Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 April 23

< April 22	April 24 >

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 KEEP Toddst1 (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pizza Ranch[edit]

WP:NN company. No substantial coverage other than "politician stopped by" or "Another Pizza Ranch Employee Has Hepatitis A" - Fails WP:Corp Toddst1 (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I would imagine a company of this size probably has some marginal notability. I did find this which looks like a decent source. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A 140-outlet full service casual restaurant chain is more or less guaranteed to be notable. It's the 282nd largest restaurant chain in the US as of 2006[1]. Surely there's room in Wikipedia for 400 food service chain articles. If you look at the google news hits, plenty of sources, the better side of 1,000 of them. A number are RS and give substantial coverage. Wikidemo (talk) 00:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given number of outlets. --JulesN Talk 01:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, hundreds of Google Archive results available for immediate sourcing, no number required. Search on one cofounder, but I don't recommend searching on the other unless you have a strong stomach. --Dhartung | Talk 04:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, otherwise we'd have herds of pizza stampeding everywhere. Clarityfiend (talk) 16:11, 24 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 per CSD A7. Nakon 01:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reality Inverted[edit]

No need to question this band's notability - the article does it for us. Quote: "The band is not very well known and is yet to hit the big time." Article was originated by one of its subjects who has done nothing else on Wikipedia (which is also the case for the majority of editors to this article!), so a COI issue as well. Emeraude (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails notability, and no references provided. Dwilso 22:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under A7 (non-notable band or group). Blair - Speak to me 23:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable band, fails WP:BAND Milk’s Favorite Cookie ^(Talk) 01:07, 24 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. A unanimous consensus that notability requirements have not been met. In addition, the page was wholly unsourced. I am using discretion in setting up a redirect to the book's author. TerriersFan (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Heart of Myrial[edit]

No notability from Google search. Also falls under: WP:PLOT. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 22:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No references provided, and very unclear grammar. Dwilso 22:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete I speedied this recently (it had about half the current content). No WP:V, no assertion of notability. Pigman☿ 21:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing here to keep. New user isn't an apparent vandal and I wish this beginning user well. I suggest user edit some stubs before starting new pagespace (and have said so in a welcome message). User can recreate when this is better constructed; perhaps we might userfy this to a personal sandbox if that is desired. BusterD (talk) 15:01, 28 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: suggest rename and cleanup; as per WP:NOTNEWS, this person is not notable, however if additional citations can be provided, the incident itself can stand on its own. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kristi Yamaoka[edit]

This article is about a person notable only for a single accident. The article should be deleted and what is salvageable should be merged into the cheerleading article. Ani Mate 21:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Same argument used on prior AfDs, all of which closed as keep. ~~This is the fifth nomination now, not second.~~ (AfD moved to proper title) SpectralAgent (talk) 22:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note, this comment is this user's very first substantial edit to Wikipedia. Nick (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

which does not make the facts I stated any less valid. SpectralAgent (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nick didn't say that your edit was less valid. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the implication. Else, why say it? SpectralAgent (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: SpectralAgent has made no other edits except to this AFD, the first of which was made 4 minutes after registering the account, and has made no edits since. MSJapan (talk) 05:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Seems to be a case of WP:BLP1E, although I'm kind of on the edge here. She seems to have fallen from grace (ha!) after her big fall. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SpectralAgent. She's still getting news coverage to this day, so I would say she's jumped over BLP1E. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out where she is still getting news coverage? Also, is the coverage about her or about her accident? Ani Mate 01:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I shouldn't have !voted in this in the first place, BLP is one of my weak spots. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete WP:BLP1E. 21 655 ^{ωhατ δo γoυ ωαητ?} 22:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary. Two years later, she is still being mentioned [2], [3]. BLP1E was covered in earlier AfDs. SpectralAgent (talk) 23:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Based on [4] and other months for this year, this article has been viewed about 1000 times this year. Seems quite a bit of activity for someone supposedly not notable. SpectralAgent (talk) 23:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: no less notable now than during previous AfDs; prior supporting arguments still hold. Xsmith (talk) 03:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Obviously a biased vote on my part, as I've nommed this in the past, but my argument is well-reasoned. First, re: the news, the jezebel item is a throwaway reference on a blog, and the reference has nothing to do with the main story (as the writer clearly states). The Memphis Flyer coverage is also a throwaway reference in a book review for a book about cheerleading. I would therefore say that the coverage is trivial (and certainly not about her), and has been for years at this point. Article views for an article not about the subject stated are not indicative of notability of the subject. Most importantly, there has never been any followup with her by any news agency (she was pretty much forgotten after a week), and frankly, we don't really know any biographical details about her aside from the fact that she went to SIU and fell off a pyramid during a basketball game. This should indicate something fundamentally problematic about the article. MSJapan (talk) 18:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. The individual isn't even close to encyclopedically notable. The incident itself isn't even notable enough for a standalone article, although it could be briefly mentioned in a page related to Southern Illinois University sports and/or a page on cheerleading risks or injuries. Quale (talk) 02:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: When I attempted to redirect this to a section in Cheerleading on the dangers of cheerleading (which was something requested on that article's talk, IIRC), I added the pertinent accident info in there, but the redir was rm'ed as "no consensus". That information and section is still in the article, with the citations used here. MSJapan (talk) 05:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Hiding T 16:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this person is a cheerleader who made national news because of an accident, which does not establish notability at all. This is a WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS violation. KleenupKrew (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the notability depends upon the overall significance. It this case there was permanent national significance relating to the sport. Read section 3 of the article. Some more citations would help/. DGG (talk) 00:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the deletion rationale requires too much hyperfocus and dissection to work. "She is only notable for..." is another way of saying "she is notable". We do not have any guideline that says people must be notable for more than one reason, or must be notable for their primary job or what-not. And to ask "Are the news stories about her or her accident" seems asinine. She passes notability. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (rename if one likes) DGG's analysis is, IMHO, quite right as regards the NOT#NEWS concerns. Any BLP1E objections may be addressed by the retitling of the article and the adaptation of its text to a less biographical, more event-centric form (I'm not at all sure that I see retitling as necessary or that I think the article to be styled wrongly as a biography—in fact, I'm inclined to think, for various reasons, including certain of those offered by Spectral, that Yamaoka is properly a subject and is, in view of repeated and non-narrow coverage in secondary sources, notable—but I'd not be opposed to a retitling [or, I suppose, recasting], consistent with our occasional practice of addressing BLP1E concerns about articles that reference incidents of unquestionable notability by retitling those articles). Joe 02:43, 29 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 was unanimity that the subject fails to meet notability requirements. In addition, there are no reliable secondary sources. Finally, there is an overriding failure to meet WP:V, particularly with regard to the subject's amateur record. TerriersFan (talk) 22:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Quiray[edit]

The subject does not seem notable. I was not able to find any relevant secondary sources. Oore (talk) 21:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Nakon 21:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 22:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 22:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Individual fails WP:BIO per [5]. No second or third party coverage. This is also a failure of WP:ATHLETE. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 22:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found coverage in reliable sources (several issues of the Providence Journal), but not enough to establish notability, and nothing related to martial arts.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a3, no meaningful, substantive content. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ligidibit[edit]

Neologism, un-notable. Was speedied, then accidentally recreated by me, then tagged with CSD G6 by me, then contested by creator. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 21:43, 23 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 g3, patent nonsense, Diablo Cody won an Oscar for the Juno screenplay. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruari Burgham[edit]

Probable hoax; no scriptwriter has written a script for "Juno" under this name. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 21:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G3 Looks like a hoax to me. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:48, 23 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 for WP:CSD#A7. Pigman☿ 22:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Rockwell[edit]

No verifiable sources -- ALL of the references are to the subject's own web site, or pieces he wrote for other web sites. This comes very close to CSD A7 in my mind. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very spammy. JodyB_talk 21:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7 and tagged as such. --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:42, 23 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. No merge consensus, redirect probably unnecessary. Sandstein (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ull (Greyhawk)[edit]

No reliable sources, or any other information to establish real-world noability of this subject. Beeblbrox (talk) 21:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, but I'm not sure where. Not a whiff of a claim of real-world notability for this. Normally I'd say merge into Baklunish Basin, but I question the notability of that article. All but one of the sources in that are primary.--Fabrictramp (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to World of Greyhawk else delete. -JodyB_talk 21:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Greyhawk, not sure that there is much to merge. Pastordavid (talk) 14:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as incredibly unlikely to need a redirect. The other options are still better than keeping due to an apparent lack of consensus, however.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 15:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, sorry. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:54, 29 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. Cbrown1023 talk 23:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shoppes at Susquehanna Marketplace[edit]

Non-notable "lifestyle center" a.k.a. shopping mall. Quite a few Google hits but they seem to be listings - I found nothing to establish notability. JohnCD (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is notable as the first upscale shopping center and lifestyle center in the Harrisburg metropolitan area.

--Danwxman (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any reliable sources to verify most of the information in this article. Most of what I found was short news blurbs pertaining to store openings in the mall — nothing that claimed it was the first upscale mall in the area, and nothing that claimed it was Harrisburg's first lifestyle center. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete May have some local notability but certainly nothing to make it notable here. -JodyB_talk 21:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seeing the spelling "shoppe" already prejudiced me against this article, and then when I saw the phrase "upscale lifestyle center" it almost made me throw up. Anyway, this doesn't give any indication of notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:51, 25 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 redirected by Eleland (talk · contribs). No delete votes. Simplest outcome for a plausible search term. --Dhartung | Talk 22:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Ripley Clone[edit]

One sentence that doesn't list any refs. Me what do u want? _{Your Hancock Please} 21:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nuke this page from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. <eleland/talkedits> 21:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ellen_Ripley#Alien_Resurrection if this is a likely search term, otherwise delete. Unlikely there's enough real world notability for a separate article for this single movie's iteration of the character.--Fabrictramp (talk) 21:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Someone has already redirected to Alien Resurrection which is probably fine. -JodyB_talk 21:42, 23 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. Non-admin closure. Blair - Speak to me 23:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cohors II Gallorum veterana equitata[edit]

A contested Prod. I believe that the article is non-notable (and the orginal contributor states that "There's nothing special about this unit." User_talk:Julesn84#Cohors_II_Gallorum). JulesN Talk 21:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The value of any list of units is vastly increased if it's comprehensive, even though some units will obviously be of more significance than others. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is likely a notable historic unit and should be expanded. I note from the page history that the prod was posted 7 minutes after creation and placed at AfD after about 40 minutes. Let's give some time for expansion. It already has a single reliable source. Perhaps the nominator will withdraw this nomination and allow a few days for development. -JodyB_talk 21:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see no reason why we should not have a series of articles on Roman military formations. This is another case of a trigger happy user, who puts PROD on anything that he does not know about, without thinking and without providing an opportunity for the author to expand it. That is appropriate for vanity autobiographies, but not for articles on historical subjects that meet WP:V. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw given the above arguments. --JulesN Talk 22:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spellbound (AC/DC song)[edit]

NN album track which fails Wikipedia:Notability (music). Never released as a single or played live regularly. Article has seen no positive input since 2006 and was deprodded with no edit summary or discussion. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it could be redirected to the album, but I don't see this as a valid search term TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 23:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Travellingcari. How about adding Let's Get It Up, Inject the Venom, Evil Walks, and C.O.D. (song) in there as well? Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note Let's Get It Up was one of their biggest hit singles, but the others should go, in my opinion. Inject the Venom is prodded, and the others will follow. I am prodding these articles gradually, but this one was contested by someone, apparently just for the hell of it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:22, 24 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. Cbrown1023 talk 23:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Torque FKM[edit]

I was tempted to give this a speedy as non-notable company, but I'm not entirely sure about it. So for your consideration... JulesN Talk 20:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the only sources available are affiliated, such as press releases. <eleland/talkedits> 20:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These vanity pages are getting annoying.--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - non-notable business; I would have supported a speedy, but let the process proceed. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oh, would you look at that? This WAS speedily deleted TODAY for being blatant advertising! And the same people restarted it!--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral comment~~ Speedy Delete A7 - This same page was already speedied, and recreated. Company may be marginally notable in the Houston area, but the COI makes me suspicious of spam. Plvekamp (talk) 21:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC) - Originator has had 4 days to remedy notability concern, not resolved. Spam suspicion is confirmed, I think Plvekamp (talk) 21:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes CyberGhostFace, it was speedily deleted earlier, and justifiably so. We have edited the content to better fit the standards set forth by Wikipedia. I am currently gathering information that will prove Torque FKM's notability, but if is deemed unsatisfactory I guess it will be deleted. TorqueFKM (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete obvious spam ukexpat (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For those of you who feel this is spam- as I understand it, we took out all copy that may be interpreted as an advertisement and rewrote in a more neutral tone. As for notability- an honest question here- would being the interactive arm of one of the largest independent agencies in the US, as well as the largest agency in Houston be considered notable? Please understand, we are not trying to spam Wikipedia and we want to follow the guidelines. Any help to point us in the right direction would be appreciated. TorqueFKM (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the company is truly notable, you need to cite reliable 3rd party sources. Self-published articles like yours are common on Wikipedia, rarely notable, and as you can see many editors keep a sharp eye out for them. Plvekamp (talk) 21:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's only two pages on google, and nothing to suggest that its notable.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, salt, block creator for inappropriate user name. That about covers it. Qworty (talk) 03:10, 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. Honestly, could've been speedied due to that second sentence. Wizardman 22:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NCAA Football 2009 Texas Tech Red Raiders Dynasty[edit]

This is something to do with an unreleased video game, and is entirely fictional. I see no encyclopedic value here. Powers ^T 20:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Whatever this is, it doesn't seem to be real. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a one team in a future video game that will have 200 teams. It does not belong here. Blahblah5555 (talk) 05:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily Delete a fictional video game dynasty season is entirely non-notable and should be speedily deleted as soon as possible--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 07:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a rush? Which speedy deletion criterion applies? Powers ^T 01:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced one-liner that doesn't make any sense. Mm40|Talk|Sign|Review 13:47, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 23:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depressive Rock[edit]

This article is for a supposed genre of music called "Depressive Rock". As it is, there's not a whole lot of sources for this term (none, in fact). Even if the term was used by a few music journalists, I don't see anything else about this supposed genre that elevates it above neologism.

