03 (talk) 02:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Stifle (talk) 13:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oildex

Appears to be advertising for the company; possible conflict of interest by the only author. nneonneo^talk 19:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. spam. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 19:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Save Oildex article as it has been condensed and rewritten to indicate information regarding Industry standards, securities, and assurances within the automated accounts payable sector. Please remove AfD tag in response. Courtney L Brewer 17:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CourtneyLBrewer (talk • contribs)

Comment: AfD tags aren't generally removed until the debate closes. At this point, it looks like it will be in the article's favor anyway. nneonneo ^talk 23:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an article for Oildex or for Transzap? Opening sentence seems to favor the latter, but the title indicate the former. Sources/citations do not seem to be independent, and the WP:COI problem has not been resolved. Delete without prejudice toward rewriting by an objective third party with no conflict of interest... and preferably with citations from sources not connected to Transzap or its owners. B.Wind (talk) 01:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mook's and Dan's comix inc

non-notable comics - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- no evidence of notability, no cites, no way to verify. Seems to be OR. Bearian (talk) 19:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable company, unverifiable. Only one result on Google search, which is a Wikipedia user page (and only because it has Special:Newpages transcluded into it). --Snigbrook ^(talk) 19:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N, WP:V, WP:NOR, etc... Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 23:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence this even exists (Googling only leads back here) - obviously failing WP:V, WP:N, WP:FICT, etc. (Emperor (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Delete for reasons stated, speedy if possible. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --Angelo (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jordy Brouwer

Fails general notability criteria and notability criteria for footballers EJF (talk) 18:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination ukexpat (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Eddie6705 (talk) 19:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Eddie6705 (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GiantSnowman (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not currently meet criteria in notability essay; should be re-created with more info if he does play for any 'first team' in the future. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 19:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO#Athletes. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 19:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. A ecis^Brievenbus 23:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Merged Although the first AfD outcome was keep, that was in 2006. Our standards for BLPs have moved since then. There is little to say about this person outside of what is or could be said in the Rocketboom article. and except for Gnangarra's argument, the rest of the commenters feel a merge is appropriate. Hence, merge. But even absent a delete consensus, the right thing to do with BLPs is to not have them unless there is a clear consensus for keep. ++Lar: t/c 17:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Baron

Article was merged into Rocketboom on 11 March after no objections were made on the talk page for several months. Intent was to remove this article after the merge; I am posting here for guidance and consensus. What little remains of the article (in current stub state) lacks references (I tried). Although Baron has produced a notable work (Rocketboom) there seems to be no independent, verifiable information about him personally outside of his work on that (very) notable project. Recommend deleting due to merge into Rocketboom, WP:V and WP:BIO (due to lack of sources relating to Baron personally). -Cleanr (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete/~~Merge per my nom. Cleanr (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC) Update: agreed, my proposal involves the merge/redirect. No reason to delete the article and/or history. Cleanr (talk) 01:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep merged. This may not be appropriate for AFD; among other things, merge and delete is a potential GFDL violation. In any case, it should redirect there as a search term. --Dhartung | Talk 18:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep merged per Dhartung. There's no reason to scrub it unless there are gross violations, libel, slander, etc . Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 18:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep IMHO there is enough independent information to warrant an article VoABot II reverted content that was sourced from WP:RS and relevant diff on the day prior to the afd nomination. Also there isnt a section in Rocketboom about its creator so as merge doesnt appear to have occurred yet. Gnan garra 13:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles discuss Rocketboom and make only a brief mention of Baron as producer. The sources referenced were added to the Rocketboom article in March but there's little biographical info to pull. I'd invite people to help on the Rocketboom page. Cleanr (talk) 01:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is information relevant to the Bio and the Rollingstone source [20] isnt in the Rocketboom article the merge occurred at 21:19 UTC March 11 [21] and was then removed in the next edit at 21:32 diff, the next edit on March 21 removed the remaining content from the merge [22]. Obviously from this series of edits, the editors consensus is that the information shouldnt be in the Rocketboom article. The question then is, Is there sufficient information and notability for a separate article? The subject is the founder of a company that is notable, there are multiple independent sources about the subject, as such the subject meets the criteria of WP:N and WP:BLP. Gnan garra 05:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 07:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate casting cost

A term with no notability outside of Magic: the gathering and probably not much notability within it. Not even the official name for the mechanic, according to the article itself. UsaSatsui (talk) 18:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to the main article or an appropriate subarticle. JJL (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a spinout of Magic: The Gathering rules, an article that shouldn't exist either. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not-notable outside of MtG, and no refs for it outside of game material. --Craw-daddy | T | 16:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. The WP:GAMEGUIDE argument is not compelling enough to force a deletion without consensus: that policy prohibits "how-to style manuals", but it does not cover a mere reproduction of game rules that do not focus on advice how one should play. Copyright violation has also been alleged, but the copyrighted work that this text supposedly infringes on has not been specified. Sandstein (talk) 06:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magic: The Gathering rules

The page is nothing more than an instruction guide on how to play the game, with no encyclopedic value to it. It's completely unsourced and what little outside notability the rules themselves may have can be mentioned in the main article. Many of the MtG related articles have similar problems, but this one probably the biggest violator. There is no reason to have a detailed explanation of the rules on Wikipedia. UsaSatsui (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perhaps needs a rewrite to be more encyclopedic, but otherwise this is following precedent for a breakout section from the parent article. We have Rules of chess, which while might have more historical importance, is still the basic idea of this article. Joshdboz (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Besides that being a "What About X" argument, the rules of Chess are far more significant and probably have enough notability to stand on their own...also, a large part of the Rules of chess article is about the rules themselves, not just a rundown of the rules. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - But considering this game is by all means notable, I see no reason why a section that is too large in the main article shouldn't be forked, so long as there are reliable sources. Joshdboz (talk) 18:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - There are no reliable sources. And it's not a "section fork". It's not about the rules. It is the rules. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep highly notable game, and this is a not unreasonable stylistic fork that appropriately expands on the material in the main article. JJL (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See my comment above. It doesn't expand anything. It just writes out the rules. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it seems that they already transwikied this one.--Lenticel ^(talk) 22:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, its already on MtGWiki and that's where it belongs. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 23:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yes, there is a "Rules of chess" article. Sorry, but I find the comparison of a game around for ever to... MTG to be pretentious. JuJube (talk) 03:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If we are going to cover the game at all, the rules are a pretty central pillar in that coverage. Without it we get a lot of descriptions and fluff, but it will be all without a backbone. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Wikipedia is not a game guide, this borderline copyvio has no place here. Link to a rules summary from the main article by all means, perhaps include a one- or two-paragraph summary, but don't include the entire ruleset here. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree. Wouldnt this call for a "rewrite"? Joshdboz (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A rewrite with a chainsaw in hand. --Craw-daddy | T | 23:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Wikipedia:Lists (disrciminate and verifiable) and Wikipedia:Five pillars (consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on Magic The Gathering of which there are multiple published versions. Clear consensus to keep in previous discussion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:NOT#GUIDE. As stated above, this is borderline copyright violation, and is a synthesis of past and current MtG rulebooks to form a new "how to" guide. Another significant difference between this and the article on the rules of chess is that the rules of chess aren't copyrighted. --Craw-daddy | T | 23:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think "game guide" is per se a problem, as it's not providing suggestions about play or anything like it. But it is pretty much an instruction manual (though not in the sense I think WP:NOT implies). In any case, I'm staying out of this. I think keep and delete are both quite reasonable here. Hobit (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a WP:GAMEGUIDE if I ever saw one. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 00:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - with no evidence of notability offered and no dissenting views, this one is obvious. You probably should have just prodded this one, Doc :) --++Lar: t/c 17:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome Asaro

No evidence of notability. He's a "recognised" (by whom?) mobster - so what? we seem to be generating hundreds of these BLPs. Doc^g 17:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, no sources.Renee (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — non-notable criminal with little sourcing available. Generally, when articles resort to weasel wording it means that something is up. No reason to keep this article. EJF (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, unsigned opinion discounted. Sandstein (talk) 07:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Revisionist

One huge neo-communist original research and POV fork of Stalinism (the article itself says it openly: "Anti-revisionism (known to its detractors as "Stalinism")"). `'Míkka >t 17:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I looked briefly into other artciles on Communist theory linked from Portal:Communism and have an impression that wikipedia, among other drawbacks, is turned into vehicle of unreferenced POV which is commonly called Communist propaganda, since it seems no one really cares about Communism today besides communists themselves, and many of them are sterile clear of any criticism. `'Míkka >t 18:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up current article is POV and an exercise in apologetics, but there is a clear difference in topic between it and the Stalinism article. The Stalinism article currently discusses speicifically the ideology and practices of Stalin whilst this article discusses the ideology of people post-Stalin who we would commonly call "Stalinist".Nick Connolly (talk) 19:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you aree right, then the articles must probably be merged. Just as Marxism did not die together with Marx, Stalinism apparently didn't die with Stalin. `'Míkka>t 20:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - hmmm, not sure. The Stalinism article is fairly substantial. It would probably content-fork to a Stalinism-after-stalin anyway. Needs a neutral look, and I'm not sure I'm neutral enough on the issue.Nick Connolly (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is an important concept in 20th century history. Comments here suggest the user is concerned about the concepts ("no-one really cares about Communism today besides communists themselves"), not their encyclopedic importance. I'm suggesting a speedy close. Mostlyharmless (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is horrible! Non-stop POV! That being said, the topic is important and distinct from Stalinism, it needs to be made neutral and given a general cleanup, but with that it could be something very valuable. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 23:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. We are deleting articles, not topics. "A general cleanup" means rewriting from scratch. First of all, the term "anti-revisionism" is used not only by Marxists. Second, within Marxism anti-revisionism is not a homogeneous meaning. In particular, A-R is one of declared traits and slogans of Maoism. etc... (afd is not the place for these talks, anyway). `'Míkka >t 03:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Anti-Revisionism is a notable concept in Marxist movements, it is not identical other articles. Also, I moved this to 'Anti-Revisionism', i suppose such a move wasn't controversial. --Soman (talk) 08:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it is patent nonsense.
Keep, anti-revisionism is an important, distinct concept and is not simply "Stalinism". It is associated with Maoism and Hoxhaism, only the latter of which can fairly be equated with the notion of "Stalinism". It would make just as much sense to merge Maoism into the Stalinism article (none at all). Everyking (talk) 07:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 17:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

't Zand (Bruges)

Delete unsourced one-liner about a nn square in a town. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, no sources. Renee (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless article is expanded and sources are cited. Article lacks content and does not assert notability. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 19:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted, protected form recreation `'Míkka >t 17:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WebCanvas

Non-notable website/project group. This has been CSD A7 deleted twice already[23] but keeps being recreated. Dougie WII (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Suggest protection to keep page from being recreated again. Dusti^{talk to me} 17:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - Marginal notability at best. Nom and both commenters make case for deletion, no dissenters. Unless there was a clear consensus to keep, BLPs like this one should be deleted. ++Lar: t/c 17:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andi Lothian

A rather nonnotable person, whose only claim for notability is his claim that he coined the term "Beatlemania" in olden days when he had something to do with music. This claim is only confirmed from his radio and newspaper interviews. I failed to find any independent confirmation in rather scant 132 unique google hits, and the article Beatlemania (an various beatlemaniac mailing lists) cast doubts on this. For example, "Richard Buskin in "The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Beatles" says that the term was definitely not coined following the Palladium concert, but instead first appeared in the Daily Mirror on Saturday, November 2nd." I don't think wikipedia must be a promotion vehicle for this guy. `'Míkka >t 17:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, even his "insights discover" link is dead. Renee (talk) 18:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was not dead, only wrong syntax. I fixed it. `'Míkka >t 18:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if the Beatlemania claim is true, he's still non-notable. Mangostar (talk) 00:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as recreation of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mymelody-Molly Jones. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peeraporn Thapviwat

insufficient notability: essentially, she appeared in one episode of That's So Raven; I can't determine that she's done anything else immediately notable. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: apparently this is nearly the same content as the article deleted at this AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mymelody-Molly Jones. I'm closing this as G4. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 22:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Social Reality Game

This article is entirely unreferenced, probably original research and reads entirely like something someone just made up themselves one day. Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Alternatively, redirect to Alternate reality game, since the ghits suggest someone is desperately trying to introduce the term. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the fact that the first sentence of the article defines it as "A Social Reality Game (SRG) is a game where people or groups of people compete in games of skill in real life." Google doesn't indicate it's a real term, and the article itself doesn't actually identify it as anything more than a Game. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per comments above. Renee (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per original research, can't find anything on this. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 22:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and the above. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Google turns up some 2700 hits, the first 20 of which all seem to refer to this concept. Further, there seems to be one reliable source behind a pay wall at USA today. I found a number of on-line blog-ish things referring to the same show.... Concept seems to meet WP:V, but WP:N is unclear. Hobit (talk) 01:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SCRABBLE. It's a new phenomenon as the author describes on the talk page. It may evolve into something notable, but it isn't at the moment. Gazimoff (talk) 17:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. BorgQueen (talk) 12:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joint (building)

Delete. I do not believe this is really serving any purpose as a Wikipedia article as this resource is not meant to be a HOW-TO guide, but perhaps I am wrong. Maybe it can be fixed. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 16:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs some clean-up, but the topic of the article is entirely valid. I see no reason to delete it, when some general copyediting is all this one needs. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With the last tag Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) said that it was not referenced. That is clearly false as there is no shortage of outside references, including a parallel treatise on the subject from Underwriters Laboratories. When questioned about this, Coccyx Bloccyx simply removed all that text from his talk page instead answering. The page is hardly a "how-to-guide", as instructions of that nature would be located in specifications and drawings that vary from one construction project to another. --Achim (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I please draw some attention to the latest changes to the article, during the deletion process on this page, by the nominator, which removed a very important technical aspect, that of penetrants going through joints, which is a significant problem with known solutions, under the guise of "pairing it down" but in fact reducing its substance for no recognisable gain. --Achim (talk) 02:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nom moved that content out of a caption box and to the top of the article, improperly above the introduction. I removed that content and just now restored it to the caption box. It probably doesn't belong in that box as it's an entire paragraph. --Oakshade (talk) 02:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the rescue you performed. I only saw that after you fixed it. What I was more concerned about is the removal of pix that clearly show the significant problem and solutions to what happens when mechanical and electrical services penetrate joints required to have a fire-resistance rating. He chose to just remove that and I really don't see why one would do that, unless one were in the business with a highly covalent and combustible sealant to sell, which would autoignite upon contact with hot metallic penetrants. But the nominator does not appear to have enough knowledge of the topic for that. This whole thing is really weird. I tried to discuss the matter with the nominator but he just refused and kept repeating arguments previously defeated by facts. It's an odd topic to argue over, all cut and dry like that. --Achim (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep there is absolutley no lack of coverage. Recommend this is closed as a speedy keep. The article has numerous references within the page itself. Dusti^{talk to me} 17:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - and you want me to see what there? Dusti^{talk to me} 17:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Have to agree. What does that have to do with Dustihowe's argument? --Dhartung | Talk 18:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article could certainly be improved, but it is a real term with real information and real sources to back it up. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, valid topic for an article. It has references. It is very far from being a manual. Sorry, I just don't see what the objection is here. --Dhartung | Talk 18:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has references. It's a notable topic, in that it's been written about in reliable sources. It does not, contra the nominator, tell you how to make one. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Quite a notable topic. Antelan ^talk 20:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Building joints are very basic structure components. Very encyclopedic. --Oakshade (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it's a pretty basic construction topic. As an aside, the nominator apparently doesn't want to discuss the topic, as shown by this edit removing discussion from his user talk page, so I'm suspecting this might be a WP:POINT nomination. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems like a notable and reasonably covered topic. A bit concerned about the nominator's conduct too. Maxa megalon 2000 05:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Highly important aspect in engineering. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sjakkalle; this is a factor in engineering; the article may need picked through to see what's been changed during the AfD; some may need reverted. I think it's at a WP:SNOW point by now. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete nancy ^(talk) 16:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St.Teresa's Church, Sembium

Article was successfully prodded, but recreated by the original creator. Here was my prod reason: "Article reads as a promotion. The notability seems spurious and not within our guidelines. No sources are cited, no independent coverage found on google. I don't believe an article within wikipedia guidelines could be written about this topic." Andrew c ^[talk] 16:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 16:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteCan anyone even prove this place exists? Take a look at this google search. Without any sources whatsoever and seemingly little potential for finding them, I have to say delete. If any kind of sources are provided I will reconsider. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, it does exist and looks like it might have a Catholic school linked to it, but all of the Google hits I found (under Sembium Chennai Teresa) contained just peripheral mentions to it, and more often than not, called it "Theresa." Non-notable site. Renee (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thugstep

This music "genre" appears to lack any reliable sources. All of the citations are either to unreliable sources (blogs/non-peer reviewed content) or to websites that do not explicitly mention "thugstep". Editors are welcome to google for themselves, but the limited results are not encouraging. Wickethewok (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 16:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: utterly non-notable. page has already been deleted once. --Kaini (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not very notable, unless proper references are added. Dwilso 22:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article still needs work and work -- Werwerwer11 (talk) 13:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-Notable.--RyRy5 (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and salt -- Nashville Monkey 23:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - There is a clear consensus here for "not" keeping, the question becomes whether a redirect is warranted. I find consensus on that matter to be slightly in favour of not redirecting at this time. --++Lar: t/c 18:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Schism (film)

The article isn't noteworthy enough to be on Wikipedia. StaticGull Talk 15:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 16:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, speedy under G11 if possible, nothing but someone spamming their YouTube video. Nothing at all notable there.Collectonian (talk) 16:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless there are better sources for its notability. There are many more Fitna-related clips and this one doesn't appear more important than any of the others. (Although it is not bad.) --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fitna (film). There has been some reaction, and I have included that link on the main page. However, there is not enough reaction to warrant a full article.StephenBuxton (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. I have done a google search and found a few hits, however, most of it is youtube. There are outside links so the redirect will be more appropriate than a delete, that is if we are following the notability policy. Dusti^{talk to me} 17:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above as well. I agree, this film isn't notable enough to stand on its own, but as it relates to a notable film, it's legitimate to add it to the reaction section of the main article. (The issue can always be revisited in future should Schism achieve independent notability, of course i.e. winning an award or getting major press coverage on its own, etc). 23skidoo (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no redirect as a redirect would be misleading. No prejudice towards recreation if this becomes the subject of (not just a tiny mention in) multiple credible articles. gren グレン 10:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no redirect Not notable. Fitna is notable, because author is well known politician, but this is really without any influence etc. Yopie 16:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopie (talk • contribs)
Delete Not notable, and no redirect.--EclipseSSD (talk) 18:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. Stifle (talk) 13:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wan Xiaoli

Insufficient assertion of notability. Unless notability shown, delete. --Nlu (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Per WP:N TheAsianGURU (talk) 19:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're going to call for a speedy delete, please specify which of the criteria listed at WP:CSD it satisfies. cab (talk) 00:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 15:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 15:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep quite sufficient coverage from reliable sources: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL cab (talk) 00:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable popular musician, has a wide reputation in his genre (PRC "college folk"), two albums, meets WP music notability guidelines. Deletion proposal is disruptive and proposer did not send a message to the creator of the page. Improve, don't delete. We must not denigrate the contributions of other long-time, productive editors by impoverishing rather than enriching our content. The article is a stub because the creator of the article is not fluent in Chinese and was hoping that other editors with more skill would add to it. We are a collaborative project and should act in such a manner, not attempting to destroy others' contributions in an arbitrary and damaging way (and, in fact, this editor has stated that s/he refuses to inform creators of articles that s/he AFDs--inexcusable. Badagnani (talk) 03:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per cab. --Bardin (talk) 08:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to be enough significant coverage for WP:N.--Beloved Freak 23:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Music#Others. Me what do u want? _{Your Hancock Please} 12:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep The references cited here by Bardin have swayed this to a keep consensus. However, references in an AFD discussion do not a better article make. They need to be integrated appropriately into the body of the article, as well as listed as references at the bottom. Marking the page as needing this cleanup. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monsters Are Waiting