I am also nominating Depressive punk for deletion under the same criteria. TheLetterM (talk) 19:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The article practically identifies itself to be a neologism when it describes the "genre" as forming in this very year of 2008. --Bardin (talk) 05:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. There's no actual indication that this exists as a standalone genre, and all the bands listed in the various locations really fall into other genres - mostly emo. Which is, really, depressive rock/punk/whatever. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:34, 25 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. Cbrown1023 talk 23:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elderly and Exercise[edit]

More for Wikibooks. See WP:NOT#HOWTO and especially Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer. Triwbe (talk) 19:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or transwiki. Although the topic is notable, this is written as a medical advice brochure. --Dhartung | Talk 22:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOT#HOWTO. Definitely not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - written like a public service announcement. Wikipedia is not a "how-to" guide. B.Wind (talk) 04:28, 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 speedy keep per WP:SNOW and clear outcome. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 22:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foe (unit of energy)[edit]

One man's neologism. Google turns up a few hits, most of which cite Wikipedia as their authority. Guy (Help!) 19:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. It is not a neologism by any stretch of the word, and is widely used in astrophysics at least as early as 1993. Please, please, please, obey due diligence and perform searches before you throw something at AfD like this; you do this quite often. It needs these sources to be included and improvement, not deletion. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 19:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Celarnor, I've added a ref to Scientific use of the term. --JulesN Talk 20:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a little confusing because the term is the same as a common word, but a search for "foe energy supernova" shows it's legit.[6] Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. I'm still trying to figure out where the nominator came up with the idea that this is "one man's" neologism -- there was nothing in the article at the time to link it to anyone, let alone any one person. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how he came up with it, either. In any case, to help prevent anything like this from happening again, I left a message at the nominators usertalk with some information about how to do journal searches. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is a genuine term. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:29, 23 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:Orangemike per WP:CSD#A7 Pedro : Chat 21:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Christian Trier[edit]

15-year-old bassplayer for a redlinked Danish band. Next. Herostratus (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. I've put a CSD tag on it. He was such a nice boy; he used to cut the grass. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 23:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rihanna day[edit]

Previously prod'd (as Rihanna Day), unsourced, and probably not notable to boot. AndrewHowse (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I sourced it; it exists, at least, though notability doesn't seem to be there. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (EC) OK, now there's one source, of sorts. Still not notable, I suggest. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the reference, it was a one-time, non-notable event. Paradoxsociety (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again, we don't need an article for every "day" proclaimed by a legislature. <eleland/talkedits> 20:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just because it exists doesn't mean that it's notable or that we should have an article on it. Could even be done under CSD G4 [recreation of deleted stuff].
RichardΩ612 Ɣ |Contribs 22:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment G4 didn't seem to apply; isn't that only for XfD'd material? So says {{db-repost}} anyway. --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - that's true, but I suppose WP:IAR may apply. No-one is going to object to deleting re-posted unencyclopedic pseudo-nonsense. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 10:08, April 24, 2008 (UTC)
Delete and redirect to Rihanna, the main article about this singer, which says that, in fact, a day was not proclaimed in her honor, contradicting this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Rihanna with mention of the holiday maybe in the Barbados page. Right now doesn't look to be notable enough for its own article. Oh and stop mentioning about Chris Brown too. This is just rumors not proven by reliable sources. --JForget 14:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 14:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indenture (video game)[edit]

Reliable third party references have been requested for this article since July 2006, and I think the chances are slim-to-none we'll ever see them. This is just a clone of another game by a non-notable programmer from what I can tell. I'm leaning towards delete personally for the moment, but would like to see wider discussion on this in case I'm missing something. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just added a source, though it doesn't cover the more specific information. This game does appear to be the only one by the programmer. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is the reference reliable? It does not appear so to me, but feel free to argue the point. =) --Izno (talk) 07:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reference here: maybe not; I was just using it as an example. G-hits don't seem to tie any other games to him that I can see. As for the one I put in the article, it appears to be an interview by a site dedicated to game culture; it's non-wiki; I think it would be reliable. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 01:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I think it's borderline, but no reliable sources establishing notability is a problem. If none can be found, it is reasonable that be deleted since its notability cannot be objectively established. Note that if reliable sources can be found, I think it should be a keep. Xihr (talk) 23:52, 25 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 and redirect to List of United Nations peacekeeping missions#Current deployment. Cbrown1023 talk 23:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries where United Nations peacekeepers are currently deployed[edit]

Redundant and overlaps with List of United Nations peacekeeping missions. Every bit of text in this article is the same as in the main article (this one has only current UN missions, the other one has all and is then better). Even the images are in exact same places, only the lead has been modified to match the article name. We should not copy parts of larger lists to create new lists? It's easier to have comprehensive list of all missions, what's wrong if we can redirect this to right section which has the exact same list?

Earlier nominated for featured list removal here and demoted. (in fact redirecting the article to the other one was agreed as well but this is not accepted by one editor) Pudeo ⺮ 18:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They're basically identical, except the one up for deletion doesn't have completed missions. By counting them, anyway, the same current missions are in each. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. --Dhartung | Talk 18:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would like to believe that this article contained new information, but it really is a rearrangement of the tables in the section called List of United Nations peacekeeping missions #Current deployment. The columns are shuffled around, the sorting is alphabetical instead of chronological, but that's about it. 72.151.55.27 (talk) 20:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redirect List of United Nations peacekeeping missions#Current deployment. Most lists that are brought to AfD are brought for the wrong reasons. This is one of the rare instances where a genuine concern regarding a list has been brought to light. Essentially, it's a retabling of content already available in a current list that doesn't provide anything new. However, as a likely search term, it should redirect to the appropriate section so people don't go crazy trying to find it. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 10:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of United Nations peacekeeping missions as this is (just) a plausible search term. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pudeo here is simply wrong, and he either knows he is wrong, or should by now, since we already discussed it. It is untrue that "Every bit of text in this article is the same" or that anyone "cop[ied] parts of larger lists to create new lists." He has repeated these first at FLC, then at the talk page where he warred over it, and now has gone to AfD when there was no consensus for his removing the article. In fact, this was the first list, and then there was the idea to make a list for all missions, so "copying from the larger article" is a rather silly claim. Actually, this is a lit of countries, and some of us have found it useful to have such a list, organized by country, as a reference. The other list is intended not as a list of countries which share the attribute of having peacekeepers, but a list of the missions itself, and also has a chronological arrangement unhelpful for the other use. I don't understand why Pudeo is pursuing this like he is; you would think that a little bit of duplication for a good cause wouldn't be so bad. Dmcdevit·t 23:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant to other article, not needed. KleenupKrew (talk) 09:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redir to afore mentioned Article. (Overlapping) Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 18:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of United Nations peacekeeping missions. Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 04:50, 28 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. Cbrown1023 talk 23:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Mott[edit]

Player has never played in a fully-pro league, thus failing WP:Bio#Athletes Jimbo^[online] 18:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because they too fail WP:Bio#Athletes having never played in a fully professional league:

Oppose all After extensive discussion, the criteria at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Notability were set as Have played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure. The WP:WPF community's consensus is that it is the team, not the league,that should be fully pro, so long as the league is national. Ebbsfleet are a fully pro team in a national league. Kevin McE (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, sorry but WP:FOOTYN is merely an essay and is superseded by WP:ATHLETE, which is instead current guideline. And, by the way, I think notability is given by the division where a player plays, not the team; footballers aren't notable just because they have a professional contract, but because they play in a well-recognized (i.e., fully professional) league. --Angelo (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Playing for a fully professional club in a nationwide league should establish notability. Jogurney (talk) 01:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - WP:BIO is the current relevant policy, with WP:ATHLETE as an adjunct. As such, I believe all these players fail current standards of notability. - fchd (talk) 05:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - it has been affirmed at DRV that WP:ATHLETE is the standard. Projects have no vires to set standards that extend notability guidelines. BlueValour (talk) 02:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:ATHLETE. Players have only competed in a semi-professional league. PC78 (talk) 19:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all All fail WP:Athlete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DON'T DELETE THEM! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.32.216 (talk) 21:26, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 23:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Flame[edit]

A few months ago User:Gavin.collins raised the question as to whether or not this topic is notable enough for Wikipedia inclusion, and to be honest I'm not sure myself. As I read it, its just a fictional religion within a fictional role-playing game, with nothing impressive in the way of third party references. Rather than let the notability tag linger indefinitely I've opted to present this for community discussion. This is a procedural nomination, no !vote from me at this time although I may weigh in in the next few days. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:FICT. --Dhartung | Talk 18:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep referenced article. Catchpole (talk) 20:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:FICT, as it asserts no notability through reliable verifiable sources independent of the topic. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Now that I have had the time to properly review the applicable WP:FICT guidelines I believe that this article fails it in every way. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent sources; fails WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Religions of Eberron, although this may just shift the problem of lacking notability and not solve it. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:27, 28 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. Cbrown1023 talk 23:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xterminator (wrestler)[edit]

No reliable third party sources to expand, verify, or help establish notability. [7] Nikki311 18:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki311 18:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable wrestlers with no independent sources, and none available to improve/expand the article. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 18:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons provided by Nikki and Nici. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Delete He could be considered notable if the links to the references and external sources were working, but they don't appear to be. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable wrestler, no reliable sources Milk’s Favorite Cookie ^(Talk) 01:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if the links were working, they wouldn't prove notability, as they aren't secondary sources. I have searched for information, but I can't find anything outside of the wrestling promotion's website. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per GaryColemanFan. iMatthew 20 08 19:52, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 23:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kaylene Gebert[edit]

Non notable. A number of better-known individuals have no bio entry. Freddyboy (talk) 17:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, accomplished but not notable. Only independent coverage is for routine job changes. (Though note that the second sentence of the nomination is a what about x? argument, not considered a strong one for AFD.) --Dhartung | Talk 19:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She has been on a lot of short lists for University President jobs (some of these documented in the article). Since women are underrepresented in the ranks of University Presidents, I think that makes her notable--she belongs to a pretty small subset of academic administrators.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is a waste of space. If she were world renown that that is one thing. However, she is not. Also, there are a number of female university presidents some of whom have no article here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.184.72.247 (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has several references. I recognize that an administrator doesn't have as much time to do research as a regular academic, but I still expected to find more publications for her, though. Her position is probably a notable one. --Eastmain (talk) 22:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Participants in this discussion may want to review her curriculum vitae at http://www.utm.edu/pdfs/Kaylene_Gebert.pdf --Eastmain (talk) 22:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As it stands, it doesn't appear that she is a leading academician. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see that she has done anything especially notable.GWTI29 (talk) 01:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- User's only contribution to Wikipedia. PeterSymonds | talk 18:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not worthy of an article. talk) 01:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The coverage in reliable sources would normally be enough to demonstrate notability. --Eastmain (talk) 04:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Being a university president would, in my opinion, automatically indicate notability. Being a provost is somewhat borderline. However, since she has been a provost at two universities, one of fairly large size (Middle Tennessee State University, 23,000 students), I think that qualifies. Nsk92 (talk) 10:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While Dr. Gebert certainly seems accomplished, I do not see that she rates a bio on Wikipedia. Her bio is prominently displayed at her current institution. Also, the journal articles cited seem a particularly weak argument. First, they are somewhat dated. Second, there are many professors with more journal publications that do not have bios on Wikipedia.TID9786 (talk) 15:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- User's only contribution to Wikipedia. PeterSymonds | talk 18:17, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 23:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Larsono'brien[edit]

Ad agency. Speedied twice for lack of assertion of notability, now asserts notability as the first US ad agency with a China office. I don't think that's particularly notable, and I don't think the sources show notability per WP:CORP. Also seems to be written by one of the agency's founders, see WP:COI. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's some local coverage, but among other things it confirms that this is the 15th largest ad agency in Pittsburgh. That's not a great claim to notability and probably means it ranks below 150th nationally. --Dhartung | Talk 19:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete under an empty case of Iron City Beer: Ah, but this outfit's not the first ad agency with a China office. It's the first "small to mid-sized, privately held advertising agency to operate fully-functioning offices in the People's Republic of China," which qualifies the hell out of it, presuming it's an accurate assertion. The links are mostly junk, and the Post-Gazette one (the only reliable source in the lot) is a trivial mention in a much larger local business column. Only 93 unique hits [8], with the usual double play kiss of notability death: the lead two hits are the firm's website and this Wikipedia article. RGTraynor 19:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable per above. Also, possible conflict of interest (that I've marked), as the creator's username is Jackobrien, who is identified in the article as the co-founder. Although I have to disagree with RGTraynor's logic on lead (Google) hits - General Motors and Berkshire Hathaway have their website as #1 and their Wikipedia article as #2. Dangerous precedent to set. Staeiou (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note* I have opened a talk page to assert uniqueness. The reference to "Iron City Beer" is not funny, not appreciated. For someone allegedly looking for truth this poster employs far too much subjective language and innuendo. "The links are mostly junk, a trivial mention, presuming it's true"...please spare me the eliteism. Other posts: The 15th largest was not our assertion (actually we are in the top 10). Please note my talk page. I am new to Wikipedia and I apologize if I am not handling this according to precedent, however, I am surprised by the recognition we have received by peers, yet the apparent lack of appreciation of our unique achievement as evidenced in this debate could keep us from being listed. We are developing the support for our assertions (don't want you to think were making this stuff up) as fast as we can. Please let me know what gaps we need to fill. Thanks. JackOBrien —Preceding comment was added at 15:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per notability guidelines, regardless of personal opinions. Article reads more like an advertisement, in any case. Rockhound (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The creator seems to be hedging his bets, having also created LarsonO’Brien and redirecting the original. I filed for a speedy on the first one, but upon reflection it seems better to warrant a redirect to the one already under consideration. Under the circumstances, especially if it's already been speedied twice, I advocate Salting as well. RGTraynor 16:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on entry's notability (and please also see article's discussion page)* Dear Wikipedia, As the former Vice President/Asia Pacific for Publicis, the fourth largest advertising group in the world, I can say without fear of contradiction, that not only is the LarsonO'Brien presence in China notable, given the agency's size and the fact that it is privately held but that it is also of interest for people trying to understand how to invest in the China market. It is also notable in that it is utilizing a unique business model in the market bringing Western Style marketing communications to the Chinese market in the business to business field. Presently, all of the advertising in China is being produced either by indigenous Chinese firms, or by large multi-national agencies that have created Joint Venture companies. By law, only Chinese companies are permitted to conduct advertising activities. Yet despite the investment of the last few years there is a huge void in the LarsonO'Brien/Dashi client niche where a significant number of expatriate companies now fall. In other words, a substantial number of prospective client companies entering the China market are not served by a local agency that looks and acts like domestic agencies, yet offers high-level China expertise and boots on the ground with International expertise. Neil HardwickDt320 (talk) 13:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. Promotional article reads like an ad. Edison (talk) 14:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The only real editors (creator included) seem to be making the article worse, rather than better. I would advise that anyone attached to the organization who wants to push this article into the 'pedia to go read as many of the Wikipedia guidelines as possible. It would go a long way in improving both the editors' quality, and the article's notability, if those with knowledge of the medium were posting within the challenged guidelines. Rockhound (talk) 14:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:I have just re-edited the truncated article to satisfy neutrality of language requirements. Please also note there are powerful references to notability from ad industry authorities in the US and Asia that should put to rest the original delete requests based on questions of notability. With regard to the Salting criticism, the redirect is based upon the misspellings of O'Brien (O'Brien, OBrien, O'brien, Obrien, etc.) which is unusually necessary because the name includes an apostrophe and, if misspelled, cannot otherwise be found through the site's search engine.JackOBrien

Reply: Actually, "salting," in deletion terminology, refers to the blocking of an article (generally in cases where recreation of deleted articles, a violation of Wikipedia policy, has either happened or is deemed probable) so that it cannot be recreated without admin action. RGTraynor 18:45, 25 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. Cbrown1023 talk 23:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheryl Yang[edit]

Cheryl Yang has nothing to do with this page, which talks about Miriam Yeung. A simple redirect to Miriam Yeung would leave a keyword that is never going to be used by anyone searching for info on Miriam Yeung. I thus disagree with the merge proposal and believe it should be deleted. -Yupik (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All I can find is that Cheryl Yang is a real person. I can't tell what the article says, because it's written entirely in Chinese (according to the translate tag). No usefulness on English-wiki. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, could be rewritten in English about this Cheryl Yang, presumably the same person. What is the rationale for merger, anyway? --Dhartung | Talk 19:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is all speculation, but looking at your link and the Google translation, it looks like the birth names of these two actresses (who of course are separate people) were "Yang Hua" and "Yang Jin Hua" respectively. I'm guessing that the similarity caused some confusion. Xymmax (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. So per below, it's named for the one woman but written about the other. --Dhartung | Talk 22:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google actually translates this pretty well, its a bio type page for Miriam Yeung. Doesn't look like there's anything here of encyclopedic value to merge there. I'll post the Google translation onto this discussion's talk page. Xymmax (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete little assertion of notability, mostly trivia about this person. There's really not much to merge. nneonneo ^talk 20:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Until the page is translated, can the community at large have a meaningful discussion about it?--Fabrictramp (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as mentioned above I did post a translation to the talk page... Xymmax (talk) 22:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without merge. Useless trivia. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 15:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment + merge. I translated the article. It is about Miriam Yeung. Kubek15^{(Sign!) (Contribs) (UBX)} 12:38, 28 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. Cbrown1023 talk 23:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incheol shin[edit]

No references and very poor grammar and punctuation. FGWQPR (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, as per before. Article does not make an assertion of notability and is unreferenced. Nakon 17:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy (which I performed initially myself), was undone after being contested on my talkpage civilly and rightfully. Having no references means looking for references. Having poor grammar and punctuation means fixing grammar and punctuation. This professor has not been verified to be notable though, and without proper sourcing in independent, reliable publications being added to the article that verify what works this professor has done (per WP:PROF), I recommend Deletion. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Switching to weak keep. Seems to be notable, I'm still "weak" on it because there seems to be some question as to verifying that the sources are all about one and the same person. For example, I've found an article about a person named "Incheol Shin" that is a grad student (from what I can tell, perhaps an associate professor), in Florida. Same guy? No idea. Maybe they're both notable. No reason to delete this anymore though, as sources, even non-English sources, can be verified. Article needs time, not redlinking. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep Article doesn't make the assertion of notability, however, the notability just might be there. Clean the article up, add the required notability requirements, and expand (as it desperatley needs it). Dusti^{complain/compliment} 17:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep if we can verify that this is the same person, it may pass notability in addition to the ones Dusti found above. Language is going to be an issue, there are many different ways of romanizing the Hangul script TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 17:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Nice work Dusti. I found the same sources, if they are one in the same a definite keep. ShoesssS ^Talk 17:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 18:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He received a notable award by the Ministry of Welfare and Family Affair of South Korea governement for his contribution in medicine research.[9]. --Appletrees (talk) 18:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there an English version of that that you know of, Appletrees? Also, if this is indeed kept, the article needs to be moved to Incheol Shin (I'm assuming that's the proper capitalization) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm afraid to say that there seems to be no English article on his award (or, I could not find it by myself because romanization of Korean name is variously used.) Maybe translation by google tool would help?[10]--Appletrees As for the naming order, I think if we keep the article, the article should be moved to the title you suggest. (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be notable and deserving of inclusion. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:16, 23 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 (non-admin closure). Clear consensus discusses the notability of the subject and the necessity for it to cite reliable sources. WilliamH (talk) 01:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drew and Mike[edit]

non-notable local radio show. Article fails to establish notability. Tagged for several months with numerous concerns. Resembles fansite. Rtphokie (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sixteen years on the air in a top ten market passes notability in my book. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless fully referenced and notability asserted, if (as the article claims) "Many other radio stations have played these sketches" then finding sources for this might squeeze a bit of notability into the article, but we really would need a LOT of sources for an article of this size. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 16:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep The article passes notability, but it needs more references and desperatley needs cleaned up. Dusti^{complain/compliment} 16:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The duo has defiantly established notability as shown here [11]. Regarding adding additional references, gentlemen please feel free to do so; I have provided a list you can pull from. To Rtphokie kudos to you guy for adding references to the article, that is appreciated. As for myself, I will even add a few. Take care all. ShoesssS ^Talk 16:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment of course, the goal is quality here not choosing sides. I'm still a bit concerned about the references in your link above. Are they all from the 'Freep? Establishing notability would be easier with some references from outside of Detroit. This isn't Detroitapedia after all.--Rtphokie (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Somewhat of a strawman argument as a National or Global perspective is not a criteria for Wikipedia:notability. For example, look at all the lonely State Highway articles that keep meeting notability. Other sources would be welcome addition to the article. -- KelleyCook (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - While the subjects are strictly of regional appeal and the article could use some editing, notability is confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes notability in my opinion Plvekamp (talk) 17:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is notable. Article does need to be cleaned up and sourced quite a bit though. — X96lee15 (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs cleanup and additional sources, but the two existing sources are a decent start for asserting notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: It was the second most popular show, ever in the Detroit market (behind J.P. McCarthy). Drew Lane's retirement made today's front page of the Detroit Free Press. One of the few recent non-syndicated radio shows to successfully fight off national shows such as Howard Stern. Though as someone has modified this page to be its current Drew-less format, it really needs to be reverted back to its historical state with some references added as the new show will not be the Drew and Mike show (and has a long way to go before it becomes notable). -- KelleyCook (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per InDeBiz1 & KelleyCook. Calling this radio show "non-notable" is ridiculous. JPG-GR (talk) 02:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I whole-heartedly support the inclusion of this article, the reintroduction of unsourced material needs to stop, post haste. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:SNOW? --InDeBiz1 (talk) 00:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 14:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arby 'n' the Chief[edit]

NN webfilm Nakon 15:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unreferenced, and doesn't assert notability in the slightest. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 15:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - not too sure how this article has lasted as long as it has. No references, notability definatley can't be established, maybe even original research. Can't fly here... ~~(not exactly sure, but maybe this WP:CSD#A7 applies here.~~ after further reading, it doesn't apply, oops! Dusti^{complain/compliment} 16:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – As our dependency for gathering information – news – references and other pertinent information from the Internet grows our need to change our mindset from the more traditional methods of establishing verifiable – reliable and creditable sources such as the New York Times and Time needs to be expanded to include sites like YouTube and machinima.com. As you will note here [12] this game has established quite a following. Over 100,000 hits on Google in reviewing the first 100 I would say this game has established notability. ShoesssS ^Talk 17:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No, it really hasn't. Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance, and we really don't need to highlight every bit of self-promoted ephemeral pop culture. If reliable sources notice something, we should too. If they don't, then it really wasn't very important after all. Ravenswing 19:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sorry, I'm not ready to accept YouTube as a reliable source. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any evidence that they were in the New York Times, or any other reliable source for that matter. I was originally going to speedy tag this myself, but I undid that. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, I am a big fan of the series, but as correctly pointed out, it doesn't have coverage in reliable sources. To Shoesss: YouTube can't be a reliable source because they aren't known for fact-checking and accuracy, which is required under the verifiability guideline. Just because more people are using it doesn't fix the problem that there's no way to make sure the information on the site is reliable and truthful. So with a heavy heart I must recommend to delete this article. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 22:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - LOL- Not a problem, in fact, I understand the rational behind the delete opinions and would normally agree! However, though the video has not been covered by more traditional news coverage services, there is no doubt the video series have gained notability. My contention is that even in the face of providing an argument, from non-traditional sources, we have editors shutting their ears and eyes and stamping their feet claiming; “...well I do not see it in the New York Times. All I can say is that thank you to the man-in-charge that Fox News and CNN did not follow the established majority or we would all still be watching ABC – CBS and NBC only. Take care all. ShoesssS ^Talk 23:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its not just "traditional news services" - WP:RS's definition also allows websites that have that kind of fact checking (GameSpot and IGN for instance would be as acceptable sources for this article if they had covered the series), as well as blogs that are run by members of the media or other reputable sources. The problem is that even this new media that does fall into "acceptable" under WP:RS hasn't covered this series either. I understand the concern that some editors do have some blindness to non-traditional reliable sources in deletion debates, but in this case the subject still doesn't have any coverage in any source that meets WP:RS, traditional or digital. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 04:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The above comments are from the last deletion of this page, since then I have improved the article, added alot of info, etc. Please considering keeping this. AP Shinobi (talk) 00:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has been speedied twice. This debate is about the current version of the article. None of the content has changed (except for the addition of nonsense) since I nominated the article. Nakon 01:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That was an edit from an anon IP, and has been deleted. AP Shinobi (talk) 14:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Not needed, it is just a parody of Halo and has been deleted several times before. Sorry. BW21.--Black Watch 21 19:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So is Red vs Blue, but it is not nominated. AP Shinobi (talk) 11:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are ignoring that RvB has been written about in many, many reliable, independent, verifiable sources. This show, it would appear, doesn't even have one. Just like most of this lot.--Drat (Talk) 11:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I find reliable sources? AP Shinobi (talk) 14:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find multiple such sources (at least two, more is better), there is little reason the article can't stay. But remember that the sources must be reliable, independent of the group that works on the show, and must cover the subject significantly.--Drat (Talk) 14:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, and doesn't seem to be easy to find notable sources for it? Gary King (talk) 19:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.19.244.20 (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article has been expanded and a character list has been added. The article is coming along very nicely. I will be adding citations and referrences soon. Please keep this article. AP Shinobi (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't shown how or why the subject is notable. Nakon 14:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is an article about a machinima that is widely popular around the web. It also shows the Halo series has had a very large effect on modern day culture. Wiki is a database for information, and this provides adequate information to be kept in Wikipedia for further expansion. AP Shinobi (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Widely popular on the web" {{citation needed}} Nakon 19:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Wikipedia's only a database of verifiable information, not everything that has existed. As I said to Shoesss, not even reliable Internet sources like IGN have given this series some significant coverage. A subject has to meet verifiability guidelines to get an article, and this series still doesn't do that. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, default to keep. Sandstein (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of King George V Playing Fields (County Antrim)[edit]

Pointless list, which contains only one item. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as underpopulated "list" containing only one non-notable playing fields. Perhaps List of King George V Playing Fields (County Down) should be added to the nomination as it is the same playing fields? EJF (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I would typically say merge into the main article King George's Fields. However, I believe the list can be a valued addition, for reference reasons (likewise, I believe it would add to much content to the main piece), as a separate article from the main piece. In addition, I would consolidate all the fields into one list. With regards to the notation that the fields are un-notable, I would disagree. Though one field may be un-notable 471 fields are not and supported by this Google News search [13]. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 16:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consolidate the list as recommended above. List needs to be here, but the article shouldn't be kept for a table with one entry. Waste of valuable space. Dusti^{complain/compliment} 16:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Shoessss. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The argument for deletion is surprising, because the list is flagged as an incomplete list. The argument about space occupied is interesting, but WP keeps archives on the servers anyway as part of the functionality of Mediawiki software. King George's Fields are themselves significant and important (and verifiable and notable), and the list, albeit incomplete, is part of an attempt to catalogue this enormous memorial into local chunks. If the consensus eventually comes to a deletion the Northern Ireland lists should be merged into a list for Northern Ireland (which requires creation). The objective is to keep the information, even if it is desired to consolidate it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is indeed flagged as an incomplete list, but it actually appears to be complete: there were only 7 such fields in Northern Ireland, and there's not much point in splitting that list of 7 fields into 5 or 6 sub-lists. If there is as yet no Northern Ireland list, the simplest solution would probably to rename this article as List of King George V Playing Fields (County Antrim), and merge any other by-county lists into it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I would like to see just one consolidated List of King George V Playing Fields without the (County Antrim) or (County Down). Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 21:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. On the basis that there are similar lists for all the other counties in which there are KG Fields, I'd say keep, but given that the main article says there are only seven fields of this type in the whole of Northern Ireland, perhaps a merger of all the N.I. KGF lists into one list would be in order. In other words, pretty similar to what BHG said. Grutness...wha? 02:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can be expanded on. Every list started out as a newbie at one point or another. Gary King (talk) 20:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I think you have missed the point here, which is that it appears that there are no more KG fields to add to this list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Apologies, should have worded it better. Would be better to be consolidated with the other lists, per above. Gary King (talk) 21:40, 24 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 g3, hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reiner pepper[edit]

Article seems to be a hoax to support the deleted article Red Hot Reiner Peppers. This is a prod dispute. Plvekamp (talk) 14:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:HOAX. The only GHits I could see were to mirrors of Wikipedia so, even if it's not a hoax, I'd say it was non-notable! -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 14:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the references and the article don't match up very well. Dwilso 15:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:V. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Delete Article is a clear hoax and can be speedied by WP:CSD#G1.Dusti ^{complain/compliment} 16:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Obvious hoax. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:06, 23 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 Redirected to Komodo dragon. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Komodo dragon fact sheet[edit]

Redundant to the article Komodo dragon. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:21, 23 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, school theater group with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burke and hare the musical[edit]

Non-notable. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:17, 23 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. Milk’s Favorite Cookie ^(Talk) 01:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Mumm[edit]

Subject is a businessman with no claim to notability (co-owns an IBL basketball team; works for Microsoft?) Only two users have contributed substantive edits (one registered, one IP), at least one of which appears to be connected with the subject of the article. Article is orphaned and unsourced. Prod was deleted without comment by the IP editor. QuixoticKate (talk) 13:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The new sources do improve the article. Assuming that his being an owner and assistant coach in the IBL is the information which others are basing their determination of notability, I disagree that this is sufficient. (Guideline for athletes: "Competitors and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis.") At best, I think this article should redirect to the Snohomish County Explosion page. QuixoticKate (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm surprised at all the Keep votes I'm seeing. Do you all understand the nature of the IBL? A lot of those teams are playing in high school gyms. A redirect would be fine, but this guy doesn't need his own article. Zagalejo^^^ 23:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Simple question, way not? Third party – reliable – verifiable and creditable sources were provided. Isn’t that the criteria to meet notability? Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 23:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not always. Subjects who are covered in purely local sources should be judged on a case-by-case basis. Look, I'm usually on the keep side of these debates, but I know enough about basketball to conclude that an IBL team owner really isn't notable enough for his own article. The basketball coach at my old high school gets more Google News hits than this guy, and I can't imagine that his article would last very long. We have to draw the line somewhere. Zagalejo^^^ 00:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL- I admit most of the coverage is local. However, the Seattle Times, were more than one article appears, is a nationally known – reliable source. In addition, what constitutes ‘’Notability”. As we see by this discussion, it varies from individual to individual. I would rather error on the side of inclusion, on the chance someone may be looking for information, than deletion, once again on the chance someone will be looking for information. Thanks for listening. ShoesssS ^Talk 00:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —QuixoticKate (talk) 13:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: providing they actually provide references. Dwilso 15:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep – I have added an inline cite and also a reference from a third party reliable and creditable source. However, the article still reads more like a resume than biographical piece. ShoesssS ^Talk 15:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has references from reliable sources. --Eastmain (talk) 16:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep RS coverage and I think team owner is a degree of notability TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The IBL is far at the bottom of the American basketball totem pole, below two or three other minor leagues. IBL players wouldn't normally be considered notable, so owners shouldn't be, either. That indoor football league doesn't seem like much, either. It only has two teams organized at the moment! Zagalejo^^^ 17:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the available coverage provided by third party sources. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No problems here. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the improvements made. Pedro : Chat 21:11, 23 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 only issue raised in the nomination was verifiability, and the links cited in the discussion, as well as a quick check to Billboard.com, reflect that the album was released 4/29/2008. Nonadmin close. Xymmax (talk) 15:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Playlist: The Very Best of Korn[edit]

WP:CRYSTAL with no sources - as the "expected release date" mentioned in the article is 2008-04-29 one would have thought there would be more sources available by now. Neither Amazon nor play.com have this title listed, so it may actually be a WP:HOAX -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 13:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Already have an article on Korn, this one is alot worse. Dwilso 15:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources are available; album is listed at: MTV and WalMart. Paradoxsociety (talk) 19:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I concur that the sources above confirm it's being released. The album is supposed to be released in 5 days, so presumably the article will be expanded shortly thereafter. 23skidoo (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - if it's being released in (what is currently) four days time as claimed, surely there should be a track list available by now. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 09:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course, with it purportedly supposed to be released tomorrow, one would think there would be independent sources besides a vague announcement from the store chain sponsoring it, but there isn't any to be seen in the article.147.70.242.40 (talk) 20:04, 28 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. EdJohnston (talk) 04:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Smith (musician)[edit]