This group does not seem notable. Article contains four links to external sites: 1) their official website, 2) their myspace page, 3) a link to answers.com, 4) an empty profile on SPIN.com that does not contain any information about the band itself. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 15:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 15:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, utter failure of WP:MUSIC, when a band's only "reference" is Myspace, that's a red flag right there. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 22:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If an article does not indicate notability, tag it with {{notability}}. A poorly written article that only uses a myspace page as a reference should be tagged with {{unreferenced}} or something similar. Neither are acceptable reasons for deletion. A very quick google search indicates that this subject is notable enough for an article on wikipedia per criteria 1 of WP:MUSIC. They have been the subject of multiple non-trivial mention in independent and reliable publications including this, this, this and this. All that on just a quick google search. If you're not willing to spent just a single minute looking up a subject on google, then I really feel that you should not be nominating an article for deletion or voting delete. --Bardin (talk) 08:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found by Bardin which appear to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Davewild (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Esradekan. Stifle (talk) 13:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although the sources found by Bardin during this discussion are not overwhelming, they appear to meet the reliable sources requirements to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. This would have been a no brainer delete otherwise, so the nom is not unreasonable. The editors wanting to keep or add content have the burden to establish notability and find RS. However, I run a quick google search before voting based on notability and references in AfDs. The references do need to be added to the article. — Becksguy (talk) 13:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - although I see no reason to assume that this nom was in bad faith. Indeed, it seems a reasonable nom, although it appears headed toward keep - the responsibility to assert notability and provide refs lies with those who insert information into an article. Pastordavid (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because this article does indicate notability per the notability guidelines. Razor flame 15:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete all, consensus is that the articles fail the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kingpin Skinny Pimp

Non-notable rapper. Had an early association with Three 6 Mafia (they produced his first album) but that's as close as he gets. No releases on major or "one of the more important indie labels". Fails WP:MUSIC. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons expressed in the nomination. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 16:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All Fails WP:MUSIC Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 22:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Pigman☿ 20:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oil Slick (Transformers)

Seems not to satisfy inclusion standards, presumably there should be a list of Transformer characters? As such, if there is, there should be a merge. asenine ^t/_c 12:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is pleanty of presidence for Transformers character to have their own pages, and this page covers three character who share a name through 3 different series, the last of which is a character from a currently airing TV show. It's a stub, but more information is being added now. Mathewignash (talk) 12:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 15:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Let Oil Slick's page stay. He's been in the different toylines. For all we know, he may debut in the Transformers: Animated show. Rtkat3 (talk) 2:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Stifle (talk) 08:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jules moretti

Contested PROD. No real evidence of notability given. Article has lots of external links but they are mostly open content websites such as myspace and facebook. Roleplayer (talk) 11:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The source remaining for this is on French DJ producer Joachim garraud forum (refered in the article) the side competition that accored now 2 years ago has ended but it is still refered and back in the days they had a dedicated website and of course podcast to the winners of competition. --Jamesedinburgh (talk) 12:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I read the WP:MUSIC article and I do feel that the Jules Moretti article does indeed fit in especially when it says and I quote "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted;". Now all of the points mentioned on that page has references that I found through French and English websites. Also I would like to point out the the Jules Moretti comes close to the criteria number 12 "Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network.", close because the broadcast is not radio nor TV based but podcast which is a more popular media in the 20th century especially when spend more time on the internet then TV. The podcast broadcast was 1 hour long and was by a 3rd party international DJ Joachim Garraud thus broadcasted not just nationally but internationally. Perhaps you could give me a few clear issues regarding that page which I will be more then happy to modify or complete. Very Respectfully. Jamesedinburgh (talk) 17:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 15:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 23:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Entry reads like a magazine article, not one for an encyclopedia. Demonstration of meeting WP:MUSIC lacking (podcasts are inherently non-notable without independent coverage of them). In fact, aside for a link for Moretti's Alexis rank, there seems no attempt to show any independent coverage of this individual. Delete. B.Wind (talk) 01:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, the evidence brought forward by those supporting keeping the article shows it does meet the relevant notability guideline and addresses the concerns of the delete opinions which all mention notability and were before that evidence was brought forward. Davewild (talk) 17:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Qiu Xia He

Is this musician sufficiently notable? I don't see enough evidence. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 15:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 15:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable enough for her own article, but should be mentioned in any articles of groups that she had played with. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Per WP:N TheAsianGURU (talk) 19:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - 6 CDs, notable pipa player in Canada, meets notability requirements. The fact that the editor proposing deletion did not take the 40 seconds it would have taken to notify the article's creator shows bad faith, and reinforces the suspicion that this is a disruptive proposal. Badagnani (talk) 03:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that this editor makes an optional notification supposedly mandatory shows that this keep vote is disruptive. --Nlu (talk) 03:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article might not provide enough evidence of the subject's notability but that's cause for use of the {{notability}} tag. A google search indicates that the artist has been the subject of multiple non-trivial mention in independent publications as for instance here, here, here and this pdf download. These are all mentions that focus on the individual musician herself but there are other mentions that focus more on the Silk Road group she founded. Given that the genre in question is not some mainstream stuff but apparently some fairly obscure fusion of world music, I think that's pretty damn notable. Easily qualifies per criteria 1 of WP:MUSIC.--Bardin (talk) 07:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes notability guidelines. Just because sources aren't in the article, doesn't mean they don't exist. Subject is notable and verifiable, so article should be kept, however much cleanup it needs.--Beloved Freak 23:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although possibly we should have an article on "Silk Road music", the group with the Juno Award nomination, and merge her into it. WP:MUSIC says on number 8 that "Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury or Grammis award" is a qualification.--T. Anthony (talk) 07:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, per WP:BIO #1. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Guo

Is this musician sufficiently notable? While she's on the National Geographic and Allmusic Web sites, I don't see sufficient notability. Delete --Nlu (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 15:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 15:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unless more sources show up to demonstrate notability. The National Geographic link is just a very short bio of her.[24] Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Per WP:N TheAsianGURU (talk) 19:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When NatGeo has your biography on its site, you are notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - This is premature as the AFDer did not take the necessary time or courtesy to inform the creator of the article (perhaps s/he has more detailed information about this artist). Badagnani (talk) 00:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that this editor makes an optional notification supposedly mandatory shows that this keep vote is disruptive. For one thing, I came across this article while pruning the category into subcategories. If I have to notify everyone on every one of these, I'd get nothing done. --Nlu (talk) 03:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's nice to be informed and the polite thing to do, but it's true it's not precisely required. I made this when I was trying to expand Wikipedia coverage on world/Non-Western music. It's been a bit then. Anyway when you do a Google Search for "yang-qin" (granted a variant transliteration) with "musician" Anna Guo is one of the main names you get.[25] She's apparently been in the Canadian news and toured internationally. I don't remember how strict Wikipedia:Notability (music) is though so whatever y'all decide is best I suppose. I'm a "he" by the way, the "T" stands for "Thomas."--T. Anthony (talk) 08:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or you can do a Google search to see what other references are available. Deletion means you searched and coudn't find any more references, not that the article doesn't have enough. A tag would have sufficed. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Qualifies per criteria 1 of WP:MUSIC. She has been the subject of non-trivial mention in independent publications like this and this in addition to the sources already provided in the article. Given that we're discussing a performer outside any mainstream music genre, I think it is rather notable that she has even merit an entry on such a mainstream site as Allmusic. Also strongly agree with Richard Arthur Norton. If an article does not indicate notability but there's a possibility that the subject might be notable, then the proper thing to do is to tag the article with {{notability}} instead of nominating it for deletion and then asking us other editors Is this musician sufficiently notable? You should already be convinced that the subject is non-notable before nominating the article for deletion. --Bardin (talk) 08:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes notability guidelines with significant coverage in reliable sources. Perhaps, before rushing to delete, we should be trying a little harder with articles like these in the name of countering systemic bias. I'm not saying change the rules for non-Western subjects, let's just look that little bit further before assuming lack of notability. (Not directed at anyone in particular, just my own little rant...)--Beloved Freak 23:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quite notable, and a poster child for why WP:BIAS is such an important project. Chubbles (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness User:Nlu has apparently worked on a good deal of Chinese and Taiwanese articles. So it's plausibly not ignorance of Chinese stuff so much as disdain for the more music/pop-culture side of Wikipedia. And I'd be happy to do more articles on people from the Tang dynasty instead, it's just those harder to get information about.--T. Anthony (talk) 23:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How does that explain why Nlu attempted to delete Abing, an article on the musician the PRC regards to be the quintessential folk musician of the 20th century? Please take a look at that AFD, then possibly modify your comment just above. Badagnani (talk) 00:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well to repeat "so much as disdain for the more music/pop-culture side of Wikipedia." I'm saying he or she may feel, wrongly I agree, that very few musicians are of encyclopedic value so they rarely merit entries in Wikipedia. Nie Er or Jiang Wen-Ye might not be okay, but less known than that uh-uh.--T. Anthony (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disdain for music or pop culture is hardly a valid reason to flood the afd board with eight different nominations on Chinese performers, of which only one - Chek Yui Hong - merits deletion. All the others clearly qualifies as notable: Qiao Qiao, Siqing Lu, Yihan Chen, Wan Xiaoli, Abing, Qiu Xia He and this Anna Guo. The nominator has also repeatedly expressed uncertainty as to the notability of these performers, making such questions and comments as "Is this musician sufficiently notable?" and "Was this musician notable? I think it's a tough call, but I'd say no." If the nominator is uncertain, the {{notability}} tag should have been sufficient. The scary thing is that these articles could have easily been deleted given that a couple of other voters were all too quick to vote delete on some of these articles merely based on the nominator's word despite the strong grounds for notability that later voters like Richard Arthur Norton, BelovedFreak, Chubbles and myself made. --Bardin (talk) 07:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I agree that s/he should've went for a notability tag if uncertain. I'm hoping he'll withdraw some of them.--T. Anthony (talk) 07:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chek Yui Hong

Notability highly suspect, poorly written, and appears to be self-promotion. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 15:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Per WP:N TheAsianGURU (talk) 19:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 15:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 15:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NN. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Merely a conductor of a local school orchestra. No albums recorded or released. No notability. --Bardin (talk) 08:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of passing WP:N or WP:MUSIC guidelines.--Beloved Freak 23:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abing

Was this musician notable? I think it's a tough call, but I'd say no. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 14:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reliable sources do exist ([26]). There is a reference to this man in Blind musicians, but in that article he is referred to by his real name, Hua Yanjun. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 15:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 15:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 15:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Sources prove he exists. Is he notable? Ahh, no. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - This is ludicrous--the proposing editor clearly doesn't know anything about this subject (and didn't take any time to look it up), because Abing is regarded in the PRC as one of the most important musicians of the 20th century. The fact that the editor proposing deletion did not take the 40 seconds it would have taken to notify the article's creator shows bad faith, and reinforces the suspicion that this is a disruptive proposal. Badagnani (talk) 03:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that this editor makes an optional notification supposedly mandatory shows that this keep vote is disruptive. --Nlu (talk) 03:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - And as for your claim that Abing is "not an important musician"? That's one of the strangest and most inaccurate statements I've ever read from any editor at WP, ever. Badagnani (talk) 03:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing is in the article that established that he was notable. He may be notable. But without independent knowledge, I can't say that he is -- and that is something the article was supposed to establish. In any case, there was a reason why I submitted this for AfD; if I were sure that he was not notable, I'd have speedy deleted it myself. --Nlu (talk) 03:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You can protest; that is fine. However, it's clear that you should have begun with a posting at the discussion page, asking whether this person was notable; or, even better, done about 7 minutes of Internet research. That would have been the proper and courteous course of action. Just because we have a tool doesn't mean we have to use it to assault our content, or other editors; we should work together to improve, not blank or delete, our content. Please consider editing in a more thoughtful manner in future, and consider your attempt to delete an article on a musician that musicians throughout the PRC regard as the quintessential traditional musician of the 20th century a caution to yourself. We all need that from time to time. Badagnani (talk) 04:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand - Famous person - but there needs to be more assertion of notability. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—easily passes WP:N or WP:MUSIC criterion #1. Here are just a few sources, for example: Three "Erhu" Pieces by Abing Tradition and Change in the Performance of Chinese Music World Music: The Rough Guide The Chinese Cultural Revolution: A History. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Paul Erik. I strongly suggest the nominator review WP:BEFORE. Deletion is not cleanup, and using it as such can damage the project Bfigura ^(talk) 04:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all the above. Also agree with Bfigura that deletion is not cleanup and that nominator should be convinced that article deserves deletion before nominating it as such. Don't ask us questions and don't tell us it's a hard call. If you're not sure, tag it with {{notability}} instead of nominating it for deletion. --Bardin (talk) 08:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This musician was pivitol to the development of erhu music. His compositions are the most famous and most played in current erhu repertoire (i.e. Erquan, etc). Indeed, not many have written about him but that does not suggest unimportance. If you remove him, you might as well remove all the erhu players and maybe the erhu itself (he's that important in my eyes; the Mozart of the erhu world). --Charlie Huang 【遯卋山人】 09:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - easily passes WP:MUSIC and WP:N guidelines. Plenty of significant coverage in reliable sources.
Keep I'm satisfied that notability has been well-established.--T. Anthony (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW and the speedy deletion criteria. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charters Towers Miners

Non-notable amateur rugby team. 20 non-wiki ghits (0 google news hits), none of which show notability. No sources in article to back up notability. Contested prod. Fabrictramp (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly non-notable.--Grahame (talk) 02:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. —Moondyne click! 14:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not-notable. I also somewhat question the usefulness of claiming that they are planning a "nucleur attack of atomic Diarrhea", somehow. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 21:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn per rewriting of the article that replaced an irrelevant rant with relevant basic information. Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 19:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mousam River

Unsourced coatrack article about water pollution. No indication of where this river is located. Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 14:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: multiple problems. ♥Shapiros10 Wuz Here♥ 14:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC) Keep Can I change my vote? The rewrite would be good as a stub. ♥Shapiros10 Wuz Here♥ 19:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 15:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apparently, it's in Maine. Aren't rivers generally considered inherently notable? If so, reduce to a stub and keep. Zagalejo^^^ 18:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is a real river in southern Maine. (See List_of_Maine_rivers#Southern_Maine) The best thing would be for someone to rewrite as a stub on the actual river. But if no one gets the chance to do that any deletion should be without predjudice to recreation as a proper geographical article.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the article as a very bare-bones stub. I don't know much about rivers, so if someone more knowledgble can add some info, that would be great. Zagalejo^^^ 18:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 16:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boys of '98

Non-notable song. The only references are links to the websites of the non-notable artists who performed it: an American pub band called Shilelagh Law BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 14:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. I can't find any good secondary sources on google on this topic that aren't written by themselves, or a forum, blog, et. al. Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 15:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Guliolopez (talk) 03:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten (talk) 08:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cowboy's Cafe

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Cowboy's Cafe

It's nothing more than an advert for a restaurant in Downey, California, written by an editor with the same name as the restaurant, thus WP:COI. Notability is neither demonstrated nor asserted. Wikipedia is not a directory. Qworty (talk) 13:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I read a message on the contributor's talk page stating that it should be kept, "not only because it has been in business for 20 years, but because it has a notable celebrity clientele". If wikipedia had articles for every business that has been around for over 20 years and every restaurant where celebritied have eaten, we'd have bigger problems. ♥Shapiros10 Wuz Here♥ 15:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral since I helped to rewrite it; I thought there was an assertion of notability having once had a celebrity as one's head chef. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is highly amusing to consider Boss Hogg as a head chef, but it isn't something by which notability is inherited. --Dhartung | Talk 18:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:COI. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Integrated pornography

Non-notable "recently coined" term with no evidence of use found. References provided are about HD video, not the subject. Made up, original research at best. Contested Prod. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - non-notable (possibly spurious) neologism with no verifiability; apparently WP:OR. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely unverifiable. Can't find any sources on this, reliable or otherwise. Sources in article have nothing to do with it.--Beloved Freak 14:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, attempt to promote a protologism, without even the courtesy of sources proving it exists. --Dhartung | Talk 18:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as a non-notable neologism and likely original research. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 23:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Noids do not have sex with doodles. Oh, and per all of the above - silly neologistic buzzword. JuJube (talk) 04:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Differeniate and delete Sceptre ^(talk) 19:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatant protologism without any sources. To be honest I'd like to see an example out of curiosity, though! ~ mazca ^talk 21:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --Angelo (talk) 16:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wimpole 2000

Contested PROD on a minor local football (soccer) team. Article's original creator contends that the team has received extensive news coverage, but all the linked articles relate to a single incident involving the referee of a match in which this team happened to be involved i.e. the team is not actually the subject of the coverage ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Club is not notable. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This team's league is on the fifteenth rung of the English football system, far below the professional level; it's not far above a beer league. No reliable sources about the team, no notability established. RGTraynor 13:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. As a precedent, the level of English football that is usually considered notable enough is Level 10. - fchd (talk) 13:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable, is too low down in the pyramid system. Eddie6705 (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. As noted by the nominator, even though the club was the recipient of an unusual - and possibly even notable - action by a referee, that does not render the club itself notable. No other claim of notability for the club. —C.Fred (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 07:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1541ultimate