All claims in this article appear to be false. No evidence that anyone of this name "finished 27th in Series 3 of The X Factor", which wouldn't be notable anyway. No evidence that this person is signed to S-Curve Records. And the rest is just so much b*ll*cks..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hoax. I agree, not a single claim in here in verifiable. Google search on subject's name that excludes Wikipedia yields no hits, and only content contributor was an IP from last June. I also removed the reference to this person from the S-Curve Records article (added same day by same IP). Xymmax (talk) 14:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No valid sources provided. No sources found. No evidence of notability. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, yet another "let's create a hoax article about a classmate". NawlinWiki (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to inabaility to find sources and persuasive suggestions of the likelihood of a hoax. Moreover, the article does not seem to be attracting much interest. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:23, 23 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 Speedily deleted A7: absolutely no claims of notability. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3 Wheel Drive[edit]

Doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria from WP:BAND. Can't find any sources that refer to this 3 Wheel Drive. There does appear to be another 3 Wheel Drive from Ohio, but they don't really seem to be all that notable either. Speedily deleted a few times in the last few days. (Twice at this title and once at 3 wheel drive) Onorem ♠Dil 13:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, per nom TheProf - T / C 13:30, 23 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 verifiability issue, as the principal issue for deletion, seems to have been addressed with the introduction of sources on April 25, and there's no clear consensus that a deletion is warranted on grounds of non-notability. Sandstein (talk) 19:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Rongan[edit]

I proposed this for deletion but someone said we shouldn't rely on the lack of internet sources to prove she isn't notable. There are no internet sources other than WP mirrors for this person, as far as I can tell. But it's not a question of notability so much as verifiability... there are no sources for this article, and it has been tagged for sourcing for 2 years. As far as I'm concerned it's a possible hoax until someone can provide a source... see WP:V, the burden is on people who want to keep the article to find sources, even if sources are hard to find, as they could be if this article isn't a hoax. If this isn't a hoax, I'm sorry it had to come to AFD to get people to provide sources... but it had been tagged for 2 years. There was plenty of time to avoid this. --Rividian (talk) 12:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agreed. It's not a matter of Internet sources, it's a matter of any sources, and you're correct that the burden of proof is on those who wish to save an article. RGTraynor 13:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to this website (Google chache given to highlight the relevant text) http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cache:0CWV4r8vxNIJ:www.chinaculturemall.com/Crafts/article.aspx%3Fid%3D2065+princess+rongan&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=20 "Princess Rogan Ku Lun" did exist. This said, I doubt anybody can find any more information about this princess. An article for Princess Rogan is not needed, since she is definately not notable. Her article could be merged with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xianfeng_Emperor since it seems she was the daughter of Xianfeng Emperor. I don't know where the author of the Wikipedia article on her got the rest of his information though, or if it is true. MaxCosta (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, that link [14] appears to be just a copy of the Wikipedia article, anyway. Everything I've seen on her so far seems to use Wikipedia as the source. --Rividian (talk) 15:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (EC) Please note that the subject is mentioned in the articles about her mother and father as well. It appears she did exist, but she died young. However, her father was emperor, her brother became emperor. I know notability is not inherited, but more to the point, a search of the Kanji characters listed for her name produces almost ten thousand hits in Chinese. The Google translation of the first hit here is enough for me to feel that the article shouldn't be deleted. I know that the translation can't be considered a reliable source, but perhaps the original link could be. I have notified WikiProject China to see if a specialist can give the article some attention. Oh, and I saw the China Mall page, I agree that came from WP. Xymmax (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Xymmax (talk) 15:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect – To Xianfeng EmperorI agree with MaxCosta we do not need a separate article. However, I believe a redirect is justified. By the way, found one more source [15]. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 17:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I hate to keep saying this but that link also seems to be just a copy of the english WP article. The above chinese translation article does seem legitimate though... I suspect we need someone more familiar with the language to tell us how reliable the source is though. Whoever added this to the english Wikipedia may have been the first person to mention Rongan in English on the internet. --Rividian (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The only corroboration I can find is this passage from The Stone of Heaven: Unearthing the Social History of Imperial Green Jade. It tells of "rumors that while Emperor Xianfeng desperately needed an heir, he led a life of fruitless debauchery. By all accounts he was a sickly man who by 1855 had produced only one daughter by Li Fei, his favourite consort." If we could confirm her name then a redirect to Li Fei wouldn't be objectionable. --Dhartung | Talk 19:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Ok, I have another couple of sources. Romanized spelling of Asian names is always an issue, and it seems that the preferred variant is "Rong-An" or "Rong 'An". Google books gives this hit here and another here; and I'll go ahead and add them to the article. Xymmax (talk) 16:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Evidence seems to point to the fact that she did exist and as a princess she is worthy of an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what the current guidelines are for royalty articles, but it seems there's no claim to notability here except royalty. At any rate, I concede this shouldn't be deleted on verifiability grounds... so the only question is whether to redirect or keep as a standalone article. --Rividian (talk) 23:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A source, without naming her, that references her as the daughter of the emperor. Whether this is kept or not depends on where we are on consensus about the inherent notability of royalty. Recent AfDs (and the ensuing DRV) have had a consensus that contemporary royalty are notable by the fact of being born into the royal family. As for historical royalty, I don't know. Pastordavid (talk) 15:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Helpful point. Just for clarity's sake, I'll mention that the source above is the same one cited by Dhartung above. Xymmax (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability, beyond being of royal birth. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Sure, she lived, as the link above proves, but the question is why does she need an article? What did she do that makes her notable? Dusti^{complain/compliment} 17:51, 29 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, just a roundabout way of saying "My friend Pikec is a cute person." NawlinWiki (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pikec[edit]

Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Also fails WP:NOTDICDEF. FusionMix 12:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, no sources. Renee (talk) 13:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems like a dictionary article, not notable, no sources. Seems like a hoax article. WP:HOAX Sv23 (talk) 13:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; nom is incorrect in saying fails WP:RS, as RS is not a criterion for deletion that an article can pass or fail. That said, the article fails any number of things that are indeed criteria for deletion including WP:N and WP:NOR. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability provided, none found. No sources provided, none found. Dicdef. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move to wiktionary, if it qualifies. BuickCenturyDriver (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since no such word exists in English, as far as I know.--Berig (talk) 17:31, 23 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) 19:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vaidyanathan Ramaswami[edit]

This article is a non-notable biography of a living person. See WP:BIO for more details. Because this individual has not gained any honors of distinction in the field or has not created any major breakthroughs in the field, it seems that this article is unneccessary. Furthermore, this page does not detail any of his accomplishments.

Delete. Non-notable, no sources. Renee (talk) 13:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: per A7, no assertion of notability. I see a CSD was filed and removed nearly a year ago; one wonders upon what grounds. RGTraynor 13:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And ... make that a G7 as well, per the creator's request below. RGTraynor 16:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 for people. Totally non-notable. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. I'm the original author of this article. At the time I created it, I thought that Ramaswami was notable, but after I investigated it further, I decided ~~he wasn't~~ I couldn't find as much material about him as I thought I would be able to. -- Dominus (talk) 15:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am now reserving judgment until I see whether other people can be more successful than I was. -- Dominus (talk) 05:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Am sorry, I am going to be in the minority here! That is the problem with these Damn academics :-) it is so hard to find information on them through conventional sources. As I show here [16]Mr. Ramaswami is quite notable within his given field. 15 Scholarly works along with several patents does establish a claim (be it big or small) to notability. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 17:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Err ... did you look at those links? Four of those duplicate a single patent application. Three list his name in "thanks to" sections of other papers, two of them being identical and on mirror sites. Two involve conferences he attended. Two are listed without actual links, and his name is not visible in either. Upon what objective basis are you claiming that he is notable in his field? RGTraynor 18:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YesHappy to say I did read the links, though four of the sites, regarding the patents seem identical, they are actually all slightly different. Just look at the application numbers. Regarding the conferences he attend, you are right he was there! However, as a featured lecturer! I believe that is pretty objective. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk

Look at the application, not the numbers. It is, in fact, the same method, with various permutations involving four patents; turn over most home appliances and you'll find several patent numbers. As far as the conferences go, indeed, he had talks, according to the materials (although I'd hate to have the 6:30-8:30 slot myself), but what makes you say that he was a "featured" lecturer? RGTraynor 19:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, since no sources in the article support notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. The article is in bad shape but the subject is notable per WP:PROF. A MathSciNet search gives 53 papers by him. Several are highly cited, per GoogleScholar search[17]. Top citation hits are 448, 194, 112, 103. That's very good for a mathematician. The h-index is 20 per QuadSearch[18].Again, for mathematics this is very good. Passes WP:PROF and should be kept. Nsk92 (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some info to the article to address the notability issue. Nsk92 (talk) 16:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~, Nsk92's comments convince me that the subject is sufficiently notable. By the way, has there been another AfD? I can't find any ... -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Abstain, after reconsideration. There don't seem to be secondary sources about Ramaswami (as opposed to his work), and I'm hesitant about adding biographies in border-line cases. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Academics are notable for their work and being the author of highly cited academic work is sufficient to satisfy WP:PROF (see Criterion 3 of WP:PROF). In academia people generally do not write articles about another person until that person is dead (an obituary), or is about to retire (e.g. a seventieth birthday anniversary issue of some journal dedicated to some academic) or on the occasion of winning a very major award (at the level of Fields Medal, Nobel Prize, etc). For everyone else one has to look at the impact of their work on the field, which is most reliably demonstrated by things like citation rates and h-index. That is why there is a separate WP:PROF guideline, distinct from WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 13:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He is a member of the IEEE and the Institute of Mathematical Statistics. I see he's also a co-author on a book, and was a runner-up for the Wagner Prize in 2004 (link) but he still seems a bit borderline to me. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody with a degree in the relevant discipline can become a member of the IEEE. I think the same is true for the Institute of Mathematical Statistics.

Nsk92, I agree that Ramaswami satisfies the standards at WP:PROF. But as WP:PROF says, "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject." I know very well that this means that Wikipedia will have far less articles about scientists than sports or entertainment people. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to think that this clause of WP:PROF is for some sort of exceptional circumstances and that satisfying or not satisfying the notability guideline should be the primary consideration for inclusion. In most cases (in this one in particular) the lack of reliable sources is not the problem. There are 400+ citations in scholarly publications of his matrix analysis book alone. Scholarly publications are supposed to be the "golden standard" of being a reliable source, per WP:V and WP:RS. The problem usually is that the way these sources mention the work of some academic is rather technical and hard for the layman to understand since they are given in the context of a scientific article where substantial specialized knowledge is assumed and required. But that does not make these sources unreliable. As far as I am concerned, any academic, in any field, with 400+ citations of any one of his/her works is academically notable and deserves a page in Wikipedia (or at least deserves for his/her page to be kept of it has already been created). As you say, to do otherwise would put too high a bar for most WP entries regarding academics and scholarly topics and, in my view, would be antithetical to the main purpose of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia and detrimental to the overall goals of the project. An encyclopedia is a repository of important knowledge rather than of popular knowledge. Important knowledge is often technical and dry, but important nontheless. As an academic myself, I admit that I am biased, but I feel strongly that scholarly topics should be given at least a slight precedence in an encyclopedia over popular culture topics and should be cut a little bit of an extra slack if necessary. Nsk92 (talk) 02:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The IEEE has 365,000 members, according to our article. Not a sign of notability, more like a magazine subscription. As for this article, if it explained his work, it might be useful to somebody; but not this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am sorry to disagree, but to discount IEEE, as no sign of nobility; “… It has the most members of any technical professional organization in the world”, is slightly absurd! If you do a little research, you will find that they are responsible for both establishing and setting the Standards for a vast majority of the laws that are in place for “Electrical Codes” in the world. Particularly here in the United States. With regards to expanding the article, please feel free to! However, I believe enough information is already given to establish notability, but certainly more is welcome. ShoesssS ^Talk 22:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a non-sequitur. The United States is one of the most powerful nations in the world; that doesn't make membership (aka citizenship) an element of notability. The IEEE is very notable; being one of three hundred thousand members isn't.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – My apologies! I read the statement wrong, in that I assumed we were talking about IEEE. Re-reading the statement made by Septentrionalis I see my error and Septentrionalis point of view in a new light. Sorry for the misunderstanding.ShoesssS ^Talk 00:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Google Scholar results cited by Nsk92 show that his work is widely cited. Being on the ed board of Stochastic Models [19] also suggests he is considered an expert by his peers. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Nsk92's Google scholar results. But to all the people trying to argue that IEEE membership is a sign of notability: please, no. IEEE Fellow, maybe, though they're a bit less selective in their choice of fellows than some other societies. But pretty much anyone can be an IEEE member. The only thing it says about someone is their ability to sign up and pay the modest yearly membership rates. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete I am a member of IEEE, and I have applied for patents. I have also eaten toast with melted cheese on it. I do not see anything difficult, unique or expressing notability in any of these things. I attend conferences, I present at some, I have written white papers that have been published. But I am certain that anybody can do these things without being significant or having any lasting impact on their field. None of the sources provided substantiate any of the requirements for notability for the subject of this article. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:37, 29 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. Non-admin closure. --MrStalker ^(talk) 17:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dance Dance Revolution SuperNova 2 (North America)[edit]

Contested prod. Fails the criteria for inclusion under WP:NOT#INFO. MrStalker ^(talk) 12:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Unique game in the series, it's messy in it's current condition but it counts as a stub. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 12:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you delete the information not allowed per WP:NOT#INFO you get one or maybe two sentences left. That's even less then a stub, and thus it should be deleted. --MrStalker ^(talk) 12:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I clicked "random articles" a few times and I've seen stubs with five words in them. However, they are verifiable and notable and therefore cannot be deleted.--WaltCip (talk) 12:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An ideal stub is a couple of paragraphs open to expansion, what you don't seem to understand that a valid stub can be as small as a sentence. If that sentence says something about the article it counts. This article has a few sentences, an infobox, a list, a link to additional information, and is part of series of articles. It's not ideal, but it's not deletionist fodder either. The reason it looks lanky is because it was cut out of the main SuperNova 2 article in the first place because it didn't belong there (Different game with the same name) and I'd like to know exactly what elements in the article as it stands that are "not allowed" (The list is acceptable as a song list, see every single article about a musical album). --AeronPrometheus (talk) 13:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MrStalker ^(talk) 12:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. sources exist for the subject that could be used to write a better article. It should be kept and improved, not deleted. AfD isn't cleanup. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 16:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I overhauled the stub take a second glance. It's still a stub but one would be hard pressed to find a reason to delete/merge/thumb their nose at it in its present state. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dance videogame articles are the very lifeblood of WP. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, after AeronPrometheus edits the article looks much better. Nomination withdrawn. --MrStalker ^(talk) 17:52, 23 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. No content to merge, viable search term. Wizardman 02:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mos Definite[edit]

Non-notable compilation album. There's no reviews or significant coverage from reliable sources. The only sources I could find were forums, blogs, and torrent sites. Spellcast (talk) 11:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge into Mos Def's page. Non-notable on its own. Renee (talk) 13:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~ because Spellcast isn't wrong about the lack of sources to verify notability. Is it notable just because it's by Mos Def? tough call.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 15:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Merge; Terriersfan is right.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 17:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mos Def discography#Albums. I see no reason to delete the page since there is an easy merge target. TerriersFan (talk) 17:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is already an entry on the Mos Def article in the Mixtapes section. The content of this article is not appropriate to merge there, as not even the charting albums include a list of all tracks, and the rest is incoherant "a rare album of unreleased songes that were previously released on...." that's just garbage. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:06, 30 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. Punkmorten (talk) 09:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Øyvind Sandberg[edit]

Only directed three films. Punkmorten (talk) 06:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment May be notable due to credits and g-hits; the g-hits are mostly in a foreign language that I can't read, so I'm uncertain as to their content. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 11:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Won two awards at the Tromsø International Film Festival in 2002. Reference added. Lugnuts (talk) 17:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:43, 17 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, Stifle (talk) 11:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless a few more secondary sources are added. One source does not notability make. Renee (talk) 13:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your rationale, I assume you're going to be nominating about 90% of all articles and virtually every stub for deletion then? Lugnuts (talk) 07:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs a clean-up, but the subject is notable. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Yes, I think he's notable due to all the google hits, and if he won awards in an international film festival, we should keep. Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 15:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Winner of signifigant award at what appears to be a perfectly notable international film festival. That plus a source sounds like a perfectly good start at an article stub for what seems like a notable director. If there was a stronger argument than "Only directed three films", I could potentially be convinced otherwise. -Verdatum (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs expansion though. A post to the Swedish edition might get an Enlish speaker to update this. Wishtoremainanon (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the comments above, subject appears to be notable within his field. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus (default keep). Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Øyvind Asbjørnsen[edit]

Only directed three films. Punkmorten (talk) 07:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related and Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:46, 17 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, Stifle (talk) 11:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Article needs a clean-up. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly why should it be kept again? Punkmorten (talk) 09:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Google search reveals plenty of results, but none that I could find to be a source to establish notability. I wouldn't be at all surprised if notability could be established, I'd just like to see it added to the article or at least discussed here. -Verdatum (talk) 15:36, 23 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 —Alex.Muller 07:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Groovened Death Metal[edit]

Completely unsourced original research. Searching for 'Groovened Death Metal' on google shows absolutely no results (besides Wikipedia). Bloodredchaos (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. BuickCenturyDriver (talk) 12:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I believe the term "groovened death metal" is made up and completly bogus. Dwilso 15:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete two sources currently given in the article. Neither makes mention of "Groovened Death Metal" as a term. That plus failed google search as per nom. -Verdatum (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neither source mentions the term "Groovened Death Metal". I'm not surprised, really... I mean... groovened? That word alone only gets four GHits... one of which is this AfD! -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 16:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm glad someone put it up for deletion. I put it on my watchlist yesterday to do the same thing. Totally and utterly ridiculous. The term does not exist and if it applies to anything at all it would death 'n' roll (another article which I think is kinda ridiculous, but there is some truth to bands combining groove metal and death metal and calling it "death 'n' roll"). Anyways, delete. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 19:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The fact is, this fails verifiability. And yes, it is completely original research. Usually this means improve, but unfortunately, this is a likely neologistic non-notable sub-extreme metal genre. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 22:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced, looks a lot like Original Research... Milk’s Favorite Cookie ^(Talk) 01:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. --Bardin (talk) 04:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Death 'n' Roll is another article here on wikipedia (as I mentioned). Anyone have an opinion on that? I thought it should be deleted before. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 17:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Label seems to be more than a neologism at least - and appears to be in somewhat widespread use, albeit in the extremely metal community. Verifiability wouldn't be a problem. What is your reasoning for feeling it should be deleted? Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 17:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an appropriate place to discuss the merits of another article. Let's move this discussion to the talk page of that article. --Bardin (talk) 05:52, 25 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. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of World Junior Ice Hockey U18 champions 2007[edit]

Essentially useless page, nearly orphaned, very messy, possibly does not meet notability standards due to it being a U18 tournament where many players are not yet professional. If anything, something like this should be included on the tournament article page or better yet, the Russian National Team article page, although I would argue against that. – Nurmsook! (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. —Djsasso (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article used to just list a single roster is unnecessary for even the main World Junior Championships. For many countries there are articles of all the team rosters through history of the main world juniors. But this is a step down from that level of play so defiantely doesn't need a page for a single team. -Djsasso (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd say the tournament itself is notable, and deserves an article, but the deletion of this would not be a loss. We could always recreate a proper article at a later time. Resolute 19:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is no doubt at all that the tournament itself is notable, and I've worked pretty hard myself to create better articles for each of the tournaments since its creation in 1999. It's the roster list for the winning teams of this particular tournament that just doesn't seem to fit. – Nurmsook! (talk) 22:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:PERNOM. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It would be more useful if it focused on every year, but it's only for one year. Gary King (talk) 20:12, 24 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. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Loops (musical ensemble)[edit]

Nominator's Rationale: There seems to be very little information available about this ensemble to justify their notability. I feel like a tourist (talk) 05:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per [20] and [21]. Also [22]. Fails WP:MUSIC. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 22:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 22:13, 23 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 (non-admin closure). Unanimous keep consensus based on addition of reliable sources affirming notability - nominator thus withdrew nomination. WilliamH (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Norwayne High School[edit]

Nominator's Rationale: is every high school in America notable enough for a Wiki article? This one doesn't seem to be, but if it is, then it needs to be expanded. I feel like a tourist (talk) 02:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think the article looks a lot better now; I'm actually in favor of keeping it. Is there any way that I can end this afd, or do we just have to let it run its course? I feel like a tourist (talk) 23:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have withdrawn the nomination and there are no outstanding delete !votes it can be closed by any editor. Since I have already expressed a view I should rather someone else closed it. TerriersFan (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—I added more information and two more external links.—RJH (talk) 15:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that the article has references. --Eastmain (talk) 16:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep consensus and WP:SCHOOLS is that they are indeed notable TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as rewritten and improved, notability is now self evident. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable high school and with multiple sources available that easily meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Acceptable, sourced high school stub awaiting expansion. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:40, 24 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. Coverage in multiple sources plus winning a notable award establishes the subject's notability.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Costello[edit]

No sources that show why he is noteable, only sources about his death. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 18:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but improve. It's true that this article fulfills WP:MEMORIAL in its current form, but it seems that Costello was somewhat known. There's a listing on AllMusic and a handful of articles about him. The article could certainly use some work, though. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep appears to have released albums on known labels, I think he passes WP:MUSIC although that's not at all clear from the article TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails notability, not enough info on his bio. Dwilso 03:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per HelloAnnyong. Clearly qualifies as notable per criteria 1 of WP:MUSIC. --Bardin (talk) 04:39, 24 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 page has been much improved during the course of the AfD. Definable places are, in practice, considered notable and that is reflected in the debate. If anyone still prefers a merge then that should be pursued by way of a post-AfD talk page discussion. TerriersFan (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stone Cross, West Midlands[edit]

Nominator's Rationale: What is notable about this place that makes it deserving of a wiki article? I feel like a tourist (talk) 05:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dekete (or merge to West Bromwich/West Midlands (county)); no claim of notability. JJL (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge Should be kept in some form--Rockybiggs (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if references are added, as currently there are none! If it is indeed "a major interchange" there must be SOMETHING that can be cited? I'm not too sure about the list of shops there, though... Maybe I ought to add Tesco Metro, Waitrose and The Tote to the Paddock Wood article! LOL! -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 16:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added more information and references, it appears to have sufficient notability, as it is more than just a residential area. The article can still be expanded, and information about places is often found in books and not available on the internet, and if not expanded it may eventually be merged, but that can be decided in a separate discussion about this and other articles, either on article talk pages or as part of the West Midlands WikiProject. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 13:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I still don't understand the claim of notability here? JJL (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Places are considered to be notable (see WP:OUTCOMES), and articles similar to this one exist for many of the suburbs of large towns and cities in the UK (and other countries), and usually pass AFD as "keep" if sources are found. However, there are guidelines being proposed that may change the situation. The proposal is currently unclear (for example, "city" is not defined, and the official meaning varies between countries). The resulting guidelines will probably recommend articles such as this to be merged. This article, together with another 4 or 5 articles, would be merged into West Bromwich, with most of the content going into a new "geography" section of the article. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 16:30, 29 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. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Navarini[edit]

Deletion overturned at DRV with a recommendation to bring here. Procedural nomination only, no vote. Stifle (talk) 11:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Before making it themself, the article creator posted it at AfC, where it was declined: Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2008-04-09#George Navarini. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:31, 18 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, Stifle (talk) 11:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no apparent notability. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per KleenupKrew. _(1 == 2)^Until 20:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While he holds a position of some authority, the available sources are trivial mentions. Fails WP:V. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Landau (musician)[edit]

As far as I can tell fails WP:MUSIC, only claim to notability is having played in Warren Zevon's band. No valid sources other than Youtube and his own website. If anything he should probabally have a mention on Warren Zevon instead of his own article. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 03:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Warren Zevon or Jackson Browne BoL (Talk) 03:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:49, 8 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, Pastordavid (talk) 15:33, 17 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, Stifle (talk) 11:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no assertion of notability. Having played with a notable musician does not in itself make one notable. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NN, WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: viz, fails WP:MUSIC and WP:RS issues. Eusebeus (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid sourced stub. Catchpole (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Now WP:BIO & WP:V. Wishtoremainanon (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, default to keep. The relist did not generate consensus either way. There seems to be enough discussion of Scott in reliable sources to avoid outright deletion at this point. The question of notability can be revisited in the future.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damon Scott[edit]

As much as I enjoy this guys act. He's just someone who appeared on Britain's Got Talent and didn't win. Buc (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable entertainer, fails WP:BIO Paste (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment no Afd open for this article. SunCreator (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Now resolved. SunCreator (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, the article claims there's a BBC documentary on him, if that's so I think it would qualify him for notability. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 00:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can this be substantiated? I can't find anything online about it, and IMDB doesn't show anything related. (I'm not sure if a program from the BBC would show up there, though.) JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 14:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lookie (pdf), it is his CV and he makes the same claim, also talks about an ITV documentary featuring him. I know this is far from a reliable source, but people don't usually make those sorts of claims when they're lies on their CV. Here is what appears to be his agent or something making the same claim. Still, I don't seem to be able to find much other than that. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 23:44, 19 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, Stifle (talk) 11:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The same claim of a BBC documentary is also made here and here..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even supposing there is a BBC documentary on him; without seeing the footage, or a transcript, I would presume this documentary is not for the purpose of spotlighting Damon Scott, but instead with the purpose of spotlighting this type of entertainer. While I don't know how often the BBC produces such things, it is still the case that documentaries are made about non-notable people all the time. I'm ambivalent on the matter, so I reserve judgement one way or the other pending more information. -Verdatum (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was posted on the talk page of this AfD rather than the AfD itself by User:Barwitch:

I don't seem to be able to comment on the consideration for deletion page - I am Damon's manager - there are a number of things to consider - Damon has been a professional entertainer for 10 years - he was featued in a documentary on BBC called the Monkey Man. Clips available on his website for those who seem to not believe this. Although Damon was featured on Britain's Got Talent as a finalist and had 7.8million votes (only 200k less than Paul Potts) since he has had 10 million hits on You Tube from across the globe, and this is increasing at approx 25k hits a day whilst the new show is running. Contractually Damon had to have a period of media quiet post show, but is about to launch several high profile projects with significant pr. Equally - the other finalists such as the BarWizards have pages which are not marked for deletion? Any other queries contact me at [email protected], with Kind Regards Kate...Barwitch (talk) 14:40, 24 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 keep.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Burdette[edit]

Unremarkable university/college coach/teacher, fails WP:BIO. Paste (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~. Not wholly unremarkable; 29 consecutive winning seasons is nothing to sniff at. A cursory glance shows few available sources other than the usual game reports, though. On the other hand, there's WP:CSB to consider; this is a women's Division I team. At what level are coaches automatically notable? --Dhartung | Talk 20:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nowadays, once a girl reaches college age, chances of making an Olympic team drop precipitously. Since there are no professional gymnastics teams in the US, this is as close as one gets to the top level of competition outside of the Olympics. DarkAudit (talk) 20:58, 17 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, Stifle (talk) 11:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dhartung. Stifle (talk) 11:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:PERNOM. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: An AfD filed on a men's college basketball coach with that resume would provoke a firestorm, and college basketball is not the highest level of amateur competition generally available. A simple G-search for "Linda Burdette" + "gymnastics" turns up numerous articles from reliable sources [23], RGTraynor 13:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A head coach at a major university. As the notability guidelines for biography say, (c)ompetitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports are always and automatically notable enough, and this coach obviously meets that criterion. I'm tempted to speedily close this as keep. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Smerdis of Tlön, I too feel that this person meets the spirit of our WP:BIO guidelines. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change vote to keep per RGTraynor and Smerdis. Thanks fot the elucidation! --Dhartung | Talk 19:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to fulfilling notability and verifiability guidelines. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:37, 23 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.

7 of the people who commented here support deletion while 3 support keeping (though one of the keep voters did not attempt to provide a real rationale—basically all of the delete voters cited non-notability and/or a lack of reliable sources). On balance I find the arguments in favor of deletion far more compelling, but as this is a sensitive subject connected to a wider dispute some elaboration is warranted.

Irrespective of the bad-faith of the article creator (which seems obvious but is not particularly relevant) there are not sufficient reliable sources for this topic to warrant an encyclopedia article. Really the only source for this story is Asharq Al-Awsat—a questionable source, but one which is even more questionable when it comes to reporting about Iran (for obvious reasons to which the nominator alluded, though admittedly the author of the piece, Alireza Nourizadeh, is knowledgeable about the region). Essentially all of the ensuing coverage simply echoed the original story without advancing it, and the only media outlets that picked up the story are partisan and themselves of questionable reliability (in addition to the sources provided by Yahel Guhan, which are for the most part not reliable and only echoed the original report, a LexisNexis search revealed a story in the Daily Express but no coverage in reliable sources).

It should be said that even if this story was completely false, had it achieved significant and sustained coverage in reliable sources than it would be worthy of a Wikipedia article. For example had major media outlets picked up on this story and discussed it, or had it been mentioned by key politicians in the Middle East, Europe, or the United States, then more than likely the story would be notable regardless of its veracity. However this does not remotely seem to be the case. As has been pointed out Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and we simply cannot have articles based on one report in a fairly unreliable publication that was echoed in a few places and then went completely undiscussed for close to two years. If this issue flares up again and is discussed more widely in sources which are reliable, there would be no problem with re-creating the article.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Al Qiyamah[edit]

This article is based around a single report in a newspaper owned by a Saudi prince. It describes an alleged secret terrorism plan by the major regional rival of Saudi Arabia, the republic of Iran. This plot does not appear to exist in reliable sources. And according to the leaked e-mails from the recent CAMERA WikiLobbying scandal, here's why the author created it:

there is a good way to be productive, help Israel and yet avoid the endless debates in the more
critical articles. (we will have to deal with those later) :
the method is to start your own article. The advantages are clear - by deciding of the article name you set the context.
here is an example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Qiyamah
Once the article is there it is hard for them to delete it (still
possible but hard. they will try but don't let them)

<eleland/talkedits> 10:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have been watching this article since it was first created, debating back and forth with myself as to whether or not I should nominate it for deletion. I did not due to the possibility of future reports making it notable, but that has not happened. A single news report in a single newspaper (no less a clearly partisan one) does not establish notability. I developed my intention to eventually nominate it if future notability was not established prior to the WikiLobbying issue, so that has no effect on my support for deletion. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 16:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Irregardless of the article creators bad faith, it has been poorly sourced and unverified for a year now. Tarc (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article seems informative to me. Who created it seems to me irrelevant and "smells" of a vendetta, and not a wikipedian reason to delete an article. Amoruso (talk) 00:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment But only one source in two years, and a questionable one at that, is a perfectly legitimate reason. It raises serious questions of notability and reliability. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 01:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the title is WP:NEO, also article was created by a user with apparent bad intentions. Imad marie (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment without recommendation - this is on the edge of a larger Wikipedia discussion, located here. B.Wind (talk) 03:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems nonsense and there are no sources for that (except a baseless article in a newspaper). That article in Sharq-al-awsat hasn't provided any source for its claim. Alefbe (talk) 18:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is OR at worst, and non-notable at best. WP is no place for rumor mills.--Zereshk (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is mentioned in the following sources which proves its notability as a term:

[24][http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49982][25][26][27]~~[28]~~ Yahel Guhan 19:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The date of all these articles are July 2006. If it was really a credible news story, independent mainstream media should have mentioned that in the last two years. Alefbe (talk) 21:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - These sources are all mirroring and echoing the same one primary source, the paper Al-Sharq al-Awsaat.--Zereshk (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that the only remotely credible link he dropped was the New York Sun. Newsmax, WorldNetDaily, and an apparent Palevi monarchist blog "regimechangeiran.blogspot.com" are not reliable sources. <eleland/talkedits> 23:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As Yahel documents, the term and the report has appeared in print in papers with significant circulation and on the Internet on highly visited sites. On what basis could this real, documented phenomenon (the existence of the term and the reported plot, real or fabricated, that the term refers to) be justifiably deleted from a compendium of human knowledge?