I'm not quite certain exactly what this is, but its creator gets 34 unique Google hits, and the title itself gets 71 unique Google hits. Unless I'm reading too quickly (which is entirely possible; that's why I'm here) most of these pages are of the hobbyist variety, and I don't think that any of it passes for notable. - CobaltBlueTony _talk 13:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: per A7, no assertion of notability. "There is a similar hobbyist project to the 1541 Ultimate called '1541 III', but it is not mass-produced, and it is unknown if it ever will be." Yep, that's about right. Ravenswing 13:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been speedied before. A consensus at deletion review was clearly headed for an overturn of that decision. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 13:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Non-notable. archanamiya talk 13:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 14:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a cartridge for the Commodore 64, just like the article says. Plus i get 5210 unique hits for "1541 Ultimate" on Google, and 582 for the creator. I dunno what you entered... DeeKay64 (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Mmm, no. You have 5000 total hits. Follow that to the end, and that's 101 unique hits, almost all of them forum and blog posts. Not a reliable source among them. Ravenswing 14:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I consider a unique hit to be unique web pages; I don't count multiple hits on the same page, or subpages within the same site, to be unique. If I'm doing this wrong, someone please let me know. Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Exactly, and the swiftest way to weed that out is not to look at the first page of hit listings, but the last page. Ravenswing 14:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no attribution of notability to independent and reliable sources. --Dhartung | Talk 18:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements I added some more information on what the cartridge is for, as that seems to be an issue for some people (doesn't stop them from speeddeleting though). I also added some more links, but I'm sorry I won't be able to provide links to the NY Times if that's what you're asking for! ;-) It's not really mainstream, but then again, so is probably 70% of wikipedia's articles! ;-) DeeKay64 (talk) 08:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- THESE are the TOP THREE issues: Notablility. Notablility. ...and... Notablility. What the cartridge is for is unimportant; you should be focusing on notability, as this alone will fortify the article from constant threats of deletion. By the way, the fact that other non-notable or otherwise inferior articles exist does not arbitrarily mean that we get to keep this one. If you see something wrong, please feel free to fix it. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 12:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Jesus, Tony, calm down, I heard you the first of 300 times you screamed "notability" at me... Just like I heard you when you told me that other stuff exists (o rly?). Honestly: What is your problem? You've shown time and time again you hadn't even read the article before you deleted it (see your opening "thoughts"), and your reasoning is simply "I don't know what this is, but that's okay because I don't care so off it goes"... FYI: I did add the "purpose" part to improve the "notability" aspect. Does it not say in all the deletion pages I should prove why this is worthy to be listed on Wikipedia? But go ahead, have it your way, delete the article, I'm done contributing to Wikipedia. If I have to painstakingly justify every entry for boneheaded people that don't even know what it's about and don't care either, it's a sysiphus job... You claim on your userpage that "you swear you're not a deletionst". Sure feels that way to me (and to others, too, obviously!)... This is not community, this some people enjoying the power to speeddelete just a little too much... DeeKay64 (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Speedy deletion is no longer an option, so why you're bringing that up again, I don't know. "Purpose" does not infer notability. Please read that criterion carefully. What makes this product prominent or strikingly unique, making it stand out among other products of this type? Was it covered by multiple, independent, unbiased, notable, verifiable, and reliable sources? Where are these references? Nothing in the article so far meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. When I click on the link for your Google search it only turned up 100 hits, but many of those are pages in strings of BBS discussions, so some of these get filtered out as not being a unique hit. Similarly, the creator's link (all I did was click what you linked up there) returns only 47 hits before one filters out the duplicate sites. It seems that this product and its creator are popular on the bulletin board arena, but haven't reached out so far as to get the notable coverage Wikipedia requires. (I'll ignore your uncivil remarks to me as it seems you have to catch up on community consensus-accepted standards for inclusion.) - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - You seriously ask me what makes this product strikingly unique among other products of this type? Jeez, Tony, you still haven't read the article, have you? It is the ONLY Cartridge that truly emulates a 1541! As for BBS discussions: Today's c64 users are solely BBS based, there's not much mainstream media ever covering the subject. So, by your standards, every c64 subject beyond say 1992 when Commodore died should be deleted from Wikipedia (please, do tell me about the "otherstuffexists" page again, I can't wait to read that once more!).. Have fun doing so, Mr. Notability! And please, don't ignore my uncivil remarks, i didn't ignore you screaming "NOTABILITY!!!" at me like a madman either! ;-) DeeKay64 (talk) 08:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Beyond that, if clearer proof of non-notability is needed, I just looked at the link for the 1541 Ultimate homepage, which states very proudly that a whole 25 units have been shipped! Whether this module is a big deal in C64 circles I couldn't say, but even if it represents a whole 1% of remaining C64 users (which is probably not the case), that'd be hugely trivial by Wikipedia standards. I wonder whether this is a WP:SPAM issue as well. Ravenswing 18:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, you'll just have to take my word on that this cartridge is a big deal in the c64 scene. Bigger than, say, the MMC64, which has had its own entry for way over a year now! ;-) The first 25 units have been shipped last week, more are going out this week, and the preorder list is long. Gideon basically had to be persuaded by the c64 scene to mass-produce it, so it's his first time he does something like this. Oh, and it's interesting to know there's a limit on how many units a product has to sell to be included in Wikipedia, i guess that's very bad news for the author of the Bugatti Veyron article f.ex.! ;-) DeeKay64 (talk) 08:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Look, notability is not necessarily about the number of units sold or the number of hits it gets when looking up something using google. This device marks another important milestone in C64 history, as much as the Turbo master CPU by Schnedler Systems (which was, the first NTSC-65816 Turbocard ever for the C64 and also won't get many hits in google) and very unlike some ROM-Mods for other cartridges, which were way more popular and will yield more hits in Google and which are, of course not half as notable as this device. And as long as you don't know what you're talking about, regarding this device and it's meaning for C64 history, I guess you better leave the decision if that device is notable or not to the C64-crowd. This is nothing which is in any way related to google's pagerank or number of units sold. You better trust the experts on that and these are among highly respected members of the C64-community, like Deekay, and not among some random people who happen to be Wikipedia watchdogs. wgayk, (former editor of GO64! Magazine) —Preceding comment was added at 21:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This does not (yet) meet the Wikipedia notability criterions; there are no mainstream sources for this article. I am also a C64 scener, just so you know my bias. (New account, user originating from the Swedish Wikipedia.) -radiantx/pdd (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- weak delete I agree with Radiantx above but I'd like to say that the behavior of people crusading for deletion in this article have probably pushed away a potential contributor who acted in good faith. this article is fairly well put together in its own right it just happens to cover a subject with very limited appeal. And, to be fair, some homebrew mods of consoles and console devices are notable for reasons apart from the number of adherents. See wgayk above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Protonk (talk • contribs) 05:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This will probably become a quite important device for C64 hobbyists. Wikipedia has sillier articles that have passed through AfD unharmed. The content is good, the device is notable, and I'm now thinking I should try to buy one. :) toresbe (talk) 10:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Your grounds do, in fact, violate WP:CRYSTAL. Wikipedia cannot have articles based on the (completely unproven) assumption that this device will become as prominent a one as the MMC64 mentioned above, which has an impressive nearly five hundred unique G-hits and can be said to clear the "proven cult favorite" element of notability. It's regrettable if the creator is unhappy we're not waiving WP policy or guidelines to give this promotional article a free pass, but to quote WP:V, "... [a]rticles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy ... peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." The best way to save this article is to provide such sources, not to challenge those looking to see them. Ravenswing 15:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn club. Stifle (talk) 11:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The quality of the article is quite bad. The information is very inconsistently presented and the semantic structure is less than ideal. Instead of investing considerable effort in improving it, get rid of the whole thing now, because this device is not meaningful. --84.250.188.136 (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I sympathize with McCombs's desire to have the article deleted, but the sources provided in the AFD clearly indicate notability. Past vandalism, while worrisome, is not a good reason for deletion in and of itself, and can be handled in other ways. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cass McCombs

The article in it's current form is speediable, but in the interest of fairness, it probably was not before I removed alot lot of text to the talk page. I do not think this one is particularly notable. The subject has also requested deletion. NonvocalScream (talk) 13:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability is margina, deletion requested by subject, fairness and courtesy support deletion. Guy (Help!) 13:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: However much the subject has (allegedly) requested deletion, a very casual Google search turned up that one of his albums was named on Amazon.com's Best of 2007 list, he was featured in separate half-hour AND fifteen minute pieces on NPR's World Cafe last October and December, respectively (the transcripts of which are linked off of NPR's website), he was signed last fall by Domino Records, a major indie label ... folks, this meets WP:MUSIC going away. Ravenswing 14:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket #2008040910002834 / per your use of "allegedly" I will ask for a review of the ticket. NonvocalScream (talk) 14:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Comment: Just confirming (and Guy will likely do the same) that the subject has indeed asked for the article to be deleted. There is no "allegedly" about it, the subject is in contact with us via OTRS. Nick (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources about him. His album being named one of a fairly large set of recommendations (more than a hundred) by an online retailer does not count as a "notable award". --Relata refero (disp.) 14:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Err -- two feature length interviews with him on National Public Radio absolutely constitute reliable sources about him. Ravenswing 14:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About. NPR also interviewed a custodian at my university twice. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: You're parsing words. The interviews are ABOUT McCombs, yes. Feel free to follow the links and listen for yourself. (And quite aside from anything else, if NPR had two pieces totalling forty-five minutes about your custodian, yes, he'd pass WP:V too.) Ravenswing 15:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nonencyclopædic Avi (talk) 15:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my long-standing belief that subjects of marginal notability should be able to "opt-out" on request. - Philippe 15:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment maybe the articles on his albums should be added into this discussion (Dropping the Writ (Cass McCombs album), A (Cass McCombs album), PREfection). Guest9999 (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Anyone do a Google News search? There are several articles specifically about him. I wouldn't call him borderline notable. Why not just protect the article? Zagalejo^^^ 18:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't done a count on what articles cover what, but a lot are just "Cass McCombs and Artist X, The Party Room, Aug. 18, 7:30 p.m.", or reviews of gigs he's been in as a secondary act, where the main focus is on the primary act. Ral315 (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure, some of the articles are like that, but there are also a few interviews with him (specifically) and lots of album reviews. Zagalejo^^^ 20:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Philippe and JzG. Marginal notability shouldn't force an article, otherwise I'd probably have one. Ral315 (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a clear pass for WP:MUSIC, which was obvious before the nominator gutted the article just prior to nominating it for deletion. McCombs passes WP:MUSIC bullet point 1 by leaps and bounds, and has releases on 4AD and Domino Records; he also toured with Modest Mouse. So, total, we have him as notable per WP:MUSIC points 1, 4, 5, and 12. Chubbles (talk) 20:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I was honest about the gutting in the nomination. There was a sourcing issue. [removed] The notability guideline, is just that, a guideline, advisory in nature. The community is free, as they always have been, to make decisions on an article, individually. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, removed. That said, he's really not marginally notable; he's quite famous. I don't normally check AfD very often, but I looked at this one because I'd heard of him before. Famous people should be encyclopedically documented whether they like it or not. Chubbles (talk) 21:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added on to my comment regarding guidelines since your reply. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If he were an absolute borderline case requesting deletion, I'd say you'd have a stronger case here. But he's had tons of media coverage and critical acclaim. In the interest of comprehensiveness (and I can't see any reason to not strive for that), he ought to be documented here as a culturally and musically significant figure. Chubbles (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the notability guideline is indeed a guideline, although it'd be tough to argue that someone who provably passes four of the (not at all easy or soft) criteria is somehow non-notable, and I'd be interested to hear why the Delete voters feel someone who passes them is nonetheless non-notable. But WP:V is not a guideline; indeed it is rock-solid policy. I've been tarred with the deletionist brush more than once, but there's no way I'd ever not change a Delete vote after being presented with sources of this quality and in these numbers. Ravenswing 13:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is conveyed by the presence of multiple reliable sources about the subject. We've got plenty more than two sources here: he's notable. Nyttend (talk) 01:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:MUSIC on more than one point (least controversial of which #12), has proper sources. Voyaging^(talk) 19:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chubbles. --Bardin (talk) 14:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The bulk of the article (before it was moved to the talk page) was unsourced and needed some format editing, but the artist in question meets notability. Criteria number 5 in particular (he released an album on 4AD (Cocteau Twins, Pixies) and Domino Records (Pavement, The Magnetic Fields, Elliott Smith). Pele Merengue (talk) 22:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Preservative 220

The result was Speedy Redirected--text in article was copyvio. DGG (talk) 00:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A pure joke page. Preservative 220: spunktonium? "Appearance: White crystalline solid", "Molar mass: 69.69". I mean, really. All the references are completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. One only needs to look at the column in the article to confirm that this is a complete and utter (bad) joke article. SMC (talk) 13:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, tagged for Speedy deletion as a hoax. --Beloved Freak 13:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. Should've checked CSD first. My apologies. SMC (talk) 13:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have just removed the speedy tag as the article has completely changed. The original author has removed mention of "spunktonium" and Preservative 220 seems to be a real substance. Not sure about notability.--Beloved Freak 14:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to sulphur dioxide. This seems to be about one of the cryptic labels that are allowed by various labelling laws in the USA. (Another example, "Alcohol SD 38B", I know to be ethanol denatured with peppermint oil; it turns up in toothpaste, liniments, and so forth.) As such it is a reasonable search term. People who run across them want to know what they mean. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP SPUNKTONUM for without it the article is of nothing. otherwise SPEEDY DELETEFlutterdance (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 16:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect the current spunktonium-free article to Sulphur_dioxide#As_a_preservative. No prejudice to recreation if spinout articles become needful. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 17:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Sulphur_dioxide#As_a_preservative. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G12; copyvio of [27]. There are other copies that google turns up, but I believe it to be the original, as the double asterisk in this article and the other forms online is referencing a footnote on the page I provided. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 23:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only information appears to be from the Sulfur Dioxide article, and there is no need for the two of them. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 23:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the text as copyvio, and replace by a redirect. Since it is a complete and obvious copyvio, I have just done so. Given that the copyvio source was actually specified as the reference it the article, this could have been done without taking it here. DGG (talk) 00:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as an essay. Davewild (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google monopoly

Unsalvageable essay. Those sources that aren't blogs or opinion articles state either that it is not a monopoly, that competitors 'may' accuse it of monopolistic practices- or have nothing at all to say on the matter. John Nevard (talk) 13:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few sentences could possibly be written from some of the sources in the Criticism of Google article. John Nevard (talk) 13:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge to Criticisms of Google. Per nom, the article appears to take for granted that Google is a monopolist without providing adequate references for this bald assumption. (Those references which are there either fail to support or explicitly contradict this conclusion.) The entire subject of the article is thus irredeemably non-NPOV. I suggest that what salvageable and reasonably well-referenced content should be merged into Criticisms of Google as a new section. silly rabbit (talk) 13:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as essay or content- or maybe even POV-fork of some other Google article. If none of the sources support the claims they are claimed to support, then it's indeed hopeless personal ramblings and should be deleted. If there is any salvaveable content, merge it into the existing Criticism of Google article, since this topic is just one more example of that, and even as written and assuming it were all completely citable, seems WP:UNDO on one criticism aspect. Given that WP seems to frown on "Criticism of..." sections in articles themselves (vs actually writing coherent/unified content), not sure a "Criticism of..." article is better, so "One specific criticism of..." is surely going the wrong way. DMacks (talk) 13:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It appears to be an essay in order to combat Google, and that is not what WP is supposed to do.--Berig (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV essay. Nothing much else to be said. Possibly redirect to Criticisms of Google. EJF (talk) 19:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's an essay. Some of the points made might possibly be salvagable with sources in the main Google article or a related article, but on it's own, it's just an essay. 23skidoo (talk) 21:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong merge with Google. This should stay, but it needs to be integrated with an existing article. In particular, we could have an Economics of Google page which describes the monopoly characteristics. Alternatively, this could go under Monopoly somewhere. Regardless, it is a decent essay, and Google is clearly emerging as a monopoly in internet information services. OptimistBen (talk) 06:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources in the article to support the title, namely that Google has a search engine monopoly. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Any legitimate claims of monopoly (and I didn't see any referenced in this article) can be added to Criticism of Google. Klausness (talk) 10:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's an essay, simple as that and has no purpose here. Anything relevant, if anything can be integrated into the Criticism article. Xtreme racer (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be an essay. Gary King (talk) 20:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States political families

List of United States political families which doesn't define WP:N or WP:V,List_of_United_States_political_families#The Applebys,List_of_United_States_political_families#The_Earlls,List_of_United_States_political_families#The_Zimmermans are a few examples of familys which don't pass WP:N in this context Gnevin (talk) 08:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 12:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 12:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I would argue that a family is notable if its members are notable. Even if families need their notability independently established, the fact that a few whose notability hasn't been established exist on this list is not reason to delete it. Political families are an important subject and many are highly notable. Other problems with the page, especially its excessive length, can be dealt with.--Michael White^T·C 14:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Somebody needs to do a massive overhaul of the article, that's for sure (just because two people in a family did something vaguely political doesn't make it a political family). However, a handful of political families have played a major role in US history and are clearly notable. The Kennedy, the Bushes, the Daleys, the Tafts, the Lodges, the Adams Family to name a few (although the Adams family entry needs to be seriously culled; e.g. the fact that Henry Cabot Lodge is the brother-in-law of the grandson of John Quincy Adams doesn't really make him an Adams, in my opinion). Still, I think that it can be an important article and certainly meets notability, even if elements of its content don't. JEB90 (talk) 16:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Question How does the author of this article specifically define "Political Family"? Is it any family that had more than 1 notable politician? I don't have much problem with the article outside of wikipedia defining terms and categorizing on it's own without proper sourcing. If the Kennedy's are a political family, does that mean the children/spouses that were not in politics are part of the political family definition? Is Maria Shriver part of the Kennedy political family, or is Arnold Schwarzenegger? ... many concerns with definition. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up - and I see here that the author is in fact defining Schwarzenegger as being part of the Kennedy political family. He may not define himself as such, nor may many others. I think this is a serious problem with this list, in that it is hard to define such a thing. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Uh, there has been far more than one "author" of this article, as the edit history clearly indicates. In any event, the list used to have a scope that required at least two members at the level of Congress or state Governor (I believe). Generally it takes the place of having a separate "Smith family" article for every time a son succeeded his father in Congress. I don't see the objection to including Schwarzenegger in the list of people in the Kennedy family (he is often counted as such in media discussions of the family, and if you really object I could find some for you -- probably hundreds). I think it is much less subjective to list based on simple criteria such as lineage and marriage rather than which families and members are "significant to U.S. history" -- something that doesn't seem to have ever been the intent of this list. --Dhartung | Talk 19:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not that I am objecting to his in inclusion, it is that I am posing the question of who is creating the definition for this list? I admit it is hardly a controversial topic, but I become wary of wikipedia becoming a defining source. When I say "the author", I am just using an admittedly not-so-great term for "the specific editor who added x". Do you have sources that say Schwarzengger is in the Kennedys, or rather connected to the Kennedys. Note I am only using him as notable example and trying to gain a greater understanding here. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, putting on my historian hat, it has often been the case that in-laws have inherited political mantles. In the specific case of Arnie, he made his own way, but even back in the 1980s there was speculation that he married Maria with an eye to a political future. I'd rather not parse "in" vs. "connected"; he is legally married to a direct descendant of Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr., the acknowledged patriarch, so whatever the difference between your two terms is, I'm not sure it's relevant. --Dhartung | Talk 22:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We've got plenty of articles on prominent families on Wikipedia that are considered notable: if their political members are the reason for their notability, why can't we list them? Keep the list good, but no reason to delete. Nyttend (talk) 01:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep A list of notable people (as shown by their WP articles) is also notable, and notable enough to be kept. Improve the article by providing alphabetic sectionalization. Hmains (talk) 03:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And what of WP:V, not one reference and how as Gwynand says is a political family defined?Gnevin (talk) 08:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 'comment Strange that the external referenece documents just that. Hmains (talk) 03:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clean it up. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 06:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs to be cleaned up and shortened considerably. Establishing that more than two people are needed for a 'political family' to be relevant might be a good start. Great examples of poltical families are the Bushes, the kennedys the Tafts, the Humphreys, and so on. However, it is useful as a list and the members of the list are notable (or their notability can be independently disputed).Protonk (talk) 05:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: agree, needs clean up but should be retained. Should it be broken into sections, like last names starting A-K, L-Z? I also think that confining it to families with at least 3 members would be good. A family with just two seems to be easy enough to figure out just by linking those two articles together. Awbeal (talk) 12:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nurse Julie Cooper

STRONG DELETE. Horribly written article about a VERY minor character. Kogsquinge (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while being horribly written is no reason to delete an article, there is no evidence of significant coverage of this character in reliable sources, so does not pass notability guidelines. --Beloved Freak 12:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 12:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Text is only in-universe, unclear and I don't think there is any way to get better. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not getting better anytime soon. But I do love the people who love Home and Away :) —97198 talk 07:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. - Not independently notable. The article as it stands now gives undue weight to the extramarital affair aspect of her existance. Although there are only a few comments, no one makes a case for independent notability, so this is a clear cut case where a BLP should be deleted. ++Lar: t/c 18:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Petrina Khashoggi

Contested prod. Notability concerns. Yahoo search turns up over 1,000 hits, but not a reliable source among them (two of the hits were for a British tabloid). Blueboy 96 12:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 12:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not demonstrated or asserted. Started as an attack page: [28]. Now only the non-notable residue is left. Qworty (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are plenty of reliable sources at Google News, and you can hardly call The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, The Independent, The Times, The New York Times and the BBC "tabloids". However, having said that she doesn't seem to have much notability beyond being her father's daughter, and for some reason someone has removed that fact, which is just about the one verifiable fact about her, from the article. I'm going to put it back because the current state of the article doesn't allow people to evaluate it properly. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Notability is not inherited: [29] Qworty (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. The earlier opinions could not take into account the many sources provided by Lawrence, and must therefore be evaluated cautiously. Sandstein (talk) 07:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pomosexual

Delete or transwiki - This article is a neologism, and it cites no reliable sources Laytonsmith14 (talk) 09:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the biggest point here is that the article is defining a neologism. When putting the term through a google search, the only results are things like urban dictionary, and the like. The book is a bit more reliable, however it still is not a very peer-reviewed book. If more sources become available, then I think it should be put back up, but with the current state of the word, I don't think that it is ready for wikipedia. Laytonsmith14 (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep ~~or transwiki~~: Per Laytonsmith14. In it's current form, the article is an attempt to define a neologism. Unless more content could be added, I feel that this entry would be more suitable for Wiktionary. —Mears man (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Aleta pointed out below, there is an actual book cited in the article about the subject. I must have missed it before because it was with the external links, but I do believe that this adds some staying power to the article, seeing as there is a published work about it. While the article could still use some work, I feel that there is potential for improvement, so I have changed my position to "weak keep". If the article is deemed inappropriate for Wikipedia I still feel that the information should be transferred to Wiktionary. I would hate to see this flat-out deleted. —Mears man (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an additional source and started a "Criticisms" section. Just letting everyone know that more I was able to turn up a bit more information on the subject.—Mears man (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm dropping the "weak" from my keep (I'm amazed by how much my mind has changed on this over the past few days). My main concern was the apparent lack of available sources to confirm the notability of the subject, but Lawrence Cohen has done an excellent job of locating them below. The article will need a bit of work, but I do not believe it is beyond redemption. —Mears man (talk) 00:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep - It is an article about a neologism, but not created for the article. It does cite the book where the term was made more prominent. ~~(That should be moved into a references section rather than in the external links.)~~ Aleta ^Sing 14:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the book into a references section. Aleta ^Sing 14:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm dropping the "weak" part of my keep as per Lawrence's source finds below. Now we need to add citations to the article! Aleta ^Sing 23:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Aleta ^Sing 18:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the LGBT WikiProject discussion board. -- Aleta ^Sing 18:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and transwiki if they will accept the material. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism.--Doc^g 11:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neo _→AzaToth 12:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Yopie 18:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopie (talk • contribs)