To make the article unbiased and to provide the reader with as much verified information as possible, what eleland noted above about the source of the original report should be part of the article. If Al Qiyamah is a Saudi prince sponsored fabrication that has gotten into significant media streams, that is a real, potentially verifiable phenomenon and I can see no basis for deleting it from the Wikipedia. Rather then delete the article, the data which indicates that this real phenomenon (the term and its circulation in significant media streams) may be a political fabrication should be added to the article.

If an article is created about a verifiable phenomenon by an editor with a political agenda, the proper response is not to delete the article but to expand it so that the reader has access to the information necessary to see the verifiable phenomenon for what it is. Ultimately, if a political agenda was the motivation for creating such an article, the addition of more verifiable information should cause the article to backfire on its creator.

Note that what the article is about, i.e., what verifiable phenomenon the article describes may change as information is added. Originally, the article was about something Iran was doing. With additional information, the verifiable phenomenon may change to being about the story itself and the uncertainty about whether the story's creation derives from the actions of Iranians or is really a Saudi fabrication. Kriegman (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Protonk (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: another Wikipedia classic - a whole standalone page based on a single news report from a highly dubious source (those people backing this article need to do a little bit of research into how much of the pan-Arab media works, and how the Saudi-run papers deal with issues relating to Iran). This is cheap propaganda, not a serious encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and if it was going to be one, it certainly wouldn't be Asharq al-Awsat. --Nickhh (talk) 07:22, 28 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) 06:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CASTLE fight[edit]

likely hoax. No relevant online references to "CASTLE fight" (other than Warcraft or other games), "evolutionary decision theory of situational complexity" or "stochastic production lockdown", and only one (unrelated) for "feedback production cycle". Several of the references cited also do not show up in searches, and "Donald T. Una" rings alarm bells. Whilst lack of google hits in itself is not conclusive, for a notable computer simulation, which by the refs is around 5 years old, to have no online presence is highly unlikely. Paulbrock (talk) 10:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Paulbrock (talk) 13:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computers-related deletion discussions. —Paulbrock (talk) 13:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been notified on Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing's talk page. Paulbrock (talk) 13:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been notified on Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science's talk page.Paulbrock (talk) 13:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dekete this page is the sole ghit for "Computational Adaptive Situational TaiLored Environment" and for "Branches of Complex Game Theory: A Tool Approach" (not found on Amazon). At the least it's nn. JJL (talk) 13:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: as probable hoax. The turgid prose strongly reminds me of a National Lampoon article describing how you could amaze and confuse people by randomly picking buzzwords from each of three columns: why, no, boss, I'm not goofing off, I'm working on a "Tavistock stochastic modality." It doesn't provoke confidence that the article was created by an SPA in December who hasn't been seen since. Ravenswing 13:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Donald T. Una"? Yeah, right. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as likely hoax. Yikes. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be a WP:HOAX. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit, don't delete I would like to state that I came across this article searching for it and only became involved in it when I saw a mistaken 'tag' declaring it a hoax. Since I'm somewhat familiar with the topic, I responsibly removed it, gave my brief explanation and moved on. Whether or not this article survives, there is a point here.

This is a deeper issue in many ways. I would attempt to challenge this but I doubt I have enough 'wiki-clout'. Its a shame that the mob-like mentality of the community will prevent the internet from developing specialized niches of knowledges. Many of the specialists that put time into rigorous education and jobs and then developing knowledge don't have time to mass edit and develop 'wiki' reputations. This was acounted for in the engineering of wikipedia allowing 'anonymous' contributions. Unless you've forgotten, that is allowed.

I suppose a system where scientifically untrained and uneducated editors can sweepingly declare a technical article 'nonsense,' or where a scientist's last name (how infantile can we get) can be criticized with nothing more than a subjective gestalt -- editors who then who move on to continue their off-the-hip shotgun-editing all over the cyber-libraries, is bound to be flawed. The fact that the only possible argument present here is that the critics are unable to follow a 15 word sentence with technical words is revealing in itself. Within the scientific and engineering community, there is a a need to communicate specific meaning which necessitates long sentences and technical words. I suppose, by what I've already said, the majority of you stopped understanding my arguments several sentences ago.

I suppose some of you edit and spend your time reviewing Wikipedia articles out of a need for a hobby, especially one that is accessible from a computer which many of us these days have. Maybe others do it to be part of a community. Perhaps others of you share my hope which is that the Information Age will one day bring in an accessible education to even the most opportunity-poor people. This would have the potential to NOT waste potential of brains anywhere, despite their random and arbitrary circumstances. I bring this point up, only to remind the community that the cultural attitude they take in this online endeavor should reflect this. Therefore, you can each individually choose to execute caution in allowing specialized knowledge bases once excluded from the public to flourish, or to shoot it down in a pitchfork-and-mob-like ignorance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.39.182.161 (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the fact that — 74.39.182.161 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. , you don't need a reputation to defend the article, just an online reference, or evidence that any of the current references exist. Paulbrock (talk) 08:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To 74.39.182.161 - I do believe that CASTLE flight may exist, however, before trying to sound smart, why don't you explain how editors on Wikipedia, having done their best to find verification of the existence of CASTLE flight and failed, are supposed to make the judgement to keep or to delete the article? Are you saying that if editors can't find verification for the existence of some subject matter, they should assume that they're too uneducated to know about it, and therefore let the article remain on Wikipedia? Moreover, what is "wiki-clout"? I have no "wiki-clout", and still feel free to give my opinion on articles. You seem to miss completely the point of Wikipedia - it's a free encyclopedia editable by everyone - everyone who happens to edit it - if nobody with the required knowledge on an article happens to be present at the deletion nomination process, and if no internet sources are found to verify the subject matter, then, logically (do you know logic?), the editors must conclude that the subject matter doesn't exist. It's done in good faith. Don't preach to me just because you know what CASTLE flight is. I'm not going to preach to you just because my particular area of study is law - if I encounter an article relevant to my area I may or may not edit it - if the editors aren't knowledgable about that area and they happen to make a judgement in good faith that the article should be deleted, then that's what they should do - unless somebody with the required knowledge intervenes. That's why you're given the chance to voice your opinion. You don't need "wiki-clout". Doh. Oh, and, when you wrote "Within the scientific and engineering community, there is a a need to communicate specific meaning which necessitates long sentences and technical words.", you kind of slipped on a banana peel there, didn't you? It's not only in the "scientific and engineering community" that "there is a a need to communicate specific meaning which necessitates long sentences and technical words", this is true of almost any subject which requires a tertiary level of education to be qualified in. Heh, or maybe you think that just because, say, a doctor is not an engineer, he can go about his exams by writing "The heart is shaped like an upside down pear, it's red and I'm pretty sure it pumps blood or something" - because he doesn't need long sentences or technical words, right? Get yourself a damn username and do some edits in your spare time instead of irritating me and writing jack-crap. MaxCosta (talk) 00:44, 25 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. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid marketing[edit]

Let me confess to almost complete ignorance of the topic - I hope that those with more knowledge will be able to comment. This article reads like a manifesto or advert for a company or group of individuals. It is the work of two editors who have made no other edits anywhere. It is totally unreferenced. It is worded in a way that makes it largely impenetrable without great effort and may possibly be copied from other sources. Now, none of these things alone is an argument for deletion as opposed to rewriting, but taken together it seems to me that without the promotion we are left with no more than a dicdef that does not belong in an encyclopaedia. As I said, this is beyond my areas of expertise, so perhaps others can give an expert view. Emeraude (talk) 10:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Spam. No sources provided, none found. Gives three external links, the Ford and Dove (Unilever) links don't use the term. The one that does is for that... hmmm ...unknown "101 WORLDWIDE". The article mentions three supposed big names in this supposed next big thing, Jim Farley - Ford's vice president of Marketing, Simon Clift - chief marketing officer at Unilever and Martin Cserba - chief executive officer of the international Hybrid Marketing agency holding 101 WORLDWIDE. What is an "international Hybrid Marketing agency holding"? Well, from the looks of the link they use "new dynamic formats to linear campaigns to generate real impact in an era where traditional marketing and advertising is losing its edge", which the article dutifully reproduces verbatum. I remove it as a copyright vio, but I suspect the author of the phrase is the one who added it to the article. If the concept (vague as it is) intrigues you, who ya gonna call? Ford? Too busy with their cars. Unilever? Too busy with their soaps and such. 101 WORLDWIDE? Golly, they're available for hire! Perhaps "Hybrid marketing" means using wikipedia to advertise your business? - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hybrid Marketing stands for adding new dynamic formats to linear campaigns to generate real impact in an era where traditional marketing and advertising is losing its edge. Hot damn, it's dynamic! You need to know about this, or your marketing will lose its edge. Suggest speedy delete: this sort of logorrhea qualifies as patent nonsense. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All I see here is a craptacular buzzword soup. Only one of the external links even mentions the term "hybrid marketing', and that's an ad agency's site. No evidence of notability that I can see. A Google search gives you a mix of stuff about the marketing of hybrid vehicles and ad agency fluff. If someone can dig up some real references from reliable sources out of that mess, I might change my mind, but it's looking delete-worthy to me right now. Klausness (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I nominated this article I suspected it was complete bollocks, so I'm glad that others agree. Incidentally, one of the editors responsible for this article has added a link from the Hybrid disambiguation page which states that Hybrid marketing is "the use of the 'New marketing' trends without renouncing to classical advertising". More bollocks, and if this page goes that link needs to go as well. Delete Emeraude (talk) 16:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 23:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demetria Clark[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Contested prod (from 2006!). Self-published sources only, nothing significant ("local herbalist") found in search of Google News Archive. On Google Books, quoted in one book, mentioned on one page of a Gary Null book. Several expansive claims in article, none corroborated by sources. Fails WP:BIO. Dhartung | Talk 10:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Apparently the prod was invalid, following a deletion by AFD. It was changed from a G4 speedy, indicating it may not have matched the prior content. If it does, it may still be eligible for speedy. --Dhartung | Talk 10:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt as re-creation of a previously deleted article. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an advert. Fails WP:BIO & WP:V. Wishtoremainanon (talk) 17:38, 23 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 move to Alex Konanykhin. Delivery4tip comes from the discussion as a non-notable company. Yet some opinions suggest that the company owner may be notable enough for inclusion. (I moved the article, did a rough copyedit to turn the focus to Alex Konanykhin notDelivery4tip, kept the redirect, and tagged for notability to call some more eyes to take a look at it) - Nabla (talk) 21:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delivery4tip[edit]

Food delivery company. Has been deleted once as spam. Is it notable? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability in news, no good third-party references. Atyndall93 | talk 09:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly Move relevant info to Alex Konanykhin as sources indicate he may be notable. No indication of notability for Delivery4tip, Delete. Paulbrock (talk) 11:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt if this is a re-creation of a previously deleted article. Even if not, still a non-notable local business. Delete. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Number of references seems to confer notability. (It's clearly not spam currently, so even if it is a recreation, it can't be re-speedied.) Powers ^T 12:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the references dont even mention "Delivery4tip", let alone offer significant coverage. Paulbrock (talk) 13:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of the six references, two have "Delivery4tip" in their titles, and the second certainly does mention it. Those three sources are sufficient to establish notability in my view. The three that don't (I'm taking your word on the video since I don't feel like watching the whole thing) may contain other details that were used in the writing of the article. Powers ^T 15:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, the video is about Konanykhin, no mention of Delivery4tip. Re the 2nd Miami Herald reference, the closest article I can find in the Miami Herald online archives is [29], which doesn't mention Delivery4tip in the title. I've also tried to find any info on the CBS4 website but was unable to find that report, which I would imagine didn't have an 'official' title. That gives me 1 source I can't check (CBS4), 3 sources which have zero mention of the article topic (Guardian, Business Week,Baltimore Sun) and two articles credited to the Miami Herald, of which, to be fair, 1 is certainly about delivery4tip. The other appears to have had its title changed by the article's authors. On this basis, I'm not satisfied that notability is asserted for Delivery4tip, but there does seem to be a lot of info available for Alex Konanykhin. Paulbrock (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - blatant example of non-notable local business. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this article and I believe CBS and Miami Herald are reliable third-party references for this article, making it notable. There are other references that are related with the CEO/owner of the company as well. I could have included more references but they are not reliable third-party references and would definitely flag my article for speedy deletion. I see that this was spammed before, is this what's marking it for deletion? This is my first article and I've read the wikipedia guidelines thoroughly. I've also compared this to other similar articles, such as Seamless Web. Jdr123 (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The business delivery4tip seems to be tangential to the man who owns it. Most of the articles are about his checkered past. HE probably deserves a page (assuming it could meet BLP), but the business seems borderline. Protonk (talk) 23:59, 24 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 and redirect with almost unanimous support. The lone dissenting argument was based on notability; however no content is to be deleted: As other editors have pointed out, the contents have been merged already. Nothing is lost by the decision to redirect. (Non-admin) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Chatto[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Procedural nomination to resolve conflict. Previous consensus was "keep", but notability is in question. We could move to Lady Sarah Chatto#Marriage and issue, but from me there is no vote. StAnselm (talk) 07:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect with parents. However, ensure that place of birth is kept and not lost. Agree that this should have been sent to AfD, rather than Charles deciding on his own to redirect.--UpDown (talk) 10:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect (merge is already done). Charles 11:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect He does not meet any of the WP:PEOPLE basic criteria, I cannot find any news coverage of him. Atyndall93 | talk 06:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable for his place in the succession to the throne. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Line of succession to the British throne. He's already there. Nothing else makes him notable. Charles 17:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My vote is still KEEP, for the reason I gave above. Relatives of the royal family that high up in the succession probably should have their own separate short articles just because of their notability as royals. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Probably"? The Chattos are not royal. Charles 18:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In line for the succession to the throne, however, and further up in the succession than people such as Lady Marina-Charlotte Windsor, whose article was not deleted. Again, my vote is KEEP. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per nom. et al. D B D 08:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Not really notable for anything other than the family he is in, which is not customarily taken as notable. 18th in line to the throne is a bit too distant I think to make him automatically qualify for an article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Merge and redirect - A kid with no real notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:25, 29 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 and redirect. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Chatto[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Procedural nomination to resolve conflict. Previous consensus was "keep", but notability is in question. We could move to Lady Sarah Chatto#Marriage and issue, but from me there is no vote. StAnselm (talk) 07:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect with parents. However, ensure that place of birth is kept and not lost. Agree that this should have been sent to AfD, rather than Charles deciding on his own to redirect.--UpDown (talk) 10:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect (merge is already done). Charles 11:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a close relative of the Royal family he is notable enough to merit his own article. Although I would agree to a redirect until he is old enough to have done things worth mentioning. MortimerCat (talk) 23:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect He does not meet any of the WP:PEOPLE basic criteria, I cannot find any news coverage of him. Atyndall93 | talk 06:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable for his place in the succession to the throne and as a fairly close relative of his great-aunt, the queen. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Line of succession to the British throne. He's already there. Nothing else makes him notable. Charles 17:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vote is still KEEP for reasons given above and in his brother's article for deletion vote. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sharing. Charles 18:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can do without the snark, thank you. We have two opposing viewpoints. I've cast my vote, as have you. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per nom. et al. D B D 08:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Not really notable for anything other than the family he is in, which is not customarily taken as notable. 17th in line to the throne is a bit too distant I think to make him automatically qualify for an article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MY Nemesis[edit]