Note Not that this will have much bearing in an AfD, but this article is older than the accounts of anyone who wants to delete it. Not that I am any better, but there is something I don't like about people joining a group and then lobbying to undo the efforts made by people who were there before them. A less reasonable editor might think that you shouldn't have joined in the first place if you were not ready to accept preexistent content and editors. Jackaranga (talk) 20:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow that's the boldest argumentum ad antiquitatem I've ever heard. But as Cyprian of Carthage remarked a very long time ago: "Custom is often only the antiquity of error." Oh, and since I've been on Wikipedia significantly longer than you, you'd best not argue, right? ;).--Doc^g 20:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're getting at Jackaranga, but it is my understanding that all editors are welcome to contribute to these discussions (if I'm wrong about this, someone please enlighten me). That includes you too though, Jackaranga. Would you care to share your thoughts as to whether the article should be kept, deleted, or something else? —Mears man (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Not that the notability guideline seemed to exist when this article was created, but yeah it fails the notability guideline, with the only available sources being user contributed, no press coverage etc. However the term is mentioned in other articles, and it's odd that the article has been around for over 4 years, if the decision is to delete, I think it would be nice to move it to the user space instead. It's hard to believe that nobody noticed this article should be deleted in 4 years, so I am doubting my own judgment, as well as that of other people here. Jackaranga (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep Changing to keep, seeing all the sources below, good work. Jackaranga (talk) 13:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of credible sources. Good point about the creation date: April 1, 2004. Congratulations to user:Popefauvexxiii for what I suspect may be our longest surviving April Fool's joke. That's Life!Unless, of course, you know different... Guy (Help!) 22:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In case you're suggesting this is a hoax, it's not. The book cited is real. You can check out the preview Google books has. Aleta ^Sing 22:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, not an april fool's joke, its a real word, the article is gaining content as we discuss, and while it may be tentatively categorizable as a neologism, its gaining momentum in the collective consciousness all the time. Interestingly, this isnt the first time somebody has misinterpreted edits or comments ive made on April 1st as a put-on. --PopeFauveXXIII (talk) 11:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete - terrible sources. Not well defined. Not even a good neologism. Cary Bass ^demandez 22:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep As unlikely as it seemed, we have a lot of sources that predate the creation of the article here on Wikipedia. More sources coming. NY Times, Times of India, The Independent, Asia Africa Intellegience Wire, Panoram (Italian), Sacramento Bee, Channel News Asia, Times of India again, NY Times again. That's multiple non-trivial coverage and mentions of the neologism, and international in scope to boot. Subject of printed books; and Gay news sources. I think it's a clear keep per policy. There are still more sources than even this. Lawrence § t/e 23:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Lawrence Cohen above.--Gloriamarie (talk) 23:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bollocks. A lot of links != evidence this is an encyclopedic topic. Let's look at some of them.
times of India. I quote "according to andrologist Sudhakar Krishnamurthy, pomosexuality is just another ‘nomenclatural fad’." = NEOLOGISM
The NYT article (on metrosexuality) mentions the term in a list with NOTHING SAID ABOUT IT. I can't access the paysites, so can you show me a source that actually helps here?--Doc^g 23:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A whole chapter here on it, an entire 1998 article, here, another reference in a print book work, the BBC, again the book that popularized the term, here again. Yes, it's a lot of links, but the term is ultimately notable as a label and growing more so. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

merge there does not seem notable enough 3rd party reliable source coverage to necesitate a stand alone article - not exactly sure where it should go, though. Perhaps in an article on the book it emerged from? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 02:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It's the title of a book. We do have articles about the authors, merge to either of those. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Lawrence of Wiki. He has provided more than sufficient reliable sources to support notability and verifiability, including an article in a peer reviewed sexology journal, a full book about the subject, a respected monthly magazine, several newspapers, and lots more. I might note that there were several vote changes due to Lawrence's hard work. I'm adding some of the sources as we speak. — Becksguy (talk) 05:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 15:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Illiad (band)

This article fails WP:RS on multiple grounds. Appears to contain original research, and most of the information on this page is unverifiable. If the facts relayed in the article are indeed verifiable, then citations need to be provided; if reliable sources cannot be provided, then the band is not relevant enough to be on Wikipedia. I feel like a tourist (talk) 03:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm truly dissapointed that someone felt the need to delete all my information and citations and add the pointless Influences section. This should be a case of vandalism and revision rather than deletion. Greatomega (talk) 06:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 12:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: 62 total G-hits [30] for this non-notable garage band. Meets no elements of WP:MUSIC, no reliable sources proffered or extant. In light of Greatomega's complaint, I went back to his edit of a few days ago, and the "citations" he claims are nothing beyond the band's Myspace page and the (non-loading) website for the band's soi-disant record label, World IN Sound, which itself has a paltry number of G-hits and no reliable sources, and looks like a good candidate for AfD in its own right. At least one of this band's members is also up for AfD. RGTraynor 14:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Omega, this article is not being considered for deletion merely because it does not contain citations, it is because the band is not notable enough to appear on wikipedia. No reliable third-party information is to be found anywhere regarding this now-defunct band. Whether or not someone tampered with your page does not change the fact that this band does not belong on Wikipedia. I feel like a tourist (talk) 20:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just realised that there is also a Wiki article on this band's sole album, A Sad Day on Pluto, this must also be deleted as it contains only original, unverifiable, uncited research and obviously has as much notability (or less) than the band does.I feel like a tourist (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others. Nothing indicates they meet WP:MUSIC. Pigman☿ 21:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. The last AfD closed only two days ago with a result of keep, I don't think consensus will change that fast. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Sledd

AfDs for this article:

Delete He isn't famous at all outside of youtube except for a few magazines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pleasantview (talk • contribs) 20:00, 12 April 2008

But what difference does it make? I've never heard of him up until now, but he still known among a large number of people, which makes him famous. Does it matter on what platform this happens? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.6.123.3 (talk) 11:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seem to be enough reliable sources to demonstrate notability.--Beloved Freak 13:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 13:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NOTAGAIN. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 13:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It really doesn't matter why he became notable. The fact that the LA Times, Baltimore Sun and other RS have written about him passes WP:BIO.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I didn't even notice that the last keep was about 48 hours ago. This should be speedied and if if the nom disagrees with the Apr-12 keep it should go to DRV.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: per Cube lurker; that the fellow has racked up reliable sources is a prima facie pass on WP:V. I liked the bit where no one had ever heard of him "except for a few magazines." You could just as readily say that Ted Kaczynski wouldn't be famous except for a few newspapers and TV news shows. RGTraynor 14:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep there was no need or valid reason for bringing this here again. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The third AfD for him closed as a clear keep TWO DAYS AGO! Consensus is unlikely to change dramatically in two days. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as article passed AFD only a couple of days ago. Don't re-nominate articles repeatedly to get a desired result. I'm assuming good faith as the nominator did not appear to contribute to the previous AFD and may not have been aware of it. 23skidoo (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per all previous comments. Notability appears to have been sufficiently established. Aleta ^Sing 23:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well of course if you discount all the fame "outside of youtube," then "he isn't famous at all outside of youtube." Maxa megalon 2000 05:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:BLP, as on the German Wikipedia. I have also deleted the associated images. Sandstein (talk) 07:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Runhardt Sander

Sources of insufficiently reliable type to establish verifiability and notability. Biography of a living person with potentially reputation-damaging information. The corresponding article at the German Wikipedia was deleted after a deletion discussion which mentioned "Original Research" and "Quellen" (sources). ☺Coppertwig (talk) 11:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Concur with nominator. There is also a question of notability here; if it was felt this man was truly notable, the German wikipedia would have revamped the article rather than delete it. This is a failed PROD, with the PROD tag having been removed because Sander is supposedly "internationally" notable. The article gives no indication of his reputation outside of Germany. Risker (talk) 12:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 15:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 15:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are much of sources, german, but not only weblinks also real documents in pdf-format. The person is importand for the German neo-nazi since decades. That in the German Wikipedia some discussion is dominated from neo-nazis is shown in this blog (also german) [31]. Therfore I thing it is important to keep here this article. An article for the French Wikipedia is in preparation, but the most poeple in the net understand english. The informations now in Xiando Information[32] are to hard to find. Heinrich8 (talk) 01:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are seven footnotes:

1. "Sander's contact site as a member of the International Sealand Business Club": Essentially a directory listing: no text in paragraph form.
2. "web site of Sander's second office": broken link.
3. "Rudolf article about Kendzia in the German Wikipedia": A Wikipedia article. Wikipedia articles are not to be used as Reliable sources.
4. "information of German anti-Fascists about Kendzia's group": This might possibly be useful as a source. I don't know anything about reliability of this publication. Sander is mentioned in the second-last paragraph, so it doesn't appear to be an article focussing primarily on him.
5. "foundation record of the Hoffmann-von-Fallersleben-Bildungswerk e. V. initially the Hoffmann-von-Fallersleben-Stiftung": This appears to be some sort of primary source document. No translation or explanation is provided. Presumably it documents the founding of an organization, with "RA Sander" as one of the people listed at the top. While that might be useful to verify a specific fact, it doesn't give much information to base a Wikipedia article on; and how do we know the "RA Sander" mentioned is the subject of this article?
6. "Die Nationalen e. V. in the German Wikipedia": Again, just a Wikipedia article.
7. "decision about the termination of Die Nationalen e. V., submitted to the court by Sander": Seems to be another primary source document.

No newspaper articles, books or similar material. No article focussing primarily on the subject. Only one article as such, and I don't know whether it's in a reliable publication or not. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. Now I've worked hard another time to destroy your objections:

1. "Sander's contact site as a member of the International Sealand Business Club": You ar right it is no text in paragraph form, but it is a kind of advertisement. Explanation added
2. "web site of Sander's second office": You are right. And I saw, that it is not a second office, but a second web site for the same office. link fixed, description alternated
3. "Rudolf article about Kendzia in the German Wikipedia": Sorry, now I indicated a printed source.
4. "information of German anti-Fascists about Kendzia's group": I gave an explanation. Hope, you will find it conclusive.
5. "foundation record of the Hoffmann-von-Fallersleben-Bildungswerk e. V. initially the Hoffmann-von-Fallersleben-Stiftung": Yes ist is a primary source document, but other documents may have the German secret service. Nothing ist published. I gave some explanations. Added a printed reference and another primary source document - never before published. If now somebody is looking for me, I know why! Hope, you will find it conclusive. The matter is very difficult and without any OR hardly to expose.
6. "Die Nationalen e. V. in the German Wikipedia": Sorry added a printed reference.
7. "decision about the termination of Die Nationalen e. V., submitted to the court by Sander": Sorry and you are so right. I linked only to the source in the German Wikipedia and saw not, that the most importand page (p.1) there not was included, because there it is a image integrated in the article. Now this bug is adjusted with a new pdf-file. Also I gave long explanations.

Another major change: link to his web site deleted - probably down. Text adjusted.

Please dont delete, and if you have any other objections give me the opportunity to improve the article. Heinrich8 (talk) 01:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article presents risks of defaming the subject under our policy Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. With great patience I imagine that someone with a knowledge of German and very familiar with our policies might be able to write a conformant article. However I believe the article is too risky in its present state. The term 'neo-Nazi' is being widely used and would need MUCH better sourcing than is now provided. So, lacking the necessary highly-skilled editorial help to rescue this article, I recommend it be deleted. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it could be a defamatory statement, allways to use the term neo-nazi for nationalistic persons and organisations observed by the German Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution. Therefore I've replaced it with the more general expression right-wing extremist, used also in the annual reports of the German Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution. Hope, your objection is now at least a little bit appeased. Heinrich8 (talk) 01:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some explanations relating print sources added. Could you now be convinced, that it is an serious article about an important person? Please don't delete!Heinrich8 (talk) 03:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.201.81.23 (talk) [reply]

In addition to the footnotes and external links, there is now a References section listing five publications. I don't know enough about these publications to make a decision -- how much information each one has about Runhardt Sander or how reliable the publications are. Who publishes them? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Near-total reliance on primary sources; what we would want to see is a profile in Der Spiegel or Der Stern or some other reliable secondary source. Without that this fails the notability guideline. Also on dangerous ground regarding WP:BLP and WP:NOR. Durova^Charge! 05:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy-deleted by User:Cobaltbluetony (non-admin closure) Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Domenico Barra

The notability of the subject is not adequately asserted. The article seems to be autobiographical. The article is written in a self-aggrandizing style that is not in keeping with an encyclopedia. LittleOldMe (talk) 11:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete - does not meet WP:N. Googling provides nothing noteworthy either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StephenBuxton (talk • contribs)
Doesn't indicate why he is notable so I have tagged for Speedy deletion under criterion A7. (Even if it did assert notability - I can find no significant coverage in reliable sources).--Beloved Freak 15:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 09:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I League 2007-08 results

The article is not notable, there is no need to go into such details about matches in football league season. Eddie6705 (talk) 10:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Eddie6705 (talk) 10:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enough information is already included in the I League 2007-08 season article. Redirect with nothing useful to merge. - fchd (talk) 10:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. AR TYOM 13:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is an easy one as Wikipedia is not the provider of results lists. Punkmorten (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gin Wigmore

Does not appear to meet WP:NMG requirements, nor are there any reliable sources cited. Stifle (talk) 10:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 15:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject has apparently not even released an album and a google search turned up nothing relevant or reliable so this is a fairly easy delete vote. --Bardin (talk) 08:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notable and fails WP:MUSIC. BigDunc (talk) 14:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Quarmby

This person is not notable, there are 60 councillors on Wolverhampton Council, there is no reason for any of them to have a bio on wikipedia. Was PROD-ed on 10/2/08, removed after four days [33].Darrenhusted (talk) 10:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NN. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not Notable unless someone can find something particularly remarkable about Ms. Quarmby. Otherwise, it doesn't meet the threshold. Lazulilasher (talk) 11:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Bduke (talk) 03:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to M-theory

Needless introduction to M-theory, was a copyvio for four years, could become a fork.

Nomination withdrawn This AfD has more or less become a discussion about introduction articles generally, about which there may be no clear consensus. I think introduction articles are unhelpful forks but there is clearly a wide swath of editors who think otherwise so I suggest another means of dealing with this for now (likely RfC). At least this AfD may have shown it bears talking about more. Thanks everyone for your input! Gwen Gale (talk) 03:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Completing this nomination which was left in an unfinished state by User:Gwen Gale. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Morven, article had vanished while the history was being sweeped of the copyvio. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We already have the main article M-theory. I think this one is needless and could become unhelpful. It could fork off accidently into a misleading summary (the solar system analogy is in itself not at all the way to put a rundown of bound particles in quantum states and there are already other creeping worries of missed simplification): A reader could be more lost than ever after reading this. Moreover, why maintain two articles? Conflicts are likely to slip through one day, even shreds of PoV which could turn this one into a fork, maybe. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wierd and more of a tutorial than an article and yet not very helpful. It is more of a superquick, not-entirely correct guide to very-small things in physics. Yes M-theory is hard to understand, but that's because string theory is hard to understand (apparently even by string theorists). If someone needs to be reminded what an atom is then, lets face it, they probably need to start at a less abstract level than m-theory.Nick Connolly (talk) 09:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. An article on this topic would be quite worth-while. The current pseudo-stub not really useful, though. If possible, improve, don't delete, but not much would be lost if it went away completely. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By topic do you mean an introductory topic? I ask because we already have the main article M-theory. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I mean at maybe the level of a typical SciAm article. Our current article on M-theory is not that hot, either... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnecessary fork. Please do feel free to improve the lead of M-theory to be more readily understood by a lay audience, though. Guy (Help!) 12:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's odd that it's been here so long. Grsz 11 15:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have others of these in Category:Introductions -- I'm all but certain there were once several more than there are now. Is someone running a merge campaign? I see value in these, and M-theory is certainly a topic that could warrant one. --Dhartung | Talk 19:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the entropy one got lost. See Category:Introductions and the corresponding Category:Articles with separate introductions. Oh, I see, it is a mini-edit war: [34]. There used to be nine "introduction" articles back in July 2007. See Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Introduction to general relativity. What seems to have happened since then is that we lost Background and genesis of topos theory and gained Introduction to virus. Carcharoth (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS? -M^ask? 05:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, including two featured articles: introduction to evolution and introduction to special relativity. It is not impossible for an "introduction to..." article to be a content fork, but that needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis, rather than as a general swipe. When "introduction to..." articles fail or there is no consensus that it has suceeded (an example of a failed introduction article is Introduction to particles), the general approach is to merge/redirect back to the main article, not delete. Carcharoth (talk) 06:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to M-theory. The ledes of articles are supposed to be introductions. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Previous related debate concerning Introduction to evolution was here. What I said when closing that debate was "It is clear that WP:AFD is the wrong venue for discussing "introduction to" articles in general. Suggest opening a request for comments on the issue, or continuing at one of the discussion threads pointed out towards the end of this AfD. The issues specific to this article (such as proposals to merge with evolution should be addressed on the talk page for the article". Raising this here in case this applies here as well, with any merge obviously being to M-theory. Carcharoth (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article is a content fork, great for other projects forking the project, bad for forking pages within the project -M^ask? 05:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deletion is not the way to deal with "Introduction to" articles.--Michael C. Price ^talk 07:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We do still have Introduction to entropy. The problem there referred to above is related to arguments about the disambiguation page. Delete is not the answer. If there are problems with it, then it should be discussed at Talk:Entropy whether it should be merged back there. The same should holds for this article. Personally I would keep that one and this one. Making the various articles on entropy understandable is not proving easy, and I suspect the same with this one. --Bduke (talk) 07:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment it seems to me that aside from the rights-and-wrongs of introduction-to... articles in general, they provide a bit of a puzzle for the AfD process. The central issue in most AfD's is usually notability but this articles actual subject (M-theory) is manifestly notable. However at the same time that doesn't mean a seperate introduction article is neccesarily called for. In this case we have a bad introduction to artcile, but AfD isn't clean up. Perhaps we need a deeper theory of deletion, an M-theory of deletion....Nick Connolly (talk) 09:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a "no forks" theory of deletion? Or a special "skirt un-needed complexity" hypothesis of forked relativity? Gwen Gale (talk) 09:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to WikiBooks or merge as above. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 09:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see why one cannot write a short introduction to M theory accessible to 14 year olds and older lay people. This article may have issues that one needs to work on, but the main M-theory article is not really accessible to lay people who go to wikipedia without much knowldege of physics to find out what this "M-theory" they hear about from time to time is all about. Count Iblis (talk) 13:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and send to RfC per Carcharoth - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 17:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This sort of thing is much better discussed on talk and project pages. AfD isn't the place for discussing exactly how related articles on specialised topics should be structured. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Phil. I really think WP needs to develop a hands-off policy, and let the subject matter experts deal with this. There are plenty of capable editors at WP:Math and WP:Physics who know what the WP article standards are and how to write good articles, and all the rest. PLEASE let these subject matter experts decide how to handle this ... they are quite capable and frequently happy to delete crappy articles, and don't need help. Opening this debate to the general public just clouds the issue, and we may as well be arguing for the deletion of Pokemon articles. linas (talk) 03:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to M-theory main article. If the intro at that article doesn't explain things well enough, then it should be improved-- we don't need a separate article for this. And no, AfD probably isn't the best place for this discussion. --Areldyb^{(talk - sign)} 00:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Strongly disagree with the merge suggestion, as that seems to miss the whole point of "Intro to..." articles. The problem here is that WP has readers of many different levels: laypeople, high-school and college students, and grad students, post-docs and professors. From experience, it is essentially impossible to serve the needs of all in one article (gravitation and quantum mechanics fly to mind). What may be clear-as-a-bell to an advanced student is almost always (based on my WP experience) taken to be gibberish by the lay reader. Since M-theory is one of those hot, fashionable, trendy theories, that get written up in pop-sci rags, it has a layperson/pop-sci audience who will want to know more. Yet it is stunningly complex, and needs an article written at the grad-student level (or higher!). Merging these two into one would only result in bitter edit wars ... as if there weren't enough of these, with someone alternately trying to delete either the low-brow, or the high-brow content. linas (talk) 02:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 08:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Wakerman

not notable not a famous actor not even on imdb unlike Bel Powley — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeneral28 (talk • contribs)