Contested prod. WP:N - No assertion by the author of why this boat is notable. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 06:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No relevant news results or mentions in books that I can find. The name "My nemesis" makes it difficult to search for using just the name for obvious reasons, and including "Japan" doesn't seem to produce anything useful, and adding "1994" and "parties" doesn't help the matter either. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as is, although there does seem to be an unrelated notable yacht Nemesis that won a reconstituted Lipton Cup[30] (not the original, apparently?). --Dhartung | Talk 10:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails general notability guidelines, no news coverage can be found, google books, news, search and scholar turn up nothing. Atyndall93 | talk 07:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete merely a NN yacht. WE cannot (I think) have articles for every vessel afloat! Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 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. Wizardman 23:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tran Quoc Binh[edit]

A Vietnamese American soldier killed in Iraq. No notable military actions or achievements. Effectively an obit. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as I could accept a cited claim that he was the first Vietnamese-American killed in combat, period. Otherwise this is very limited notability (one war). --Dhartung | Talk 10:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the death of anyone is sad, Wikipedia is not a memorial. KleenupKrew (talk) 12:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP--CHANGE-to --DELETE. He is the first Vietnamese American to receive this high honor.Press release from the California Office of the Governor Bnguyen (talk) 01:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, poor bloke, but I think he is non-notable, even if he is the first Vietnamese to receive a high honour. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 14:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Very tragic, and a great loss, but does not meet the requirements of WP:BIO. Being the first person from country X killed in war Y fighting for country Z is not something that should give inherent notability, given the number of countries and of wars in the world. Think about going back and having articles for every country which fought in every recorded war and all the nationalities which fought and died for each country in each war. Who was the first Chinese soldier killed in the American Civil War, or the first Siamese soldier killed in World War 1 fighting for Britain? The article seems a memorial piece based on obituaries. Edison (talk) 23:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to cite some reliable news sources (following WP:BIO), but the first vietnam soldier claim isn't included in a reliable source so it may have to be deleted. Atyndall93 | talk 07:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simply being in a news event doesn't make one notable, especially if it is a passing event, otherwise car crash victims and robberies would be on Wikipedia. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Memorial. MrPrada (talk) 08:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very tragic, but if we use the "first Vietnamese-American to die in Iraq" precedent, then we would have articles about the first Cambodian-American, Laotian-American, Korean-American, etc. - to die in Iraq. Khoi khoi 02:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 23:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rafal Rzeczkowski[edit]

Non-notable subject. No significant ghits. Probable autobiographical stub. Tan | 39 05:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. --JulesN Talk 06:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Possibly just an advertisement for his personal Linux website. KleenupKrew (talk) 12:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My name is Brett Alton and I am a web developer from Peterborough, Ontario. I have no secret investment in this guy or his work, but I feel he makes a significant investment into the open source and Linux community here in Canada as he quite often is the only Canadian-based mirror we can get for software downloads. I am looking into articles about Mr. Rzeczkowski to further back-up my statements. Altonbr (talk) 14:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Still does not meet notability requirements, even after addition of references. Tan | 39 15:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The guy runs a file mirror for some open-source projects. Big freaking deal. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he does seem to be covered by some open source websites but fails WP:BIO because of no reliable news coverage. Atyndall93 | talk 07:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close - ridiculous title - author has recreated it at MV Connection. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"write a wikipedia page"[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/"write a wikipedia page"

Not even sure where to start with this one. Title is errant. Uncited. Google brings up ambiguous answers. Probable copyvio, I couldn't find it. Tan | 39 05:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. no assertion of notability or importance, at least not that I can find in that huge block of text. Possibly speedy delete--this does look like advertising. Really, really bad advertising. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. hoax and Miracle Violence Connection already exists as a wrestling duo. --JulesN Talk 06:01, 23 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 - near enough patent nonsenbse. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Togglator[edit]

Self admitted neologism, referencing Wikipedia. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 04:49, 23 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. PhilKnight (talk) 12:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar Hero:New Millenium[edit]

Violates WP:CRYSTAL, little information has been released on this game, title is likely a hoax. No sources. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 04:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear hoax. Maxa megalon 2000 05:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Guitar Hero (series) article names and lists Guitar Hero games slated for release in the next year or two: Guitar Hero: Aerosmith (glorified Aerosmith best-of-album game), Guitar Hero: On Tour (for Nintendo DS), and the predicted Guitar Hero IV. These are all WP:reliably sourced. Guitar Hero:New Millennium has no sources to prove the information is correct, a basic Google search ["Guitar Hero" "New Millennium"] gives no reasonable results (most results contain the phrases independant of each other, using 'new millennium' as a descrriptive phrase, not a game title), a recent Google News search produces nada, while an all-dates search has the same problems as Basic Google, except that none of the results use the phrase 'guitar hero' to refer to a videogame either. Delete as completely unsourced and possible made-up. -- saberwyn 05:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 05:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax, and two of the three total hits on Google [31] are Wikipedia. --JulesN Talk 05:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Caveat: That is for the exact title as formatted in the article. The normal formatting would have a space after the colon. -- saberwyn 05:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Additional caveat: The actual title would also have "millennium" spelled correctly. Spell4yr (talk) 05:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - True to all that, but even doing Google searches (and I know that Google's not the be all and end all) return no more results than the above link. --JulesN Talk 05:58, 23 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. Discussion muddied by which name the subject uses, and the only real consensus is that the article needs work.--Kubigula (talk) 03:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James B. Aguayo-Martel[edit]

Apparent vanity auto-biography; no record of a previous AFD discussion on 04Jan2008, as indicated, nor on 01-03Jan. LeyteWolfer (talk) 04:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If this guy were as important as he said he is a Google Scholar search should have turned up things. It didn't. Also, poorly written vanity page. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing on Scholar or Books, ghits barely confirm existence. The Jan 4 referenced was PROD, there was no discussion TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 14:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He may be using "James B Martel" professionally. At least, this is how Mercy San Juan has him listed.--Fabrictramp (talk) 22:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~. Don't have time to look into this right now, but "James B. Aguayo" finds this Nature paper [32] with 98 citations in Google Scholar, which seems to be in the right area. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Still don't have time to give this the time it deserves, but the fact that he's the first-named author on a highly cited Nature paper which claims to be the first time NMR was used on single cells would seem to satisfy WP:PROF ("originating an important new concept, theory or idea") and inclines me to keep. Agree with Nsk92 & Lankiveil that clean up is needed. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure at this point but leaning towards delete. It seems that he also goes under the names "James B. Aguayo" and "James B Martel". I did MEDLINE searches for both names. A medline search under "Martel J B" produces one article (cited 0 times) and a search under "Aguayo J B" produces twelve articles, written by him. One of them is the Nature article that Espresso Addict mentioned. Medline says that this article has been cited 174 times. The other 11 articles under "Aguayo J B" have much lower citation hits: one at 24, a couple at 10-12 and the rest in single digits. A GoogleScholar search for "J.B. Aguayo" produces similar results[33]: one top hit for the Nature article (99 cites), the next one at 19 cites and single digits after that. This does not seem to indicate notability to me in terms of WP:PROF. Also, in the WP article there are lots of claims made and no references or evidence to support them offered. Substantial problems with WP:V here, so even if the article is ultimately kept it would need a major revision. Nsk92 (talk) 13:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep and Cleanup, the number of cites cited above seems notable enough for fields as narrow and specific as the ones listed in the article. It's a bit too glowing though, and needs a rewrite to sound more neutral. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:57, 29 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, as stated below, seems perfectly reasonable as a dab page. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disparity[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This page is written more like a dictionary entry than a disambiguation. Hellno2 (talk) 01:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have redirected "Disparities" to this "Disparity" page. (it redirected to a healthcare issue before) Also added some common disparity article links. I hope this was done corectly and is now a better form for a disambig page. Mike172.134.250.104 (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, perfectly valid disambig page as far as I can see. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - I can see the purist argument since the page is not strictly disambiguating between identical terms but, being pragmatic, this is a useful page. TerriersFan (talk) 18:55, 29 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. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World's Smallest Political Platform[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/World's Smallest Political Platform

This article describes a particular political platform referenced by precisely one political party: The Boston Tea Party (political party), itself more-than-likely NN (see below entry). Badger Drink (talk) 04:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No assertion of notability. It says it was proposed to the LP, but nothing else about its impact. Fails Google Test. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable. KleenupKrew (talk) 12:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N - has attracted no attention and has WP:V and WP:RS issues to boot. Wikiepdia is not a form for grandstanding by other means. Eusebeus (talk) 15:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable.--Berig (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Rtphokie (talk) 17:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it exists and is the base for a political party. Monobi (talk) 05:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: existence != notability --Lemmey talk 05:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — The subject of the article clearly exists. So-called "notability" is substantially undefined, meaningless, and irrelevant. Verifiable existence is the only legitimate criterion. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I exist. Do I get an article? I can get half a dozen of my friends together, put in the paperwork to register a political party, and post about it on the Internet. We would in fact verifiably exist. Would we get an article? Notability matters, no matter how problematic its definition may be. TallNapoleon (talk) 02:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why not? You might even become the next President. Monobi (talk) 02:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Because if everything gets an article, the signal-to-noise ratio collapses. It becomes impossible to keep Wikipedia up to any kind of standards whatsoever. Wikipedia would go from being an encyclopedia with daily increasing reputation to a sandbox, a wall where anyone could scrawl whatever information they wished. It would become impossible to determine the importance or significance of any article, and impossible to control content. We would be overrun by vanity pages and by blatantly false information--a big enough problem as it is. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Your argument is a non-starter. It is absurd to claim an encyclopedia is made by better by removing verifiably true information, as the whole point of an encyclopedia is to include the sum of all human knowledge. I submit that Wikipedia is not the proper project for you--you have basically admitted as much on your userpage. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It is verifiably true that I am, at this very moment, wearing a turquoise golf shirt with white stripes, and a pair of light brown shorts. I could submit a time-stamped photograph proving this. But putting this on Wikipedia would not improve the encyclopedia; it would merely clutter it with utterly irrelevant information. I do not accept the premise that an encyclopedia's purpose is "to include the sum of all human knowledge"; rather, I believe that an encyclopedia's purpose is to include a subset of human knowledge deemed particularly important or interesting. Yes, I realize that Wikipedia is not paper. But that does not change the fact that, should it grow to include too much that is trivial or apocryphal, it would suffer for it. Ironically the articles that would suffer most would be minor but notable articles, ones which, because they fall on the borderline or are not well known, can no longer be policed due to the sheer volume of noise elsewhere. I believe that it is better to do fewer things well than many things poorly--and judging by WP:N, the majority of users agree with me. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The group seems to fail the notability guidelines at WP:ORG. The keep rationale for all three keep voters was "per verifiable existence." Obviously that is not our standard for inclusion.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Tea Party (political party)[edit]

This article describes what seems to be a non-notable minor political party. I will admit to not being completely positive as to the inclusion criteria for minor political parties, so this will be a learning experience! No reliable secondary coverage (that I could find), all references are to the party's own web site. Badger Drink (talk) 04:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Totally non-notable. It doesn't look like they ever even ran any candidates. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable. KleenupKrew (talk) 12:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable.--Berig (talk) 17:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Vital part of the Ron Paul presidential campaign. I'd also like to know what makes it non-notable. This isn't an article about my father's ex-cousin's wife... Monobi (talk) 20:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you have sources noting this I'd be glad to see them, but it isn't noted on the article's page at all. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - So, don't be lazy and look it up yourself. teaparty07.com, abcnews.com, abcnews.com, boston.com and the lists go on and on. Monobi (talk) 02:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - So I checked those links you sent, and it seems that rather than referring to this political party, they are referring to an event that the Ron Paul campaign held that was unrelated. The party itself does not appear to be involved in this at all. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - This party & supporters helped raise millions for Ron Paul, which was the largest amount of money raised in 24 hours in the history of Presidential Elections. If this is non-notable, then we have a serious problem. Monobi (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        They aren't the same groups. This organization is not the same, at least as far as I can tell, as the organizers for the Boston Tea Party Ron Paul fundraising event. In fact, searching their website for Ron Paul turned up no results. The article itself doesn't mention anything about this. While it may be appropriate to have an article on Paul's Boston Tea Party fundraiser, these guys had nothing to do with it. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Even so, its verifiable existence makes it notable. Wikipedia isn't limited in size, just as long as the information included isn't crap. Monobi (talk) 23:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No, it doesn't. See WP:NOTABILITY. This sort of thing needs reliable third party news coverage, and so far as I can tell it hasn't gotten any. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:N only states how things were previously done. There are no rules, outside of these for legal reasons. Monobi (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ←You make a good point, Monobi. I would like to add to my rationale that it is my opinion that the inclusion of this article gives undue weight to the Libertarian platform, and I'm of the persuasion that Wikipedia would be a lot better without as much Libertarian-related content. Just my $0.02. Hope this helps -- Badger Drink (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Haha. How about less anime-related content :) ? Monobi (talk) 14:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hear, hear! --Badger Drink (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verifiable existence is the only legitimate inclusion standard, and the subject of the article clearly meets that. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I verifiably exist. Do I get an article? TallNapoleon (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, of course. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I thought you already had one, and someone just vandalized your sig. --Badger Drink (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kmweber. Soxred93 ([[User:{{{1}}}|u]] [[User talk:{{{1}}}|t]] [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|c]] m l ) 04:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete Per TallNapoleon --Lemmey talk 06:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: While I think the party will never be much more than a novelty, they did make it onto the ballot in 2 states for the 2008 Presidential election and are considered a legitimate political party. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 23:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Powder Ridge[edit]

Non-notable ski resort. RS coverage is limited to snowfall reports, trips to the resort and trivial mentions. Nothing to show this is in any way a notable ski resort. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: good article, but needs clean up. Dwilso 03:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is it a good article - its a sentence long. Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 03:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was going to say. Did you comment in the right place, Dwilso? This is one sentence "Powder Ridge is a ski area in Kimball, Minnesota." an infobox and two external links. Given that paragraphs are at minimum three sentences, there is no article here and no evidence to proove it ever can grow to be one. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think what they meant was "Good subject/article, bad revision/current incarnation of article". Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable independent sources. Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 03:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources available to assert notability, including two from the New York times. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment wrong Powder Ridge, this article is about the one in Minnesota. See hat note TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 04:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:1S & WP:NN. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Only one really useful source is available for the subject. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 05:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable ski area; wrong Powder Ridge altogether. KleenupKrew (talk) 12:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very non-notable, lack of sources, and only one sentence of prose. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 13:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:CORP. Eusebeus (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's basically a conveniently-located bump in the landscape north of Kimball, Minnesota that appears to get skiers from the St. Cloud, Minnesota area. I'm sure there are other reliable sources out there that mention its vertical elevation, number of trails, and number of terrain parks, but it doesn't qualify as a destination resort. Delete. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:47, 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 Speedily sacrificed at the top of Popocatépetl. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Death bird[edit]