Delete WP:NN. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree not a notable actress not even on IMDB like Bel Powley —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cibwins (talk • contribs) 10:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't it deleted yet?Jeneral28 (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD runs five days. Darkspots (talk) 01:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No relevant sources turned up in a google search. Fails WP:BIO. Darkspots (talk) 01:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 15:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marek Štěch

Youth player with no first team experience and only capped at youth (U-17) level, therefore failing WP:BIO#Athletes. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Said it before and will probable say it again but....if Dean Bouzanis is voted a 'Keep' (and it was) a precedent has been set. Therefore Marek Štěch should be kept- there is no difference.--Egghead06 (talk) 08:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Bouzanis was kept not because of his status as a Liverpool youth team player but specifically because there was extensive third-party independent coverage available. I can't see the same coverage in the case of this player ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And you may want to read WP:OTHERSTUFF. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to go by precedent (which is not a good idea), the most recent AfD on a youth player in a Premiership squad with no appearances resulted in delete. And you may also want to review your own comment from four days ago - "It should be a simple enough rule - no 1st class games - delete" [35]. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did say that but would just like to see it applied to all that fail this test!--Egghead06 (talk) 11:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So why are you voting keep here then?? пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm under no illusions that this will be kept - I've been here before. I voted simply to highlight the inconsistency with which WP:ATHLETE and other notability tests are applied. Get more press for youth team appearances, play for one of the 'big' clubs - article gets kept. Ergo a Liverpool or Manchester United youth team player is more notable than one from West Ham, Port Vale or Crewe even though no 1st team appearances have been made!! - that's just big 4 bias.--Egghead06 (talk) 11:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not all players from top 4 clubs are kept - Bouzanis is in a small minority - recent deletions include Daniel Pacheco (Liverpool) and Gavin Hoyte (Arsenal). As you've admitted to !voting to highlight an inconsistency, you may want to read WP:POINT. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. On the roster, there are bound to be verifiable second party sources for this. See Kevin Reiman for an American example for someone with no appearances (yet). MrPrada (talk) 08:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can't see any obvious reliable secondary sources here.......... ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure if thats sarcasm(I'm seeing the Telegraph, BBC, ESPN, plus a hundred plus reliable second party sources at [36] including NY Times, Herald Tribune, etc.) but have you also tried searching in Czech? MrPrada (talk) 08:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Google News results seem to consist of cursory (one sentence) mentions of this player in articles about other things, which doesn't constitute in-depth coverage..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree, in the 100+ stories listed there are several with more than just tangential references to him, in fact, some of them are solely about him (albiet short articles), and then you fan factor in Czech articles like [37] from [38], I would be comfortable that he meets WP:BIO even if he fails WP:ATHLETE and can be included. MrPrada (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't understand why so many people are unable to understand WP:ATHLETE when it's really quite simple. If a player hasn't made an appearance in a professional league, then he/she is not notable. – Pee Jay 11:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Trouble is that it not followed. If WP:ATHLETE is to be followed then this article would be deleted but then so would others which have survived simply because people can find more spurious references to them via Google. Of course youth team players from the 'bigger' clubs get more press - but does that make them notable?--Egghead06 (talk) 11:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would say so, yes. A person who gets more coverage is, by definition, more notable, in my opinion. – Pee Jay 11:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ATHLETE. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ATHLETE. Perhaps some of the confusion about how the standards are applied can be cleared up. WP:ATHLETE is the applicable notability guideline, but WP:V trumps every such guideline in WP:BIO; be someone ever so insignificant, multiple articles about the subject in reliable sources are prima facie passes on WP:V. In any event, this probably isn't the proper venue to debate how those standards should be applied. RGTraynor 15:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE. However, I can understand Egghead's argument - whilst the Bouzanis article is well sourced (better than most football articles!) and will probably make a valuable contribution to Wiki in 18 months time, at the present time he isn't notable enough to pass. If we're to apply a standard, it should be consistent. It could easily be userfied until then. HornetMike (talk) 10:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The thing is that Wikipedia has more than one standard. The standard upon which Bouzanis passed is basic: "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." RGTraynor 12:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hear what you say but that just isn't being applied across the board. For example - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Spence - an article on England's U17 captain. 3 references from his club, 3 from The FA, 1 from FIFA, 1 from the Guardian newspaper and a reference showing an action picture - result=deleted!--Egghead06 (talk) 15:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Presuming the Guardian article was about the subject and substantial, that'd be the sole independent reliable source; pictures, references from his club, the FA and FIFA wouldn't count. Only one reliable source cannot sustain an article. RGTraynor 16:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Thanks for that info. I will try to remember, in future, that The FA and Fifa pages are not reliable sources as per defined in WP:RS.--Egghead06 (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are not not reliable sources, they are just not independent. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 16:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His club fair enough, but why are FIFA or the FA not considered independent? Are you suggesting that, because it's the governing body of world football, FIFA's website cannot be classed as an independent source on a random footballer? It's not like he works for FIFA, or reports direct to FIFA HQ or anything. By extension, does that mean FIFA is not an independent source on any aspect of football........? ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should have phrased that better - I was trying to explain to Egghead what (I thought) RGTraynor meant by his comments (i.e. the sources not being independent rather not reliable) rather than my own opinion on the matter. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 20:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN. No professional first team appearances, no notability: it's quite simple. --Angelo (talk) 16:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. Whether this is merged or not should be worked out at Talk:Empire of Iuz. Stifle (talk) 08:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Empire of Iuz

AfDs for this article:

Article about a fictional empire ruled by a fictional character that fails WP:NOT##PLOT. There are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside the Dungeons & Dragons franchise. Constructive attempts to cleanup or merge this article with another topic have failed or been reverted. Gavin Collins (talk) 07:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 07:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. X Marx The Spot (talk) 07:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or revert to Merge/redirect - a disruptive single-purpose anon IP shouldn't be enough of a reason to delete an otherwise merged article. BOZ (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a rather drastic measure to take, but seeing as this has been merged, I might suggest a delete and redirect to Iuz. --Craw-daddy | T | 12:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I follow this correctly (and correct me if I'm mistaken.) Previously consensus was that this was merged and redirected. Now an IP or several is editwaring reverting the merge. We deal with edit wars with page protection and admin action, not with AFD. Return to Previous Consensus State.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The previous concensus was that there was "no concensus to delete". There was some mention in the closing of the AfD for a possibility of merging and redirecting. --Craw-daddy | T | 14:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see it. It was merged at some point, but maybe not with clear consensus. Still my primary point remains. No need to delete when there's a good merge target.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- It was never merged. Gavin Collins is lying as usual, the fucking jackass. Removing a merge tag is not considered merging. Saving articles is not disruption; being a fucking deletionist is, however. All deletionists should be immediately banned, as they probably work for rival encyclopedias such as Encyclopædia Britannica or Encarta and strive to delete popular culture articles that make Wikipedia unique. Without these articles, Wikipedia will become obsolete, for who wants to read articles on Wikipedia when the topics are already covered in much more reliable encyclopedias? See this, Gavin's so-called "merge." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.182.26 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 15 April 2008
Delete I am pretty sure I tagged this for speedy deletion (and got it deleted) at least twice in the last 48 hours. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 13:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The edit history extends back to 2006, so this certainly wasn't speedied in the last 48 hours. --Craw-daddy | T | 14:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, you must be thinking of something else. [39] BOZ (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - allow for the constructive edits to actually be completed. Web Warlock (talk) 14:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)'=[reply]
- Any further constructive edits can be performed in the Iuz article. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Iuz. All content of this article is appropriate for inclusion in Iuz and both articles are short. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars, i.e. consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on Dungeons & Dragons. Previous AfD was no consensus, so I can understand this nomination as not merely a case of "keep listing until it's deleted," but nevertheless I still think it's consistent per the First pillar. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; besdies that, it's always best to keep the edit history when merging, for GFDL reasons. BOZ (talk) 19:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles.--Robbstrd (talk) 04:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with Iuz - no secondary coverage; fails to meet WP:N so shouldn't have its own article. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brothership

Listing contested Proposed deletion. Non notable neologism. A listing in urban dictionary does not constitute notability. X Marx The Spot (talk) 07:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My prod was removed by the article's creator. I prodded the article because I couldn't think of an appropriate speedy deletion category. The article's subject isn't remotely enyclopedic, interesting, or worth inclusion on Wikipedia. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, speedy if possible. It's a neologism with no widespread use whatsoever. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Incorrect use of English doesn't qualify for Wikipedia, no matter how neologism-y it may be. And even if that doesn't fly, as a dictionary def it is better suited for Wiktionary. Let them deal with it. :) +Hexagon1 ^(t) 10:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Stifle (talk) 13:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cortez Peters Sr.

The article for Barbara Blackburn, the world typing record-holder according to the Guinness Book of World Records, was nominated for deletion due to notability concerns. I think the subject of this article is even less notable.

I am also nominating the following related page:

Larry V (talk | e-mail) 06:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This is tricky, but there isn't a lot of coverage of either as a "world class typist", although Sr. was once called "King of the Keys". There is coverage of the defunct Cortez Peters Business College (or School), which had branches in Baltimore, Washington, and Chicago, and they were somewhat notable as being black-owned, though I can't verify the "first" claim (which seems unlikely). Both could be mentioned in an article on the school. --Dhartung | Talk 08:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Incidentally, I believe there are sufficient sources today for Barbara Blackburn to have her article back, if anyone wants to do the scut work. --Dhartung | Talk 08:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of coverage found by Google News, Google Books and Google Scholar. Please feel free to add those sources to the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I came to this page specifically because I needed to know about Cortez Peters. Why would we delete it? It is certainly relevant enough because his textbooks are basically all that are used in high school classrooms.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.107.93.12 (talk • contribs)

Neither article has any sources. Since they mention typing competitions (the notability of which itself is subject to debate), WP:NOT#NEWS seems the appropriate notability guideline. Delete both B.Wind (talk) 01:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 15:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Lee

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

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

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

Non-notable local radio host. Badger Drink (talk) 06:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as Nonsense. X Marx The Spot (talk) 06:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ This guy does exist [40] However, the article would obviously need to be completely re-written. I'll see what I can do. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 14:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What I said above is true, but his bio on the webpage is unsuitable for encyclopedic information. Doing a Google search for "Tim Lee" Australia Hot30 Countdown produced nothing substantial. This is what the page looks like without all the nonsense on it. This guy is not notable enough to keep the article with just one sentence. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 14:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the first sentence of the lead paragraph. Delete the rest. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 14:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- So, this person is real, but the questions of notablility and reliable sources still exsist. Do we have enough secondary sources to keep the article? Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 15:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Didn't the nominator, or anyone else who has looked at this, think of removing all of the nonsense from this article? It only takes a few seconds - no more than it takes to comment in an AfD. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to say this as if removing the nonsense would somehow turn Mr. Lee into a notable figure. --Badger Drink (talk) 04:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not saying that at all. What I meant is that several people read an article which contained obvious WP:BLP violations and did nothing about it. That sort of thing needs to be edited out immediately. I gave no opinion on notability, and still give none. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer waiting for the close of an AfD before doing something like this. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 22:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by NawlinWiki (G12: Blatant copyright infringement). Non-admin closure. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

University of San Diego MBA Programs

Non-Notable MBA program, unreferenced, fails WP:RS. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 06:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —- Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 06:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio and so tagged TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 20:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Povertyneck Hillbillies

Fails WP:MUSIC and other general WP:N criteria Grsz 11 05:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC, WP:N. Keep following TPH's improvements. Nice save kid ;). X Marx The Spot (talk) 06:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep per TPH's recent edits. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did anyone bother to search for sources? Please remember Wikipedia guidelines say that nomination for deletion is supposed to occur only after attempts to find sources have failed. (Apologies for the lecturing tone.) It looks as if there are easily enough sources in newspapers to pass WP:N or WP:MUSIC criterion #1. Keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Paul Erik. That is a lot of g-news-hits for the band to not be notable. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 23:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Paul Erik. Possible bias coming from the same area as where they're popular, but clearly there is enough to count as notable. ryright (talk) 01:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Same as the sources. They have no wide-spread coverage. Grsz 11 14:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Paul Erik. --Bardin (talk) 08:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm finding multiple reliable sources which should be enough to meet criterion #1 of WP:MUSIC. Furthermore, the presence of multiple news sources originating from the Pittsburgh area would probably indicate that they meet criterion #7 as well ("Has become the most prominent representative of... the local scene of a city"). I'll start some WP:HEY work on this article once my sinuses clear up. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Withdraw Nomination, counting on TenPoundHammer to do the work he has suggest. Grsz 11 17:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Suggest nominating Illustration Magazine to allow it to be considered seperatly. Davewild (talk) 14:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Zimmer

Uncited, zero google hits. Fails notability policy. Tan | 39 05:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article doesn't seem Encyclopedic enough. Dwilso 05:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:RS. Also would like to associate this AfD with Illustration Magazine, a magazine associated with this article's subject that the original contributor made, if possible please. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 05:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaults to keep, as both sides make reasonable arguments. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Hauserman

This person does not really fall into the notable category. Other than being one of many many many guests on reality tv shows and posing nude there are no other outside sources to show notability. References to myspace used to indicate fame. Unconfirmed claims contained in page. Redrok84 (talk) 04:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject has notability by winning a reality series. Footnotes on page indicate such, which make the claim far from "unconfirmed". The myspace page is NOT used to indicate fame, but is there as a link. ArcAngel (talk) 13:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- You have illustrated my point, she is simply a guest on a reality tv show who happened to be the final guest and is possibly trying to work into the show-biz. There are many winners of reality tv shows every few weeks, but they are not notable, or "worthy of notice." From my understanding and what I have generally seen with reality tv show guests is that there should be a section in the article for the reality tv series the guest appeared on rather than an entire dedicated page. I'm all for summarizing everything on her wiki page in the appropriate reality tv series' pages and Delete her dedicated page. Redrok84 (talk) 02:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Redrok, what's the point, aren't there far more important articles worth editing than making an argument against this one? There are hundreds of dedicated pages for porn actors on Wikipedia, are they any less deserving than this person. By the way, Miss Hauserman's "dabble" into porn isn't referenced on her page. There is already plenty of what I would consider "fluff" on Wiki and I believe that it is by no means in danger of being overrun by the kind of information.

If you want to do something worthwhile, go find pages where some racist revisionist idiot changes factual data to reflect their bizarre beliefs. I find this and other narrow minded garbage again and again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scalhotrod (talk • contribs) 05:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per "Has had significant roles or been featured multiple times in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions" Xpendersx (talk)
Delete as per other delete comments that she does not merit notable status by appearing on a reality tv series along with a billion other girls (and guys). I could not find any sources about notable films, stage performances, or other productions other than reality tv and a few nude photo shoots. Also, I am not a major wikipedian as some people are and I too have had an article deleted - big deal, but I think anything anyone does on wikipedia is "worthwhile" as long as they are not intentionally making bogus pages and also as long as we all contribute unbiased remarks. Jellybean333 (talk) 03:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as WP:CSD#R3 by DMacks (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 06:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Installment sale contract article

Appears like entirely original research, uncited, dubious encyclopedic value Tan | 39 04:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a real legal thing, the article is just a misnomer and should be speedy deleted as such. The article already exsists under its proper title, Installment sale, not Installment sale article. This AfD is not needed. --Blechnic (talk) 04:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Stifle (talk) 08:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Artist Karaoke Series: Miley Cyrus

Future album with an unknown release date. Amazon.com is the only source given. Fails WP:N, and WP:V. Delete Undeath (talk) 04:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable karaoke album that isn't the work of the artist themselves. Nate • (chatter) 00:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Crystal ball issues with no involvement by Cyrus. B.Wind (talk) 02:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete Amazon allows users to pre-order the album, with a given price; album available on various other websites. It will be released this month. All the other karaoke series albums of certain artists are credited as their artists' work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musiclover98765 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doreen McKay

I really do not feel that notability has been established for Doreen McKay, nor could it be. She was in 5 films (2 of which were uncredited) and then she disappeared. There is little, if any, substantial, individual coverage from reliable, third-party sources that I could find (I searched Google, the University of Texas library catalog and Jstor). When I tagged it with notability, the author added a broken link and I couldn't figure out where it was supposed to lead, unless it was this, which does not really add anything from IMDB. I attempted to contact the author about notability and was ignored. Therefore, I feel an AfD is an appropriate venue. The relevant WP:BIO entertainer guidelines are:

Has had significant roles or been featured multiple times in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions.
Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

There is no evidence that she meets any of these requirements nor the more general WP:BIO ones. Cheers, CP 04:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I can't find much information about her -- not that surprising, given that her film career seems to have ended before computers were invented, much less the Internet. On the other hand, she did play the female lead in a couple of lesser John Wayne movies. I would give the subject the benefit of the doubt as to notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Using Access Newspaper Archive, I came across a Fresno Bee article from 1936 that includes a picture of someone named Doreen McKay, with the following caption: "Lovely to look at, and more delightful to know, is shapely Doreen McKay, who hails from San Francisco. She's typical of the new, intelligent beauties who have just arrived on Broadway." ("A Broadway Miracle". Fresno Bee. May 3, 1936. page 40.) I don't even know if that's the same person, and it certainly isn't enough to establish notability, but maybe it could provide a jumping-off point for further research. Zagalejo^^^ 05:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On the basis that she starred opposite John Wayne. She must have been notable in her day to have been in these films. No doubt there are dozens of modern-day actress with articles on here that only appeared in one or two films, but have more coverage due to a wider news service (IE news websites). Lugnuts (talk) 07:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Those films she starred in are valid enough especially opposite Wayne and she wasn't a one off actress although her roles were very few. It is concerning though that there isn't much info to expand it, and if it could ever be expanded beyond a stub, but that is the case with many of the earlier films and actors; that doesn't mean they aren't of notability . You might want to fix the dead TCM link though ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 10:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to fix the dead TCM link though - Done. Lugnuts (talk) 14:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If she appeared in five movies, she is notable enough IMO.--Berig (talk) 14:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, two starring roles opposite Wayne, which sandwiched his career-making performance in Stagecoach, probably mean there are sources that are presently offline. Per WP:CSB/WP:RECENTISM I don't think relying on Google (even the ever-expanding Google Books) tells us the totality of what is available for someone who was a reasonably successful actress almost seven decades ago. --Dhartung | Talk 19:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not quite sure how many people have actually read my argument, but you've clearly ignored it if you're accusing me of recentism. Jstor's journal archive goes back to the 1800s at least, so if there was anything scholarly written on her, it would be covered. Similarly, I browsed the Library of Texas catalog, which covers a vast collection of both scholarly and unscholarly works, so if there was a book that offered non-trivial coverage of her, it would have shown up. So I ask that you be more careful next time you levy an accusation such as that I am "relying on Google," which is clearly and demonstrably false.