I can find nothing about this book on Google or WorldCat. "tkaclo hork" are not possible Aztec words; Aztec for "death bird" would have been miquiztototl. Possible hoax, or if not, some unfortunate editor is reading very unreliable sources. Ptcamn (talk) 03:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as per db-nonsense - really? carrying little kids away to feed it's chicks? - this shouldnt have gone through the AfD process though. Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 03:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as probable hoax. A look through the page creator's edits makes me think this was a vandalism-only account (and only active as such on one day). All edits besides this one were definitely vandalism. Chances are this was, too. Aleta ^Sing 03:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Aleta ^Sing 03:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Considering the only cited source is a book that doesn't exist and a search for the subject under its Aztec name results in Wikipedia, a mirror, and some forum post from someone referencing Wikipedia, this is clear db-nonsense. Tagging as such. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete db-vandalism. JuJube (talk) 05:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G3 as vandalism/hoax. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a hoax.--Berig (talk) 17:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 23:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PFLEX[edit]

Originally nominated for G11 and declined by me. However, product appears to fail WP:N, thus rendering it ripe for deletion. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: needs more references, and also fails WP:N. thanks Dwilso 03:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find any news coverage or reviews to suggest that this is particularly notable. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --JulesN Talk 05:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It appears to be an advertisement.--Berig (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 23:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

28 day mediterranean diet plan[edit]

Originally nominated for speedy deletion as G11 (blatant advertising), which I declined. However, the subject does appear to fail WP:N, thus nominating for deletion. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no RS coverage and ghits are simply book listings, no reviews or anything that establishes notability. It's spammy, but not g11 spammy TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 02:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Per this 1 §hep • ¡Talk to me! 03:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment existence doesn't meet notability guidelines for books TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant advertising and no reliable sources apart from a google book search. Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 03:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable diet plan. I don't doubt that there's a book for it, but that doesn't establish notability. Bfigura ^(talk) 03:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --JulesN Talk 05:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable diet. Spam and OR. KleenupKrew (talk) 12:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The benefits of "The Mediterranean Diet" have recently been written about by Dr. Isadore Rosenfeld and Dr. Mark Liponis in PARADE MAGAZINE. In a 4-8-08 interview in OK MAGAZINE, television cooking expert Rachel Ray says she personally uses "The Mediterranean Diet". —Preceding unsigned comment added by DFRANKPRODUCTION (talk • contribs) 14:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC) — DFRANKPRODUCTION (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Just one mention in Parade doesn't meet the guidelines for multiple reliable third party sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable.--Berig (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Undercooked and not notable. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:16, 24 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 Clifton Cushman. I note that the text is word-for-word identical to Clifton Cushman, and that article has an additional reference, so I am simply redirecting this article to that one. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clifton Emmet "Cliff" Cushman[edit]

Lack of referenced notability LeyteWolfer (talk) 02:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Delete: fails notability, and most of it seems like a complete hoax. Dwilso 03:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not a hoax; see here and this Google Search. Part of the article is, however, largely plagiarized from first two references. He did win a silver medal in the Olympics, so Weak Keep if someone fixes the plagiarism; Delete otherwise. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Clifton Cushman. All competitors at the Olympics are automatically notable. See http://www2.kusports.com/news/2006/sep/21/gameday_flyover_would_be_fitting_tribute_cushman/ --Eastmain (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional Keep Needs major cleanup to meet WP:V. Wishtoremainanon (talk) 17:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Clifton Cushman. The Olympics would certainly be the highest level for an amateur athlete, so meets WP:ATHLETE.--Fabrictramp (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Originator agress with this merge concept (if this article even has anything to add to the Clifton Cushman, which as great references). I seem to recall hearing about this spectacular mistake, so no doubt noteworthy in my mind. In any case, one article has value; the other not.--LeyteWolfer (talk) 05:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything useful to Clifton Cushman (not that there appears to be that much, but still). Olympian silver medalists are of course notable, but this article is a duplicate. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:53, 29 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. Ty 00:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Felice Hapetzeder[edit]

Delete. Non-notable person. Article is created by the subject himself. CyberGhostface (talk) 02:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I would've tried to speedy this. Ketsuekigata (talk) 02:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I did.--CyberGhostface (talk) 02:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --JulesN Talk 05:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a vanity article.--Berig (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability Johnbod (talk) 23:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's not happening...Modernist (talk) 02:08, 25 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, g3, nonsense/vandalism. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sexpot[edit]

Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 02:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Seems more like nonsense. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 02:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Blatant nonsense. Balkan Fever 02:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Patent nonsense is the first thing on WP:CSD for a reason. Paragon12321 (talk) 02:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete ...is it still here? --LeyteWolfer (talk) 02:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G1 or G3 Patent nonsense/vandalism, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:43, 23 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 GetBackers. --jonny-m t 03:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infinity Fortress[edit]

Unnotable fictional location from a single series, GetBackers. Fails WP:FICT with no real-world significance and no notability outside of the GetBackes Universe. Failed PROD with reason for removal being "one of the unifying elements of getbackers" Collectonian (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Collectonian (talk) 02:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak trim and merge to GetBackers. While it is true that the subject is an extremely important location and plot device in GetBackers (most of the major story arcs involve the location directly; not just as a location, but as an entity itself), there isn't much that can be said of it except it's in-universe importance; thus, its best place would be in the relevant parent article. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails to assert any notability per WP:FICT. Main page should summarize it as part of the setting. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and Merge to GetBackers: As stated it is an important area in the world of GetBackers. But it does not require it's own article. It is only useful on the parent article. Rgoodermote 03:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to GetBackers - not notable on its own in the real world, but would seem to be notable in the context of that particular series. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:51, 29 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 - lots of NOTs apply. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does it take to be a competent server[edit]

Personal essay. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 01:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOT#OR. Deor (talk) 01:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Nice essay, but this is not the right place to publish it. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:54, 23 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 after nomination withdrawn and no remaining delete votes. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 19:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-bank financial institution[edit]

The original article didn't appear to serve much purpose except to state that any financial institution that is not a bank is a non-bank financial institution. Not to be rude, but I don't think that meets notability requirements. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Transwiki to Wictionary if they want it, perhaps. It is more or less just a definition. Erechtheus (talk) 03:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In light of improvements made, keep this article. Erechtheus (talk) 11:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Merge article with Financial institutions. Dwilso 03:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It seems that NBFI is a term of art, and I've found many references to it as being an important and somewhat well-defined sector of the economy. Please look at the article now - I think it is possible that it can be more than just a definition. Staeiou (talk) 10:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current article is not the article I marked with an AfD. In fact, it is completely different. I am removing my original Delete vote since the article has changed so dramatically. Ecoleetage (talk) 10:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't merge. Keep NBFI is a term of art, as has been shown above. The article has been vastly improved. Protonk (talk) 16:21, 23 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-k per SNOW and toss in the old NAC for criteria. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 05:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Blackwood[edit]

Non-notable former celebrity--now just a local DJ. Completely unreferenced for more than 18 months, so it's a BLP problem. Mikeblas (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. Once notable, always notable. Notability does not expire. --Eastmain (talk) 01:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd assume that the original five VJs are all notable. There's plenty to say about her. Zagalejo^^^ 02:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per WP:BIO. She "has had significant roles or been featured multiple times in...television." Just because she's out of a job now, doesn't make her non-notable. By the way, thanks; I'm going to have Video Killed the Radio Star stuck in my head all day now. Paragon12321 (talk) 02:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. And per WP:BLP, "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." While a smattering of references were added to the article after being completely unreferenced for 18 months, they still do not direclty substantiate any of the claims made in the article. The material must -- per policy-- be removed immediately, even if the article itself is not deleted as a whole. -- Mikeblas (talk) 04:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain and Zagalejo, with the addition that all MTV VJs are notable. Also, Blackwood has her show on a national satellite radio service, far from just local.Nate • (chatter) 03:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would imagine that almost all VJs are notable, but to be one of the first five? Yeah, the multiple reliable sources don't hurt either. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability isn't temporary, though I think this is far from an example where that maxim needs to be invoked. Maxa megalon 2000 05:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per most of the above. --JulesN Talk 05:27, 23 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. Ruhrfisch 16:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vilnius letter[edit]

The article has "content not verifiable in a reliable source" as stated in Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Simply put, it has no references and has been tagged for almost a year. I have been unable to find any verifiable sources for this topic, whose importance should be easy to verify. For all we know, this could be a total fabrication. Truthanado (talk) 00:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin If consensus is to delete, please userfy the article somewhere in my userspace. It's sad that the article can't be improved by regular editing processes and has to go through deletion, editing in an unknown corner, lost in the meantime, and put back in after 3 or 4 edits, but we operate by consensus, and if the majority of the !voters are immediatists, I guess it's the only solution. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 19:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This rings as a pointer to a conspiracy theory. Unless something is verifiable to this regard, it needs to go. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Going neutral for now - I'm probably going to go keep, but I want to see more discussion here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Going keep, in agreement with discussion. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Text of the letter (link was on talk since 2004). Renata (talk) 01:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Renata. You changed my mind. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources are easy to find that discuss the letter. There are also numerous print sources. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Here are some more news sources. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: And more scholarly sources. A lot of these later mentions are trivial, but the sheer number of them combined with the depth of some of the more in depth ones I've provided higher up go a long way towards establishing notability and verifiability. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Add. Those. Sources. To. The. Article. So. We. Can. Close. As. Keep. :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not strictly necessary. That is doable by the regular editing process (i.e, if something can be improved by regular editing processes, it isn't a good candidate for deletion per BEFORE and DEL); since notability has been established and it has been shown that the article is viable, it should go back into the mainspace so it can be worked on without stress, 5-day deadlines and the other messiness associated with AfD. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable and verifiable enough. —PētersV (talk) 03:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per PētersV. --Martintg (talk) 03:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PētersV. --JulesN Talk 05:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.--Berig (talk) 17:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Much as I agree with the original nomination, it appears this one can be resolved. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article definitely needs extensive work, and I could see it as reasonable to call for it to be deleted without prejudice, to be recreated when an editor was willing and able to produced a better version. —SlamDiego_←T 19:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Extensive work is not a rationale for deletion. Unsalvageable is, but this is definitely salvageable. --Dhartung | Talk 22:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree that it is salvageable, but note what the original nominator reported: “no references and has been tagged for almost a year”. If no editor will repair this article, then it should be pulled (again, without prejudice) from mainspace. I am not here voting for deletion, because I think that this very project page has a good chance of provoking an editor to work on the article. I am simply noting that it is reasonable to want an article removed from mainspace if it indefinitely remains essentially static and unencyclopedic. —SlamDiego_←T 01:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It looks as if you in particular are making just such improvements! Great! —SlamDiego_←T 01:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notability established by references. The article seems to exaggerate the letter's perceived importance in the world outside the signatories, but this is not a crippling problem. --Dhartung | Talk 22:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some subsequent editing is addressing the problems noted by the nominator. —SlamDiego_←T 01:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notability established by references. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a major declaration by several countries for support of the war in Iraq. How could that not be notable? Blahblah5555 (talk) 05:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - can we WP:SNOW this, as I no longer disagree with consensus? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whether the article is notable or not has never been contested. It was nominated for AfD because it had NO references for almost a year. Since nominated, one external link and one reference have been added. The external link is the purported text of a letter, which needs an independent source for verification; and the reference is a headline in Newsweek that requires a subscription in order to read the article. Several discussors have described additional references. If these were added to the article, then maybe we could end this AfD discussion. Truthanado (talk) 00:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: Sorry, but Wikipedia is not a summary of knowledge found on the WWWeb. That issue of Newsweek can be found in public and college libraries all over America. —SlamDiego_←T 00:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not what AfD is for. AfD is for unsalvagable articles. This is not unsalvagable. What it needs is improvement, not deletion. Please review deletion policy and before nominating articles for deletion so this kind of unnecessary thing can be prevented in the future. Also, print sources are fine. You'll probably want to review verifiability and reliable source guidelines as well, given your statements here. It's alright to print something that needs a subscription to read; there are other things in existence then the internet. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: We do have a link to the full text of the letter. How much more is required than a suitable introduction and a bit of context? Also, there's a difference between unreferenced, as in unsubstantiated and POV claims, versus unreferenced, as in not having a link to some source regarding something over which there is no controversy. It seems to me that deletion as the solution is the editorial equivalent of throwing the baby out with the bath water. —PētersV (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject in question is covered in variuos sources, therefore any additional improvements can be made to his article. M.K. (talk) 08:24, 25 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. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Storage Affinity[edit]

Gives no indication that this software is at all notable and, indeed, does not say much of anything. Anaxial (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not software, it's a heuristic. G-hits seem to indicate that it receives attention, and the source checks out. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:51, 17 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, Darkspots (talk) 00:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of RS coverage, amidst false positives, ghits only confirm the tool's existence, not notability per WP:WEB TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 02:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's real and it's been published, per User:JeremyMcCracken above , but it would not seem that it's gotten anybody's attention. Not notable really until people start talking about it. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 22:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KMC Controls[edit]

Non-notable company - references provided seem to be just web directories and listings. Ghits are directories, press releases and similar. Fails WP:CORP, no RS. ukexpat (talk) 17:55, 17 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, Darkspots (talk) 00:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see a lot of press releases, brochures and company reports, what I don't see is independent, RS coverage TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 02:53, 23 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 (non-admin closure). Following the relisted discussion, clear consensus forms that independent sources in the article provide sufficient notability. WilliamH (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Children 18:3[edit]

Non-notable band which fails WP:MUSIC. Earlier PROD was removed without comment. DAJF (talk) 05:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomOo7565 (talk) 05:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Non-notability Parkerjl (talk) 05:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —DAJF (talk) 05:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. SWik78 (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No I dont think we should delete this article. I think we should go and find websites that have more information about the band and their back round. we should work together on this.Rockismorethanmusic (talk) 12:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Band is not notable.Inhumer (talk) 05:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This band is not non-notable, although the article's current state implies that they are. They have had music/magazine articles written about them from external sources; see WP:MUSIC notability guidelines. I may change my vote later, but I'll see what I can do with working on this article and adding refs. --JamieS93 17:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've somewhat expanded and improved the article, adding info and refs, including a claim of some kind of notability. What do you all think about it now? Let me know on here, if you don't mind (best to keep the discussion in one place). --JamieS93 02:28, 22 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, Fabrictramp (talk) 00:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC) (Article has changed substantially since last delete !vote. Relisting to allow review of expanded article.)[reply]

Keep Band is in top 30 of Christian rock per 3rd party reference at bottom of article; I'd say that makes them notable, at least in that genre. Plvekamp (talk) 01:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to scrape through by the multiple sources; one of which even asserts being among top in its genre. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable - needs expanding though. Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 03:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appearance in multiple independent sources suggest notability. Needs expansion, not deletion. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The band is highly notable within its genre, and has the sources to show for it. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as expander. The article mentions their single making it onto a top-30 national chart in its genre, and cites several third-party refs with coverage of the subject. So at this point, I think the article provides sufficient reference to the band's notability. --JamieS93 20:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources in the article. --Bardin (talk) 05:59, 25 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. Unanimity that the subject fails notability requirements. In addition, there are no reliable secondary sources. Finally, much of the content fails the overriding policy requirement of WP:V. TerriersFan (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Horizon Air Summer Series[edit]

Appears to be a non-notable amateur baseball competition. Sources can't be found to give it notability inline with WP:V Россавиа ^Диалог 07:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Little coverage because it's made up of amateur leagues. It doesn't appear notable as only one of the leagues has an article. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 11:49, 17 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, Fabrictramp (talk) 00:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 34 non-wiki ghits, all of which are passing mentions. No claim of notability in article. --Fabrictramp (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very simply put, fails general notability guidelines, no independent coverage from reliable sources. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 04:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N and WP:RS for sure Gary King (talk) 20:08, 24 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.