As for the other arguments, I have yet to see something that objectively appeals to the criteria for notability or the need for third-party, independent reliable sources to be present to demonstrate notability. I see a lot of speculation and subjective opinion ("there may be sources," "she's probably famous," "I think this many is enough"), but no one has given me concrete sources or a connection to the notability criteria. If they did, I would withdraw this nomination immediately. The onus is on the person who adds the material to provide sourcing for notability, not on someone who thinks that she's not notable to browse through every document known to man before they conclude that nothing substantial has been written on her. And any any case, despite the accusation, I think I've put in a very good faith effort to locate sources. Cheers, CP 21:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My comments were not aimed at any editor in particular. They were not accusations, but spoke to general tendencies on Wikipedia. As to the second point, I believe the available sources verify that she meets Wikipedia:BIO#Entertainers. --Dhartung | Talk 22:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To quote the original requirement: or been featured multiple times in notable films - has been featured in 5 films (5 is multiple), 3 of them are notable enough to have articles, 2 of them starred John Wayne, and in one of those she was the leading lady. Lugnuts (talk) 07:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The presence of an article on Wikipedia is not enough to determine its notability, since many articles pop up on Wikipedia and are later determined to be non-notable. Similarly, the absence of an article does not imply non-notability, as it may be the case that no one has gone around to writing. Any argument for notability based on whether or not the subject has a Wiki article is invalid. None of those articles are more than stubs, which does not obviously indicate that they are notable films. Also, Notability is not inherited, so the fact that John Wayne was in two of them does not mean that those films were notable in themselves. That she was the leading lady in one is a (indeed the first) relatively more objective claim to notability based on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. But "one" is not multiple, nor is there any indication that the film she starred in is notable. Cheers, CP 21:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FWIW, not finding something in JSTOR is meaningless as a negative criterion. JSTOR covers about 1000 humanities journals, many of them for only a few years. There are probably well over 20,000, based on the usual estimate of 50,000 current journals. DGG (talk) 19:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree that not finding anything in JSTOR is "meaningless". It should neither make or break an argument such as this, but it can provide a useful indicator in the context of the fact that I searched other sources and that I've performed "more than a Google search." An article or two on JSTOR would, if not prove, at least indicate that she meets criteria #2 or #3 for entertainers. The fact that there is not is another piece of evidence that she may not meet that criteria (although by itself it is admittedly meaningless). People write academically on a wide variety of topics - JSTOR would even pick her up if she were used as a cultural reference in a paper. Cheers, CP 21:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- comment I think part of the point was that the absence of information on JSTOR (while a valuable reference tool) does not connote the absence of any information of note. More generally, it is difficult to prove a negative and partial proofs are unconvincing.Protonk (talk) 05:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The writing on the wall is clear, but this is the first time in an AfD of mine where I have not been remotely convinced that my nomination was in error. If sources are not added within the next few months, I will renominate for deletion, hopefully with a stronger argument since the onus of providing sources is on the person who adds the material. I have yet to see any argument that is not based in something subjective or speculative. Cheers, CP 21:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment I would contend that it is not for you to decide whether the writing on the wall is clear or not and I would further contend that your conviction about your own request is hardly proof of anything. I don't mean that as personal attacks. I simply mean that the discussion appears open to me.Protonk (talk) 05:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, my saying that "the writing is on the wall" implied that I know that I don't think that this will be deleted this round, since everyone seems to disagree with me. Cheers, CP 05:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sure thing. sorry about misinterpreting that then. Protonk (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep Include the reference listed above, fix the TCM link and keep it. The 'notability is not inherited' argument is a particularly weak one in my mind, given that a good portion of historical notability is relational. We know who Anne Boleyn is primarily through her connection to Henry VIII. We write about the men who hoisted the flag at Iwo Jima because of the press about the flag hoisting (I'm not suggesting that they or the story are not individually notable).Protonk (talk) 05:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Queen's University. Fabrictramp (talk) 23:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Society of Graduate and Professional Students at Queen's University

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Society of Graduate and Professional Students at Queen's University

Extremely non-notable local organization. Does not appear to have any coverage required for the notability of a local org per WP:ORG -- Despite claim of it being a 'prominent society' on the uni's article, it's not even as notable as some student unions as it's a society for some students of one particular university. Also COI from article's creator, although it has been edited since then. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 04:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC) TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 04:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Around 3,000 GHits, more than some other "notable" unions. Thus this one is independently notable, it passes the Google test, and the Pokemon test. Keep. GreenJoe 11:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, ghits don't established notability from reliable sources, which are limited to the Queen's Journal, save for one obit that appears in the Philly Inquirer. Local org, applies to one part of a uni, not notable. However I know from our past that absent the rare occasions that I !vote keep on a notable student union, we're going to have to agree to disagree TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 15:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It still passes the Pokemon test. GreenJoe 16:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Per WP:WAX, The "Pokémon test" is not a valid deletion or inclusion rationale, and neither is simply counting Google hits. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:WAX isn't policy, it's not even a guideline. So we don't have to follow it. GreenJoe 18:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Surprisingly enough, WP:KIT isn't policy or guideline either. Stifle (talk) 08:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Canadian University Student Associations which are recognized by their university (as this one is), almost all have their own articles. They're notable as unions are notable - as the official representatives of their students. See for example List of Canadian students' associations. - Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 20:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment not grounds for speedy keep *and* just because it's a recognized association does not mean it's a notable organization per WP:ORG for local organizations. Please also see WP:OTHERSTUFF, it's not a valid argument for inclusion. They could conceivably all be deleted if they didn't pass notability. For that matter, not all student unions are notable, and a number have been deleted here before TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 20:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment By that logic, you can also go nominate the thousands of secondary schools, private colleges, labour unions, and NGO's which don't have excessive media attention. The SGPS has over 3000 members and is a member local of the Canadian Federation of Students. I consider that notable enough. -Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 21:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the other student societies at that University (Alma Mater Society, Arts and Science Undergraduate Society (either deleted or not yet written), Queen’s Engineering Society I think in cases where there's a single predominant or universal student organisation at a major university then it is notable, but this is just the graduate students, who are about 1/5 the total. DGG (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Pokémon Test is just a variant of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and therefore not a valid argument in this discussion. The article demonstrates no notability for The Society separate from that of Queen's University. Quite a few similar articles about college/university student organizations have failed AfDs in recent weeks. Delete. B.Wind (talk) 02:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per B.Wind. Stifle (talk) 08:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect per DGG. Unless there are sufficient RS to establish notability independent from the university, student organizations should be included in the university article. Sorry, but counting ghits does not a RS make. — Becksguy (talk) 13:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At the risk of being seen as overly anally retentive, I ask that you please place your !vote (Keep/Delete/Merge/ etc.) at the beginning of your post/comment per established style. Without that, it makes it difficult to establish consensus and to separate comments from !votes. Thank you. — Becksguy (talk) 13:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Thanks once again to DGG, who seems to often provide reasonable solutions (with good rationales) that would otherwise be overlooked. Pastordavid (talk) 15:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per DGG. Razor flame 15:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - While a nose count does not reveal a clear consensus to delete, the arguments in favour of deletion are strong. The arguments in favour of keeping made by Fogster and Bugg42 really apply to the notability of the organization, not the person. Notability is not inherited full strength. Further, (to Travellingcari) if no one can be found to work on an article to make it balanced, then it should be deleted to avoid undue weight. Absent a positive consensus to keep, deletion of this borderline notable BLP is the right outcome. ++Lar: t/c 18:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Schoep

Does not meet notability. After lancing out BLP issues, there's nothing left of this article, except him calling immigrants bad names, which violates undue weight. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 03:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there appear to be some sources that might provide material to work from. While I know WP isn't censored, I personally choose not to help and expand the articles of those whose beliefs I profoundly disagree with but someone might want to tackle it TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 04:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable information, and it's unclear what the author is getting at. Dwilso 05:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article needs expanding, not deleting. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - he appears to be notable due to serving as the leader of a leading neo-Nazi party. However if there aren't any good sources about him, and if the article is the target of vandalism, then we should probably delete it until better sources are available ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of notability. Article could be recreated in future if multiple independent sources come to light. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 19:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment there are multiple sources, I don't think that's the issue but rather WP:UNDUE as the nom suggested. What is there to say about his life other then the fact that he's apparently a neo-Nazi TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 19:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant keep - While I find this guy's views repulsive and a part of me hopes this ends up deleted, he leads a notable group (National Socialist Movement (United States)), and has been "recognized" by the Southern Poverty Law Center. It's a stub of an article, but really, I think he is notable. Fogster (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for many of the same reasons Fogster identified. This needs to be expanded, and not removed. This guy can't simply be ignored, as his group is in the news for their activities (they're marching on DC today, to celebrate Hitler's birthday) and I personally turned to wikipedia to try to learn more about him and his group. Bugg42 (talk) 13:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge content in to innosense and redirect nancy ^(talk) 16:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mandy Ashford

As a singer she fails WP:MUSIC, and as a model her career is not notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. JeanLatore (talk) 03:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to innosense. Not notable on her own, but deserves a mention on the band's article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to innosense. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Innosense. Per above; she's a big part of the band, but her life (as detailed in the article) is otherwise non-notable. PeterSymonds | talk 20:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3D-Palace

Spam for non-notable website. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 03:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. X Marx The Spot (talk) 03:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:WEB. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 03:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, and WP:WEB. Victor Lopes (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like an advertisement, and per WP:WEB. Gary King (talk) 20:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, as an unverifiable probable hoax. Davewild (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome "Pop" Pentsky

It appears this article was published some time ago and has never been substantiated. It is well known that Al Copeland was the founder of Popeyes, but there is never mention of Mr. Pentsky in any non-wikipedia or non-wikipedia-derived sources. Until recently, there had been no mention of Mr. Pentsky on the pages for either "Popeyes" or "Al Copeland" (who recently died). Mdlawmba (talk) 02:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, contradicts other sources regarding the founding of Popeye's, likely WP:HOAX. --Dhartung | Talk 03:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I started out expecting a "keep", but after a lot of research, can't. I can find several sources mentioning him, but they all point back to wikipedia or are copied from here. After searching Popeye's website and reading the history, I can say with confidence that no information can be found that is reliable, that indicates this person existed. Al Copeland is who started both Chicken on the Run and Popeyes, not "Pop". Who ever started this hoax did a good enough job that this misinformation is widespread. PHARMBOY (TALK) 20:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's been put into a number of Wikipedia pages, which is unusual diligence for a hoaxer, but the appearances you see, as far as I can tell, are all Wikipedia mirrors and forks. When we delete this article and the ancillary mentions, almost all of those hits will disappear. --Dhartung | Talk 01:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Pharmboy. I checked the Hoover's business profile via Lexis and found this sentence: "Al Copeland started the company as a single Chicken on the Run restaurant in New Orleans in 1972." Also, zero hits in the DB on Jerome Pentsky (versus 300+ for Al Copeland). -- phoebe / (talk) 06:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shalito

Non-notable subject matter. No Ghits for this cocktail. Additionally contains a statement which may constitute a personal attack. X Marx The Spot (talk) 03:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete also looks like a big CoI judging by the username. nneonneo^talk 03:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of significant (any?) coverage in reliable sources, therefore does not pass notability guidelines and is unverifiable.--Beloved Freak 16:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We're not a directory for this sort of thing. Qworty (talk) 06:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SSB LOST Theory Board

Doesn't seem to be notable enough, but doesn't quite seem to qualify as a speedy. nneonneo^talk 02:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another possibility (which I raised with the original author) is to transwiki this to the Lost wiki, provided it's suitable. nneonneo^talk 03:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article isn't encyclopedic enough. Dwilso 05:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage in reliable sources and doesn't meet WP:WEB. Deleted before at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SSB Lost Theory Board (although as a speedy, so it doesn't qualify for G4). NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 03:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is not encyclopedic, well written, or notable. FOR GREAT JUSTICE. (talk · contribs) 16:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quadball

Contested Prod, removed with the comment "This game is notable. It can be viewed at Quadball.org, has a history spanning decades, and has been played by hundreds of players. Also, if curling gets a page then Quadball deserves at least 10...". I am really not seeing the notability needed to keep this page and, in particular, there is a lack of good secondary sources. Delete. BlueValour (talk) 02:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:MADEUP and [41]. Fails WP:NOTE. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 02:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this is not made up, all students and faculty of Phillips Exeter Academy will attest to its existence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.75.66 (talk) 03:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really what WP:MADEUP says. I am sure that it exists. However, Wikipedia isn't the place for articles about novel games etc.. that a group of people created one day. If it received widespread coverage in reliable sources, then that's fine. However, I could find nothing that substantiated it's notability. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 03:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- not notable. WP:MADEUP X Marx The Spot (talk) 03:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial RS coverage, not at all notable TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thwacking, Meatstomping Delete: A G-search for "Quadball" + "Phillips Exeter" turns up a titanic nine total hits, which consist of this article, three photos on an academy website photo album, and five citations on Myspace pages or mirrors. More non-notable it is not easy to get. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. RGTraynor 15:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete complete and total junk. JuJube (talk) 04:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. RGTraynor puts it best. Edward321 (talk) 01:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete by User:Dlohcierekim. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbuloscium

Per WP:MADEUP. nneonneo^talk 02:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G1 Appears to be blatant nonsense. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete A1 by User:Jmlk17, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funking

Wikipedia is not a dictionary and the lack of sources indicates that the neologism described by the article may not be notable Guest9999 (talk) 02:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A1 Very little context, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Halsway Manor

The result was Snowball Keep (non-admin closure), per WP:SNOW, near to unanimous. RGTraynor 15:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely non-notable, and being a folk centre is not significant. Fails to assert notability. Kironide (talk) 02:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article does not appear to be about a folk centre but a several hundred year old manor which currently houses a folk centre. Guest9999 (talk) 02:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True; however, the manor itself has no true historical significance. Kironide (talk) 02:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability and significance are not the same thing. --Dhartung | Talk 03:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Mentioned in Domesday Book, Heritage listed, part of building goes back to 15th century. That all looks notable to me. --Bduke (talk) 02:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per Bduke. X Marx The Spot (talk) 03:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above and extensive mentions. Its use may not be notable but the Manor House itself is TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, definitely a notable building/grounds. --Dhartung | Talk 03:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To be Heritage listed, it would need pass stricter guidelines than Wikipedia. Its current usage as a folk center has no bearing on its notability. It could be abandoned and still be notable. --Oakshade (talk) 06:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:Any building of that age and design is notable amd always has the possibility of being improved. Giano (talk) 07:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:As the creator of this article I would argue the grade II* listed building status shows recognition by independent & reliable sources (ie English Heritage).— Rod ^talk 07:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:Notable by virtue of its age and architecture.Derek Andrews (talk) 11:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think any Grade I and Grade II* listed building can be assumed to be notable without any need for additional evidence. Grade II listed buildings are maybe more of a borderline case, but since this is Grade II*, I'd say it's a keeper. Klausness (talk) 12:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Either one of mentioned in Domesday Book or Heritage listed would be enough to pass WP:N. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Clearly notable enough for inclusion.--Berig (talk) 14:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, or at least certainly no consensus to delete. Can be merged, or not, as editors decide; that discussion should go to its talk page. Stifle (talk) 08:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Krueger Middle School

Uh, this article is about a middle school; it's non-notable and has nothing to assert its notability. Also, the general consensus about middle school articles is that they should be deleted. Kironide (talk) 02:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this is not the case. Some, though a minority, middle schools are notable and the consensus is that the ones that are not should be merged into the school district. TerriersFan (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to North East Independent School District per WP:SCHOOLS, where consensus often favors merge and not taking them to AfD where schools are rarely/never deleted. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 02:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 02:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - To the appropriate district or township per WP:SCHOOL for primary institutions, as well as [42], which indicates a general lack of notability (all trivial mentions). Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 03:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. GoogleNews suggests there are several sources for information on the school's programs, challenges, and accomplishments. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment doesn't appear to be enough to meet WP:ORg for local organizations -- school serves local community and programs are, at best, locally notable TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - NPOV, V, and NOR DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - and...? you've confirmed it exists. Existence!notability per WP:ORG and WP:SCHOOL - no one is saying it contains original research or a non-neutral point of view. Elementary and middle schools generally aren't notable and this one is no exception TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - NPOV, V, and NOR are the content policies. WP:N is a guideline to meet those policies. GoogleNews suggests this school has been covered and noted by reliable sources. It is not famous and it is arguably not important…. What is it that makes this encyclopedic? It is that it is information which is verifiable and which can be easily presented in an NPOV fashion DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        None of which provide evidence that this middle school meets WP:SCHOOL which is the established consensus for middle and elementary schools. But we've said our piece, let's see where this goes TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 14:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge WP:SCHOOL ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 03:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DoubleBlue. Ordinarily I support the merge/redirection of middle schools but this one appears notable enough to keep on its own. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, what do you consider notable about this primary school that it warrants a keep instead of a merge? I'm honestly curious. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 17:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. To satisfy Wisdon89's curiosity, sources are available that verify that they won a physical fitness state championship, their rocketry programme has been extensively reported, there has been controversy over the school's magnet programme, they have a successful chess squad, a student was arrested for allegedly threatening to blow up the school, a student was stabbed on leaving school, etc. Taken together, the multiple sources meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. No notability unless magnet programs are now a criteria for notability. Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tha Mexakinz

Non-notable albums per WP:MUSIC; artist has no page, and associated act (Sinful (El Pecador)) is up for AfD too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per Esradekan. Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 15:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 04:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete nancy ^(talk) 16:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sinful (El Pecador)

Clearly a vanity article.

Also known as Latin hip hop king

This sort of style justifies deletion. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 01:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely no notability per WP:MUSIC; no coverage in reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the "style" of the article doesn't justify deletion. It certainly needs improvement. I'm neutral for now as to whether or not to delete, but there is some coverage. [43] [44] [45]. Whether or not it's enough to pass notability guidelines is another matter. --Beloved Freak 16:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 16:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 04:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Mike Watt (writer). Please do not modify it. The result was "delete". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This is a perfect example of the difference between a news story and notability. This was a news story - but it's really not terribly notable. Single event notability is not sufficient for inclusion. - Philippe 15:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Sumner

Per WP:BIO and especially WP:NOT#NEWS, I can only find a few news articles relating to his death. There doesn't seem to be any WP:RS relating to his life or contributions to his field. Adamfinmo (talk) 01:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Adamfinmo seems to be obsessed with this benign article, for no very clear reason. I have worked with him several times to fix this article to meet his concept of Wikification -- you can check the history of the article to see his contributions.

The crux of this request is based on the attempt by Adamfinmo to control the contents of the article on List of unusual deaths. You may wish to check the History of that article to see his actions on that article, including his attempts to exclude a listing of Richard Sumner from that article. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability, very few sources, will never get beyond stub length, undue weight, etc. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two leading British news organizations (including the BBC, arguably the world's most important English-language network) plus a British government report on the death -- the references seem to carry weight. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability can not simply be achieved by coverage of an unusual death. Grsz 11 04:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the above statement is correct, then 75% of the List of unusual deaths would need to be removed, since that list is supposed to constitute NOTABLE people who perished in extraordinary ways. There are very few famous people on that list. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valerian, Aeschylus, Herod, St. Peter, St Lawrence, Henry I, Pope John XXI, Tycho Brahe, Rasputin, Bruce Lee, Alexander Wolcott, Chrysippus, Pompey, Cicero, Moliere, Francis Bacon, Innocent X ... Are we looking at the same article? Just those few are more than enough. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFF. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we have an article on someone who became notable through an unusual death, why can't it be on the list? Seriously. This is stretching WP:ONEEVENT to unintended reach. (I have no opinion on this article, only on the list.) --Dhartung | Talk 19:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Although it is sourced death doesn't make you notable, even if it has received coverage; that would make you only notable for one event, which is something for wikinews. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under this definition, nobody in the 21st century list except Steve Irwin would qualify as notable, since they are known only for the manner of their deaths and not the accomplishments in their life. More than half of the 20th century list would also have to go, and we can cherry pick our way back through the centuries. Ecoleetage (talk) 10:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And this is bad ... why? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be a clear case of WP:ONEEVENT. I'd also agree with the comment above by Ecoleetage - in the sense that the mentioned list indeed has some more non-notable entries. --Minimaki (talk) 12:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to work with Adamfinmo to edit the List of unusual deaths article to focus primarily on notable historical and cultural figures. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No indication that this is more than a news event. Was this death something that resulted in more half-way houses for the insane? Did it result in more suicide counselling? Did it result in a wild lawsuit? Did it result in laws? Do people refer to "not doing a Richard Sumner?" In other words, to be notable, either the life before the death has to have been outstanding from the rest or the death had to be culturally active, as those would be enough to require contextualizing in an amplifying encyclopedia article. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A similar debate is on-going at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl McCunn -- I hope the people voting here will vote there, too. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep The brief line about the career given implies that he might be notable at that--has anyone actually checked? DGG (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment That brief line is "Mr Sumner, at one time a scenic artist for opera productions at Glyndebourne, had suffered from schizophrenia since 1984." - so I guess he was the guy painting the backgrounds in some of their operas. And while opera critics would mention the intendant, director, composer, singers, and so on, I don't think they would usually mention this artist. --Minimaki (talk) 11:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response If you are going to dis an article, please quote it correctly. The exact line from the article defined the late Mr. Sumner as a "British artist who was best known for his art direction and scenic designs for opera productions at Glyndebourne." He was involved in a lot more than painting pyramids on an Aida backdrop. Also, it should be pointed out (again) that Mr. Sumner's death was major news in the U.K. and was covered by the BBC. If that is not notable, then Wikipedia's concept of notability has become lethally peculiar. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. Stifle (talk) 12:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carl McCunn

Fails WP:BIO and WP:NOT#NEWS. He only received press coverage for suicide. Adamfinmo (talk) 00:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unintentional fatal self-abandonment seems to be the correct characterization, and his story has been told in Krakauer's Into the Wild (itself originally partly published in

Outside) and in Danger Stalks the Land: Alaskan Tales of Death and Survival, as well as apparent reference in Modern Mummies. Seems to be a well-known cautionary tale, in other words. --Dhartung | Talk 01:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment You seem to have this gentleman mixed up with Christopher McCandless--Adamfinmo (talk) 01:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply I most certainly do not. --Dhartung | Talk 02:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am changing my vote. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only notable for one event. Somno (talk) 08:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not a memorial site. There is no indication that his death is influential or active in the wider culture. His death is a fact mentioned by Krakauer because of the context of McCandless's death; it's an anecdote. It's sad, but it's not encyclopedic. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So it is notable enough for an article in the NY Times and a very popular book (Into the Wild) but isn't good enough for Wikipedia? vlado4 (talk) 03:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an interesting story of unintentional suicide that was documented both in newspapers and in a book. The mere fact that the story is interesting enough to be referred to in a book makes it notable, IMO.--Berig (talk) 14:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep came across this article via stumbleupon, well worth keeping. 00:01 16 April 2008(UTC)
Keep The story of this man is fascinating. Surely if it was covered by a top newspaper such as the New York Times, it is worthy of a wikipedia article. The arguments that it is a memorial are mute, the article is not. It simply tells what happened to this person. If you are going to nominate this article for deletion, go ahead and nominate the Chris McCandless article as well. What is the difference between the two? Both are interesting stories of people who died in the wilderness. One simply has more coverage than the other. If you are going to delete anything, start with the millions of articles on fictional universes. Surely, the season 5 episode 4 of Star Trek is less encyclopedic than this.vlado4 (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Vlado try looking at WP:WAX, WP:ILIKEIT, and WP:NOT#NEWS.--Adam in MO Talk 19:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok, according to WP:WAX if this article is suitable for deletion so is the Chris McCandless stuff. Do you agree? If his story is a legitimate article, I don't see why this one isn't. Perhaps this one has not been researched to a similar depth, but Krakauer himself put it in Into the Wild because it is analogous.vlado4 (talk) 03:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No I don't agree. Did you read this part "...So just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist...? I agree with this statement.--Adam in MO Talk 04:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suppose you are right. All of this is extremely subjective though. Have not participated in one of these debates before and it is interesting to see the immense amount of bureaucracy behind wikipedia. I imagine it is through situations such as this that contributers are turned off from wiki. You work on an article and then one day someone comes and deletes it. Anyway, I've cast my vote, if the wikipedia page is deleted, at least I will have the NYT account of this fascinating story. vlado4 (talk) 07:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First of all, has anyone tried looking for his career as a photographer? Second, even things like this if they are really widely enough reported can be notable. That it was in the NYT implies that it was, for they do not normally cover this sort of thing. I trust their judgment more than ours. DGG (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If this is nominated for deletion a lot of other articles really should be as well. I totally agree with the opinions of vlado4. Grapetonix (talk) 23:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response Yes, a lot of other articles will be. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThere are many anecdotal articles on Wikipedia. Does not justify deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.105.126 (talk) 04:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wiki policy seems pretty clear that this bio is a no no. But is the info usable? Does his death meet notability requirements? If so, a wikipage could be created detailing the event, and this page after deletion could redirect. I'm going to go research WP notability policy for events be back soon. Bigmacd24 (talk) 06:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Change Name A bit of research, not much found, decided policy is best as a guideline only anyway. More or less, I agree with the concept that a person who's sole notability for an article is an event is probably a bad candidate for an article. What the notable thing here is really his death. So why not have an article on that instead? I propose we rename this page to the Death of Carl McCunn, (someone should probably look up if there is a standard way of naming these articles) and then have this page redirect. This keeps all the info, cuts down on space which can be filled with non-notable info. Bigmacd24 (talk) 06:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia (not "wiki", OK?) guidelines (not policy, OK?) are fairly clear that a topic must have significant coverage in multiple sources. I don't know of any policy or guideline that says this article is a "no no". We don't really have a separate policy for events. There is a feeling by some editors that to renaming articles a la "Event involving Joe Smith" is important, but there is really no difference in the manual of style nor policies and guidelines in how those articles should be written, so I personally don't see the point of a rename except in limited cases where the title is actually a problem (e.g. encouraging that a crime victim needs her high school awards detailed). --Dhartung | Talk 22:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verifiable, notable, interesting. No apparent reason to delete. — Werdna talk 08:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ResponsePlease explain how Mr. McCunn is notable. He achieved no fame or notable goals in his lifetime (the article never states what he actually did for a living), and he is recalled today solely for the peculiar and tragic manner in which he died. Compare this to Richard Sumner, whose biography is also the subject of an article deletion debate over notability.Ecoleetage (talk) 10:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What is the exact definition of notability according to Wikipedia?? Do please explain. From what I can tell it is a fairly fluid notion with no clear-cut boundaries. I would argue someone who has had a chapter in a famous book devoted to them and an article in the NY Times, is somewhat notable, but that is just me.vlado4 (talk) 15:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At the very best this article should be merged into the article for Into the wild. FYI check out WP:N, it is a great resource. I think you will find it useful--Adam in MO Talk 05:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vlado4, this is the definition of notability. The primary notability criterion is significant coverage by multiple sources. We are not judging someone's accomplishments or guessing at how important they are. --Dhartung | Talk 22:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Werdna and Vlado4. Ezratrumpet (talk) 05:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely hope the Admin who rules on this will check out a very similar debate that just concluded with a delete vote: [[46]] Ecoleetage (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And to avoid a subjective decision, I hope the admin is aware that McCunn's story is in three books -- three books more than Sumner. --Dhartung | Talk 22:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The story of McCunn's death (not his life) is briefly cited in three books. There is no book devoted exclusively to his life, let alone his death. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, that is not what I said, nor is having a book devoted exclusively to one's life a criterion in WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 08:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#NEWS covers this one. Subject is "notable" only because of his method of death. Merge with List of unusual deaths if it's to be kept at all. One stated reference is sufficient for the part to be merged, but for the article to stand on its own, it must cite multiple references per WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:N. Don't state the sources here - put them into the article itself. B.Wind (talk) 02:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article would actually be deleted from the List of unusual deaths entry if it is dropped from Wikipedia. That happened to Richard Sumner. Ecoleetage (talk) 10:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, article does not have the significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to meet the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 13:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Project Fanboy

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}}.

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:WEB. Was speedied twice under Projectfanboy. Seems to be nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 (talk) 00:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Highly promotional piece for a non-notable website; none of the sources seems to be reliable or significant. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion page for Project Fanboy found here for examples of noteworthiness.Millennium Cowboy (talk) 01:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Please read WP:GOOGLEHITS. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you TenPoundHammer, according to that citing "Similarly, a lack of search engine hits may only indicate that the topic is highly specialized or not generally sourceable via the internet. One would not expect to find thousands of hits on an ancient Estonian god." Since many Indy titles are specialized to a certain audience one may not find thousands of hits about specific titles. Furthermore, it reads... "It has 345,400 Google hits, so it is clearly of interest" but doesn't say what a minimum number of google hits is required to be notable, only that 345,400 is clearly notable. A google search of "Project Fanboy" reveals 4020 hits. I've cited several searches relating to comic books where Project Fanboy is in the top ten rankings. I'm afraid I don't understand why it is being considered not notable. Can you please explain? Thanks. Millennium Cowboy (talk) 01:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

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

The lack of notability is in regards to WP:WEB; it seems to fail all three criteria established there. The site hasn't been covered in any reliable sources (criterion #1); it hasn't won a well-known award (criterion #2); and it isn't distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators (criterion #3). #1 is probably the most important here — pretty much everything on Wikipedia is considered notable if multiple reliable third-party sources have given it significant coverage. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is from the Broken Soul Press Website...

posted: 2008-02-24

Project fanboy has just posted a brand new interview with Kincaid Scribe and BSP owner, Curtis Lawson. Head over and check it out! www.projectfanboy.com

This is from the Septagon Studios Website...

In conjunction with the Project Fanboy, Kevin Moyers, writer of the independent title, Scorn and Nick Defina, President of Septagon Studios, publisher of the aforementioned title...

This is from the Cinemacomics Website

Project Fanboy Interview

Our interview with Project Fanboy has now been posted on their site. Click HERE to read it.

This is from the Pulp Factory Website

Bobby Nash interviewed by Project Fanboy

The great folks over at Project Fanboy interviewed me for their site where we talked about some of my past, present, and future projects.

I hope you will check it out at http://www.projectfanboy.com/?pf=interviews.

Bobby

Posted by Bobby Nash at 7:29 PM

This is a reference to the Project Fanboy Award on the Greenie Gobbie Spiderman Blog

Project Fanboy Fansite Award
Monday, February 11, 2008

Yesterday I nominated my site on the Project Fanboy Fansite Award. To see my site on the nomination list, click on the link below that says "Project Fanboy Fansite Award". If you want to submit your own fansite, click on the same link below for instructions. Good luck to anyone who is nominating their fansite, and also wish me luck too.

Thanks,
GreenieGobbie

Project Fanboy Fansite Award

All of which are third party coverage of Project Fanboy events and happenings, and all of which were used as External Links in the article. I'm afraid I still don't understand. How does it not meet the criteria? Millennium Cowboy (talk) 02:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
— Millennium Cowboy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete -- not notable. No Google News hits, no Google News archive hits and of the 99 unique hits found with Google's web search, none of them meet the reliability requirements of our Notability Guideline. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject doesn't assert notability. Zero ProQuest, Google News, Ebsco, Infotrac hits. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sign for notability. Looks like pure advertising. --Abrech (talk) 10:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why is it always assumed that a website added to Wiki is self-promoted? It could be a fan. One of the many fans that this website has who simply want it listed. Lesser sites have wiki pages without any problems. This site has notable interviews with people who themselves are justifiable wiki entries. Definitely keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.235.35 (talk) 15:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
— 90.194.235.35 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. <--- Completely wrong. I have made 100's of contributions.

What's the difference between the Comic_Book_Resources Page and the Project Fanboy page? Comic Book Resources was nominated and competes for the Eagle Award a few times and won it twice. Project Fanboy has other websites compete to win the Project Fanboy Award. The Project Fanboy page denotes several people in the comic book industry who have been interviewed by Project Fanboy. Project Fanboy has been covered on several different third party sites Comic Book Resources lists two. Millennium Cowboy (talk) 11:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Project Fanboy has also been listed on MSCH.COM LINKS Under "Guides".

Also listed here Book Character Comic Name - search results Millennium Cowboy (talk) 11:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Looks like it meets the guidelines to me. Looks like they have another interview reference on Comic Ne.ws Tracker too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.79.143.10 (talk) 13:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not a web guide. Testimonials are not going to be relevant, and Internet hosted objects have Internet hits. Alexa rank does not inspire, and the length of existence is not sufficient to make this particularly old. 18 months old or thereabouts? The mayfly-like lifespan of websites is well known. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interviewing notable people doesn't allow a site to inherit notability.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 17:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can someone please explain to me why you believe the Comic_Book_Resources Page is allowable and the Project Fanboy page is not? They're both comic book websites with articles and reviews. What makes the CBR page any different than the Project Fanboy page?Millennium Cowboy (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI haven't read the CBR wiki article, so I'm just going to go off the top of my head since I have a knowledge of the subject matter. 1.CBR has been around for over a decade. 2.CBR has had many staff writers go on to become notable comic book writers 3.CBR hosts major events at several comic conventions that generate publicity for themselves. 4.CBR is one of the top five comic book news outlets in print or otherwise. 5.CBR has won over five Eagle Awards (an award that has been around for over 3 decades) 6.The alexa rank is very high for a comic book website. 7.They have been listed as a reference for pop culture information by numerous universities. All of these things can not be claimed by the Project Fanboy page. Also, please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS it describes the argument you're raising by comparing CBR to this page. If for whatever reason CBR didn't meet with the criteria it too would find itself in this same situation.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just for clarity's sake, CBR has won two Eagle Awards and been nominated for several others. Project Fanboy has been nominated for the 2007 Eagle Awards as well for Favourite Comics Related Website. (Reference has been added to the article.)Millennium Cowboy (talk) 18:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it wins that might be enough to make it notable.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 19:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, there seems to be some confusion. I don't see Fanboy Project on the ballot for the Eagle Awards as you claim Eagle Awards Voting, nor can I find reference to a reliable source of this information in the article. Can you please help me clear this up?--Torchwood Who? (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. I think you're confused. This website was not nominated, someone used the online form to submit the page for consideration. Only five sites were actually nominated.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 19:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comic Book Resources and Newsarama tick the WP:WEB boxes in a number of ways - they are described as good sources for comic information by independent and authoritative sources (for the former The University of Buffalo and College & Research Libraries News) they have been nominated for and won a number awards. You also seem to be mistaken about the Eagle Awards - in the first phase anyone can add a recommendation via a web form so getting on that list is easy. The people who count as being nominated for the award are those that make the shortlist from which the winners are decided and I listed the at Eagle Awards#2007 and Project Fanboy doesn't make the list. It is also worth noting that it has taken quite a bit of work to prove the notability and CBR has been put up for deletion so even they weren't sure things. Comparing them to Project Fanboy just underlines how far off proving notability it is. This doesn't mean it isn't possible. If you are interested (and if there are no WP:COI issues, as some have claimed) then save it off to your sandbox and work on it there. If it is looking solid then post a note to the Comic Project and they can have a look over it for you and let you know how it is going. (Emperor (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Keep I say keep it.

A) It follows very similar trends to sites that are on here such as Comic Book Resources and Newsarama (both are listed on wikipedia). I also noticed newsarama uses a lot of google related references.
B) They did make the news for Septagon studios @ http://news.septagonstudios.com/?p=102. Kevin Moyers does have an article on wikipedia. He is the creator of septagon studios. Even if other sources on here do not count as notable, Kevin Moyers and septagon studios are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.78.175 (talk) 19:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC) — 24.108.78.175 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Keep it. Chumble_Spuzz has a reference to project fanboy in their article. If they are being referenced on here, definitely notable. Also, it looks like Ape Entertainment has been having Project Fanboy review their products. They recognize this at http://www.ape-entertainment.com/. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thunderstrike123 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC) I also noticed that someone from the Werewolf Cafe posted links to Project Fanboy's reviews. In the same post the poster references other sites too. Since this post is not just a project fanboy spam post, it proves that Project Fanboy is notable enough to be referenced on other sites. http://forum.werewolfcafe.com/viewtopic.php?pid=185880#p185880 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thunderstrike123 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC) Another note. I know Septagon studios have been mention already, but I think its important to note they felt the project fanboy interview was enough of a reliable source that they placed it on their blog too. http://septagonstudios.asoboo.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thunderstrike123 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another note. I know Septagon studios have been mention already, but I think its important to note they felt the project fanboy interview was enough of a reliable source that they placed it on their blog too. http://septagonstudios.asoboo.com/. Under "comics" on "A twisted outlook" (http://www.twistedoutlook.com/links.php), they are within the 3 listed. This is important because one of the other three is Comic Book Resources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thunderstrike123 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC) — Thunderstrike123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You're using circular logic with this Septagon thing. You're claiming it's a reliable source but it's actually just an article talking about the article that Fanboy wrote about them. It's not a third party source because the thing they reference Fanboy about is directly related to them. I'm also hard-pressed to see this as a reliable source even if it was third party.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I felt that it was worthy of a reference. I understand that Wikipedia will make the final decision, I'm just trying to do my part in helping both sides be seen.

Pit Bros Productions also lists Project Fanboy as reviewers for their products. http://www.pitbrosproductions.com/press/review.html. Fandom Comics also has them on their links page. According to the dates on the bottom, Fandom Comics has been around since 2005. http://www.fandomcomics.com/links.php

SuperHeroNews (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SuperHeroNews/msearch?query=project+fanboy&submit=Search&charset=ISO-8859-1) also has a list of references to Project Fanboy. Is this not a new source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thunderstrike123 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forums and press releases are not really reliable sources for notability. Please read WP:RS and Wikipedia:Reliable source examples for what is and isn't generally accepted. You mentioned Newsarama before. Newsarama made huge mainstream business headlines when it was bought by Imaginova, I would say that alone makes it notable. Also, please sign your posts. You were instructed how on your talk page. It makes it much more helpful to keep the discussion organized.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 20:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, and sorry for the signing. I didn't see that note. Anyway, many of the other points here are valid. I'd especially like to re-point out the couple of the references here to people/companies that have wikipedia articles already (and therefore have been seen as notable) -- Chumble_Spuzz and Ape_Entertainment (Chumble Spuzz has a reference to on the wikipedia page and ape entertainment has posts on their site)Thunderstrike123 (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS We're not debating other articles, just this one.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not trying to be rude, and I hope you're not taking it that way. But I do need to point out that your article says that sometimes the points will be valid. I think you missed the point I was making (which makes it valid). Anyway, on the Chumble_Spuzz article, it references Project Fanboy. I know page edits are removed ALL the time because wikipedia doesn't feel that the reference was valid (or perhaps they think it was spam). Since this reference has passed wikipedia's guidelines, I feel that it helps make Project Fanboy become more significant (ie. Wikipeida itself is a 3rd party). The second thing I was pointing out is that Ape_Entertainment is a notable source, and therefore counts as coverage from a reliable source. Finally, I'd like to point out that most of my point have come from searches from Google, Yahoo and Altavista. There are loads of references to Project Fanboy out there and therefore should be allowed an article. As I mentioned, I'm really not trying to be rude, and I hope its not taken that way. Thunderstrike123 (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - Not notable. After reviewing all ELs, refs, and Google searches, failed to find anything that met requirements for a reliability requirements. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I don't know how you can honestly say that...
The site is notable in the fact that it is:

Listed in the top 10 in over 30 comic book related Google searches.
Site staff have interviewed figures in the comic book industry who were notable enough to have their own wiki pages and aforementioned interviews were published to their site.
Site holds a comic book related award other comic book related sites compete for.
Site was nominated for the Eagle Awards in 2007. (Sorry Torchwoodwho, no disrespect intended but I believe you're actually confused. When someone 'submits something for consideration' in any sort of competition, they have nominated that individual or thing. That's what the word nominate means. Nominate - "To propose for an honor. Obviously someone proposed the Project Fanboy website for the Honor of competing in the Eagle Awards therefore nominating it. The fact that it did not make it into the final voting process is irrelevant.)
Site has been shown to be covered by several independent sources referring to various interviews and reviews of authors and works in the comic book industry.Millennium Cowboy (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the site didn't warrant to be included in the judging for the Eagle award I hardly call it a nomination. Not every film considered for an oscar is nominated, but from the four or five nominees come the winner. In either case the place at which this website reached in the Eagle Awards process does not meet any of the notability guidelines.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my nom. Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:WEB. Despite multiple creatiations, and multiple votes[47][48], by the articles creator, this does not contain Reliable and Verifiable third party sources. "Verifiable Reliable Sources"--Hu12 (talk) 19:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:WEB, WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS, as I say above there is nothing to stop someone storing a copy in their sandbox and working on it further and I'd be happy to look it over (I've helped dig up resources which helped with this issue for other comics websites) and will keep an eye out for good sources at the moment it really doesn't measure up, which doesn't mean it can't. (Emperor (talk) 21:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Agreed, there is no prejudice against future developments but there isn't enough in the way of 3rd party sources to support an article as yet.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 03:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are six official comic book publisher websites, referencing Project Fanboy interviews and/or title reviews in the external links. Not to sound disrespectful, but how many third party sources does one article need? Emperor, I would be interested in taking you up on the offer to look over the article and see if there is perhaps anything that might be added to the article to strengthen it's case as a wikipedia article. I've added the code to my sandboxMillennium Cowboy (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK great - I've left you some thoughts. To answer your question though: You could find hundreds of third party mentions and it wouldn't help. You need non-trivial mentioned from reliable sources - having a good hard look at Comic Book Resources and Newsarama who have recommendations from academia, big name magazines, etc. which itself might not guarantee they are safe but the awards help tick another box (and bear in mind even then CBR just passed an AfD). So there are a number of hoops to jump through to really nail down WP:N and at the moment what is there doesn't make it through one. That isn't to say it can't but there are a vast number of comic sites out there and the bar that WP:WEB sets is high and only a few will make it. Sorry for the mixed metaphors ;) (Emperor (talk) 01:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete A7 non-admin closure by Lenticel ^(talk) 04:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jibum Choi

Article completely fails WP:BIO per [49]. I can find anything that could even verify the claims in the article, let alone establish notability. [50] and [51] is some news coverage, which is frightfully empty. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 00:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 01:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, consensus is that the article meets the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 12:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey A. Klein, MD

Contested speedy A7. Biography of a non-notable person written up by an editor with an apparent conflict of interest. KurtRaschke (talk) 00:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If his book is published by Mosby, this suggests that he is notable. Mosby is a medical publisher, and it does not publish nonsense. --Eastmain (talk) 01:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The lead is sourced to an unpublished "personal interview", and the rest of the article ("Education and Training") sure looks like a direct transcription of book-jacket copy. If this fellow actually is notable, his article is going to need a total rewrite. Deor (talk) 02:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Flagrant spam, copyvio. Yanksox (talk) 03:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The article needs lots of cleanup, but this guy is one of the innovators in cosmetic plastic surgery, and is highly highly notable. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A google search for "Klein Method Tumescent" comes u with over 14,000 hits, which show widespread use of his technique upon plastic surgeons. here's one really good source right here, which also cites to the proper medical journals discussing his investigations in the ratios of lidocaine, saline, and epinephrine. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response I just did a Google search for "Klein Method Tumescent" (as cited above) and I got a grand total of one hit -- from the entry cited above! LOL. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Take off the quotation marks.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 03:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not much help, either. There is a ton of repetition, with sites repeating text from earlier sites. That's no way to measure notability. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given the overwhelming weight of sources provided here, I think any attempt to say that he's non-notable is both futile and ignorant. This guy is the monster in the field of lipoplasty. That's undeniable. Claiming he barely qualifies for footnote consideration in his field is both factually inaccurate, and ignorant of academic practices. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 13:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response Please don't call me "ignorant" -- it is possible to have a difference of opinion without making personal attacks and demeaning commentary. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read more carefully. I did not call you ignorant. I called the viewpoint that he is non-notable ignorant. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 15:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An intelligent discussion gains no value when people use the word "ignorant" to attack someone else's opinion. Keep it civil, please. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. Worldcat lists 26 copies of the book at libraries in the United States and 4 in the United Kingdom. AMICUS searching by ISBN-10 on the entire AMICUS database lists 1 library in Canada, CISTI, Canada Institute for Scientific and Technical Information. This may not be enough to qualify him, but the fact that this is a medical book rather than a mass-market one should be taken into consideration. --Eastmain (talk) 04:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found two reviews of the book in medical journals, and that (together with the other comments by participants in this AfD) convinces me that notability has been established. Could the closer please undelete Tumescent Technique for liposuction, a related article, and the article to which it is a redirect? --Eastmain (talk) 04:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 07:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His books have obviously been reviewed by reliable third party publications, so there is notability. However any copyright violations, etc., should be addressed ASAP. Also, to the nominator, COI is not permissible as grounds for deletion. MrPrada (talk) 07:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Medline finds around 20 research papers by JA Klein directly related to plastic surgery (he may also have contributions on other topics but there are several JA Kleins), including one letter to NEJM and several invited reviews. His top citations in Google Scholar are 258, 214, 198, 148 [52], which are very much above average for surgery articles. A review in Anesthesia Analgesia states "His large-dose lidocaine anesthesia tumescent technique is becoming, or has become, a standard in the liposuction community."[53]. His textbook on the technique is published by a reputable medical publisher and has been reviewed in the appropriate specialist medical journals. He is/was a member of the American Academy of Dermatology Guidelines/Outcomes Committee (PMID 11511843). Seems to meet WP:PROF. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: 20 mentions for a breakthrough surgical technique is tantamount to zero. An established researcher's vita will be about 20-40 pp. long with publications. The references here are to personal interviews, and everything about the article seems to be pumping up business. If the technique (with its camel case naming) is, in fact, a breakthrough, then the technique would get a write up. The person would not, unless he had much, much, much, much more of a career. At this point, this looks for all the world like trying to drum up business. Furthermore, the person at the center of this article does not look like he stands out among surgeons, which would be the requirement for "notable" in his case. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, according to his CV it's closer to 40. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 15:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood the 20 papers passage from Espresso Addict's post. He meant that there were at least 20 papers written by JA Klein himself on the subject of plastic surgery. The number of references to Klein's work is much higher. Nsk92 (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A badly-written article focusing on someone who barely qualifies for footnote consideration in his field. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I believe that this article is relevant in the field of liposuction, as the doctor is the inventor of tumescent anesthesia, he is an active speaker on the topic, and is easily recognizable by any dermatologist or plastic/cosmetic surgeon that performs liposuction. He is credited on liposuction.com as being the inventor of liposuction totally by local anesthesia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukeklein (talk • contribs) 20:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: above statement is by author of the article, and (based on the name) is an indicator of blatant WP:COI. This does not, however, render the subject non-notable and there might be hope for the article pending a cleanup. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Re: Comment -- Kinu, above, is correct, I am the original author of the article, and my comments may pose a conflict of interest, but I was invited to post my views on this page by KurtRaschke, and I maintain that this topic has great relevance. With time and further contributions, I believe this article will become very thorough and relevant. The wonderful thing about wikipedia is user contribution and editing. I have seen some EXCELLENT updates to this article since the time I first wrote it, and I hope to see many more to come. In addition, I ask that if this article IS deemed acceptable to keep, I would like the articles [Tumescent liposuction] and [Tumescent Technique] to be undeleted, as Eastmain has requested, so that others may contribute to them, as they are directly related to Dr. Klein's specialty and relevant in and of themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukeklein (talk • contribs) 01:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Addition Dr. Jeffrey Klein, is recognized on CNN'S 20/20 (<---video) and on Larry King Live. I beleive this satisfies the standard of notability. I feel that this article, and all other related articles about tumescent anesthesia and tumescent liposuction should be UNdeleted and expanded upon by the Wikipedia community. Lukeklein (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response Getting interviews on TV shows is a tribute to the doctor's publicist only. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs substantial clean-up, but the subject is certainly notable. The GoogleScholar search[54] in Espresso Addict's post produces impressive citation results, with top citation hits of 258, 214, 205, 198, 148, 104. That is proof enough for me of having made substantial impact in his field. Satisfies WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Info on the subject Anyone can find the doctors Curriculum Vitae here. There is a wealth of information regarding the doctor, including his scientific publications, professional associations, and academic certifications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukeklein (talk • contribs) 06:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC) Lukeklein (talk) 06:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Subject in question is notable (and well known in the medical field and dermatologic community). Dr. Klein is the originator of the Tumescent technique [55], which is referenced in Wikipedia's entry on Liposuction [56]. It is valuable to note innovators in the field of medicine.--Procession (talk) 06:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC) — Procession (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Strong Deletebeing mentioned in a journal, publishing a book or inventing something, or all of the above, are not, by themselves, valid reasons to keep. Granted this guy has done stuff, but none of it noteworthy enough to warrent his own entry in a major encyclopedia.RaseaC (talk) 16:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being mentioned repeatedly over and over, however, is notable, especially when the technique is named after him, and is gold standard for that kind of treatment. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 15:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Response Granted, being mentioned in a journal, publishing a book, or inventing something is not by itself a valid reason to keep, but all three may be, certainly more keepable than THIS Jeff Klein, some guy from a band no one has heard of, yet passed the standards. Dr. Klein's contributions have changed the way liposuction is performed by an immeasurable amount of doctors all over the world. I also think that many of the nay-sayers here are "digitally biased". If they can't find a thousand hits on someone with a google search, a person isn't relevant to them. I'd like someone to check some people in the MEDICAL FIELD, specifically cosmetic surgeons, to see if Jeffrey A. Klein is notable and relevant. The web and google searching is not the end-all of relevancy. Lukeklein (talk) 06:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC) Original author of article.[reply]

- Response There are a number of less notable physicians, such as John Converse, Wallace Chang, Richard Battle, Anthony A. Goodman, and John C._Oakley, whose articles have been permitted to remain on Wikipedia. There are also entries on several surgions (e.g. Robert H. Miller, Charles K. Herman) whose entires serve as little more than glorified C.V.s. Additionally there are mere stubs of articles about surgeons such as Linda_Li - whose only notability arises out of her appearances on the television show Dr._90210. There is little to no evidence on Wikipedia to suggest that she is in any way as notable as Dr. Klein in the medical field. If Dr. Klein's entry is not kept, then all of the aforementioned articles need to be reviewed and considered for deletion A cursory search on Google of both “Jeffrey Klein” and “liposuction” [57] provides thousands of webpage hits, a number which often far exceeds the number of hits garnered by the physicians mentioned above. However, the true proof of his notability comes in the form of his inclusion in the “Historical Atlas of Dermatology and Dermatologists” by Crissey et al.[58] The entry, entitled “Jeffrey A. Klein and Tumescent Liposuction,” can be found on page 200. Amazon’s listing of the book allows the user to search the contents of the book[59], if you wish to verify his inclusion in the text. Given that he is PROMINENT enough to be featured in a historical overview of advancements to dermatology, I believe that his inclusion in Wikipedia is appropriate. In addition to this, nearly all notable texts on the subject of liposuction cite Dr. Klein as the inventor of the tumescent technique, and refer to his innovations as changing the protocol for the way liposuction is performed nearly the world over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Procession (talk • contribs) 04:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant keep on the basis of the book reviews and the citations. I am extremely skeptical about articles on plastic surgeons. More than any other field of medicine, they rely upon publicity to attract patients, and I therefore discount almost totally accounts in newspapers and the like about how notable they are, because anyone with common sense knows perfectly well how they get written. And I dislike some of the arguments above. The WP section on his form of liposuction is referenced only to a commercial website. And it was written by user:Lukeklein, so it counts for nothing whatsoever in addition to this article. But the book review [60] written by someone singularly hostile to both him and his book the book does refer to him as the leader in this particular technique & that the technique is well-known. DGG (talk) 19:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- RE: Reluctant Keep Dr. Klein is NOT a plastic surgeon, which is a significant feature in his notoriety. He is a Dermatologist and a Dermatologic Surgeon. Please read his CV more closely, available on the wiki page. Lukeklein (talk) 04:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC) Original author of article[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not appropriate for commercial purposes. Could have an article on the technique, not on the person. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- The person in this case, is as notable as the method. That's why Jonas Salk has an article. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 03:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response How did Jonas Salk get into this discussion? Dr. Salk was eons removed from this guy. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The comment was that we should have an article on the technique, not the person. However, my response was that in many cases, the person developing the technique is also notable, such as Dr. Salk. Dr. Klein is likewise notable. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 15:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response Comparing Klein to Salk is a highly subjective notion. Let's stick to facts, please. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing Klein to Salk is not the point. Comparing the concept that the designer of a notable medical breakthrough can be notable for that design, and therefore merit an article of his own beyond that of the breakthrough's article, is the point. Hence, why Salk has an article of his own for developing the Salk vaccine, or how Jose Barraquer merits an article for developing LASIK along with Rangaswamy Srinivasan, or Mani Lal Bhaumik developed the first Excimer laser, along with Nikolay Basov. Klein is just as much of an innovator in his particular medical field (dermatology, plastic surgery and lipoplasty) as these men were in opthamology ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response Sorry, but that is still a chalk-and-cheese comparison. Klein improved upon existing procedures relating to liposuction, where as Salk & Co. pioneered new horizons in life-and-death medical care (which liposuction is not). There's a big difference between being the first in a field and polishing up existing work. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Re: Ecoleetage, Dr. Klein didn't improve on an existing procedure. Liposuction isn't the point here. Liposuction was the first application, but tumescent anesthesia is a revolutionary step forward in patient safety. Just using liposuction as an example, classical liposuction under general anesthesia was highly shocking to patients systems, regularly requiring IV fluid or blood transfers, and causing a much higher rate of operative and post operative complications (as compared to liposuction under tumescent anesthesia), not to mention the risks of GENERAL ANESTHESIA alone. People can just stop breathing if they aren't carefully monitored by an anesthesiologist. But those same safer applications of LOCAL ANESTHESIA in liposuction apply to vein surgery, large area (sub)cutaneous tumors, etc. Lidocaine had basically only been used to remove moles and drill cavities before Dr. Klein. His work HAS SAVED LIVES. Don't be distracted by it's original application. Look at where the method is and where it's going. Lukeklein (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the original author, and I already voted, but KEEP in light of New Evidence. Wikipedia says in it's Articles for deletion that, and I quote "Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." Be objective. Does this article have potential? I believe it does, and so would most practicing cosmetic surgeons, whether they be dermatologists, plastic surgeons, OBGYNs, or whatever specialty they may have. They would all say it's relevant and notable Lukeklein (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested course of action Okay, then how is this for a compromise? Get the person who started this AfD to withdraw it. Rewrite the article, as you suggested. Then we can haul it up the flagpole and see who salutes it. Is that fair? Ecoleetage (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Re: Suggested Course of action - Geez, Ecoleetage, there's no need to get touchy about this stuff. This is a discussion forum for mature people to debate the validity of an article. People with opposing views are the norm, and if someone makes a point that can be refuted, then refuting that claim only goes towards a sounder judgment on the administrator's behalf. The people that disagree with you here aren't trying to be combative. We are just addressing the perfectly valid points that you raised with, what we feel are, thorough answers. We don't make the final choices here. We aren't Simmon Cowell. We just want our voices to be heard. Now lets keep the remainder of the discussion focused on whether or not Jeffrey A. Klein deserves a wikipedia article, not flagpoles and salutes. I, for one, won't participate in any further banter. Lukeklein (talk) 23:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question Lukeklein, you had stated that you may have a COI. Would you please state the nature of the possible COI without relaying personal information about yourself or Dr. Klein? IE: family member, friend, employee, etc. Adam in MO Talk 23:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to response English may not be my primary language, but I thought my intentions were very clear: get the AfD withdrawn, rewrite the article, then make sure there is no cause for debate. I wasn't being combative -- I was trying to help you. As the article is presented, the case for notability is very flimsy and you have more than a few people who would not mind seeing it deleted. But a stronger rewrite by someone with no COI could make this a better article that would not be penetrated by doubts on the subject. Heck, I would rewrite it for you if you got the AfD withdrawn -- is that combative?Ecoleetage (talk) 02:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If there is anything notable about the matter, it is the technique rather than the person. The article should be about the first rather than the second. I note that on one website (http://www.lipoinfo.com/chap02.htm) there appears to be a claim that Klein was not the sole inventor and pioneer of the technique. Until matters of priority are resolved Wikipedia should not carry claims and should not be used as a forum for priority battles, which could have legal implications. It would be best to remove the article until the matter is determined. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Uh, absolutely not. We do not remove articles because of off-wiki legal implications. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 03:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who is 'We', or is this the royal usage? Xxanthippe (talk) 09:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Clearly, 'We' refers to the Wikipedia community. It is inconsistent with the WP practices and policies to remove an entire article about a controversial subject just because the subject is controversial and may be involved in a legal action. Many controversies take years and decades to resolve (and are some are never fully resolved at all). That is not a good reason not to have a WP entry about the subject in the meantime, and that is not what 'we' do here. Of course, if the claim to being a sole inventor of something is disputed and there is a reliable source to cite regarding this, this fact needs to be mentioned in the article in an appropriate way. I looked up the link [61]. There is no indication there of a legal dispute or even of an ongoing controversy regarding the priority claims. In fact, the website sounds extremely complimentary and sympathetic to Klein. Nsk92 (talk) 10:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your clarification of We. I assume that User:Swatjester (if I have interpreted his signature correctly) concurs with your interpretation of his words. Citation to relevant WP practices and policies would lend support to your argument. The relevant extract from the web site [62] is "Dr. Jeffrey Klein, a California Dermatologist, and Dr. Patrick Lillis, another Dermatologist, invent and pioneer the Original (Klein) Tumescent Technique". Xxanthippe (talk) 12:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Keep per SWATJester. Yes, the article is currently in poor shape, but give it a chance. Yes, the article's author probably has a WP:COI; however, I have seen in the past that this doesn't justify deletion. (I once AfD'ed an article because it was written almost exclusively by the spouse of the subject and the decision then was that the COI wasn't grounds for deletion as the subject's notability merited an article.) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to List of weather records as a duplicate article. Davewild (talk) 12:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Temperature extremes

Poorly written, and makes an incorrect claim of Death Valley being the global record holder. Every meteorologist knows Al 'Aziziyah, Libya is the official record holder, and source used to discredit the claim doesn't seem reputable. The List of weather records article seems good enough and is more accurate. ANDROS¹³³⁷ 00:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - None of those touch on policy, except for a vague reference to WP:RS. --Izno (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect, if there's anything salvageable here. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 04:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. Not sure what the author is getting at. However, it's seems like good article. Dwilso 05:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of weather records: Any article at this title would be a discussion of what an extreme is, what goes on in physics with temperature, atomic stuff at extremes, etc. It wouldn't be a competing list. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above.--Berig (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons stated. Duplicate information in (much better written article) List of weather records], no need for both. --Canuckguy (talk) 02:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Canley (talk) 10:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concepts in constitutional law

3 reasons to delete this article: (1) This article duplicates information in other articles; (2) presents information in a way helpful only to law students (if anyone); (3) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a glossary, and all this is, or will ever be, is a long list - this article cannot be saved or cleaned up- it's just a bad idea. Non Curat Lex (talk) 06:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to retract my nomination for deletion. This is a bad list, but that in and of itself is not a reason for deletion. Non Curat Lex (talk) 06:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Hale (colonel)

No indication of notability. Owen (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Disagree he is quite notable as are the many other officers of the continental army who have wiki pages.Marc29th (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is coverage in reliable sources; the cited sources are books so I do not know if their coverage is substantial enough, and there are some relevant search results on Google, but not much information. Whether it meets the more specific guideline, WP:MILMOS#NOTE, would depend on the definition of "substantial body of troops". --Snigbrook ^(talk) 18:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies WP:MILMOS#NOTE by having commanded a substantial body of troops in a significant battle. There are many more sources on Google Books. --Dhartung | Talk 19:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - added some inline citations from Google books; served at Bunker Hill; subject of a treason controversy thought notable by Harvard president Jared Sparks [63]. Not much about the controversy in the article at this point, but vote to give the author some time. Novickas (talk) 01:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as rewritten there are plenty indication of notability being provided now. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He seems like a noted historical figure/ Steve Dufour (talk) 00:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 12:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revolution No. 9

Non-Notable independant movie. Was prodded but prod removed by original author. Dipics (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NN. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this, and use title as a redirect to Revolution 9 (this is actually the more commonly-known title of the Beatles track). Grutness...wha? 01:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I actually know this movie from its New York theatrical release. The article should've been written properly. As it stands, I have to say Delete.Ecoleetage (talk) 02:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Julie O'Brien

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Julie O'Brien

Doesn't appear to be notable, but some assertion of notability. Looks like a small-town politician. It's also written in a non-neutral tone. PeterSymonds | talk 19:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NN. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, well below WP:BIO standards. --Dhartung | Talk 02:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability. Currently written as vanity article and can't find any sources to write it as anything but. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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