Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 April 9

< April 8	April 10 >

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. hmwith τ 14:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boloco

This article was deleted by me after WP:PROD expiry on the basis that the topic, a Boston-local restaurant chain, lacked sufficient notability to be retained. An editor who appears not to have been involved in editing the original article has requested that the article be restored based on the supposition that it is indeed sufficiently notable for a stand-alone article. Boloco is a part of the Boston cuisine tapestry and reliable source mentions placed on my talk page attest to this. Though I remain convinced that a stand-alone article for this company is not warranted, I think that a discussion here would be beneficial. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as the article currently stands, there's no assertion of notability. I trust GC's judgement, but more importantly, he has provided some reasonable sources to attest to Boloco's notability. I'd say Keep, based on his sources (which should be incorporated into the article post-haste, in case lazy people just look at the article and not your link :P). EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After a quick Google search, I turned up a few more that might be used: [1] [2] [3] [4]. These combined with the other ones I've already found make my !vote a solid Keep as well. Boloco is a very common sight around Boston, and they have locations through the Northeast US as well. ~~I'll work on getting these integrated into the article today. GlassCobra 13:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)~~ I've expanded the article a bit with some of the sources, and think it's coming along as a pretty decent stub at the moment. GlassCobra 14:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - The sources combed up so far are insufficient. The Boston articles are borderline (one paragraph in an article about an overall trend about burritos; I'm not calling it trivial, but near trivial) and student newspapers do not establish notability. Don't think of the sources as verifying whether the place exists; think about them as verifying facts which make Boloco notable. Ask yourself what facts we can fill this article with from independent sources which will make it worth reading to anyone. Nothing, so far, I think. Could be persuaded if someone comes up with something other than sells food to college kids and manages to pull off one moderately eco-friendly PR stunt. Savidan 22:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Technically speaking, I'd say the sources suffice to pass WP:CORP. That being said, the limited scope of the sources will obviously limit how informational the article may be, but there is no solid reason to delete the current stub-esque article. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Above -- JT ^Holla! 16:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra thomas

Article has no assertion of notability, is unreferenced, and has elements of WP:Crystal Ball. Hellno2 (talk) 00:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Upcoming fictional character'?! Delete as non-notable, unreferenced crystal-ballery. Terraxos (talk) 05:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability as a fictional character -- Whpq (talk) 13:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 1)Not notable; 2)Serious WP:CRYSTAL, especially seeing as it appears to be OR; 3)Likely inaccurate- IMDB pulls up one instance of this character being on the show, and she was played by someone else. Google finds nothing. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Renee (talk) 23:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-Notable.RyRy5 ^{Talk to RyRy} 04:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not pass notability guidelines. No significant coverage in reliable sources. --Beloved Freak 21:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 19:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Rosen

A prod notice was added to article by 71.9.8.150, and removed with the reason "no justification given". PROD was added again, this time with a better explanation, which I removed as PROD had already been contested. The IP had now added an AFD template but was not able to complete the nomination, so I have completed it to allow a consensus to be reached. The justification given was "fails notability tests for academics, per Talk page" with a longer explanation on the talk page. This is a procedural nomination, and my opinion is to keep the article as sources suggest he is influential and has been the subject of some coverage in reliable sources. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 00:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, influential and easily better sourced. Often called the "father", "guru", "midwife", etc. of public/participatory journalism. NYT semi-review/response, first journalist asked by CBS to participate in its Public Eye feature, extensive profile via Google Books are just a sampling. --Dhartung | Talk 05:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep In addition to Dhartung's comments, a quick GoogleNews search for "jay rosen" professor journalism gives 492 hits[5]. Here are some quotes from this search regarding Rosen: "Now comes Jay Rosen, the philosopher king of the public journalism" (Denver Post)[6], "journalism Prof. Jay Rosen of New York University, the leading theoretician of public journalism" (Star Tribune)[7], "Jay Rosen is a New York University journalism professor who is the intellectual father of ``public journalism." (Charlotte Observer )[8], ""Just what is "public journalism?" You can get any number of definitions, ... One of the movement's gurus, Professor Jay Rosen of New York University, wrote:..." (Greensboro News and Record )[9], "One of the principal theorists on the issue is Jay Rosen, a journalism professor at New York University and director of the Project on Public Life" (Miami Herald)[10], "Jay Rosen, the New York University journalism professor who founded the "public journalism" movement" (Boston Globe)[11]. And so on, many more like this. Clearly satisfies WP:PROF as an academic who is frequently quoted in the media as an expert on issues of public journalism. Also satisfies WP:BIO as a notable media critic. Nsk92 (talk) 10:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added several references to the article with the above and other similar quotes regarding Rosen. Nsk92 (talk) 11:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. 86.44.28.245 (talk) 11:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lots of good sources. Renee (talk) 00:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article seems fine and meets WP:BIO and all that jazz. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The press clippings make the case. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:59, 13 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 to Parkhead (disambiguation)--JForget 23:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Park Head

Disambiguation page with 100% red links. Hellno2 (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Parkhead (disambiguation). Similar spelling, no need for two separate dabs, especially if one consists entirely of red links. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Parkhead (disambiguation). No need for two separate disambiguation pages, the two names are similar enough for one page to be sufficient. Names such as this may appear on maps, in documents etc. as either version of the name, and it is easier to find if all are on one page. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 00:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Parkhead (disambiguation) as the two owrded version is the technically correct way for some places. By the way it's not a bad thing to have red links. because.....

Red links are an incentive for new users to create their first article.
The occurence of the same red link in many articles shows that there is need for a certain article. They then show up in lists such as User:Voorbot/Most_wanted_redlinks
When writing a new article, the button "what links here" gives an idea on what information is needed on the subject.
When a new article has been created, all red links turn automatically blue! No need to edit all articles containing your subject to create links

SunCreator (talk) 04:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Parkhead (disambiguation), sufficiently similar to share a disambiguation page.--Beloved Freak 21:38, 13 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 POINTy nomination indeed. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pear

Delete now Kambula (talk) 23:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Obviously notable fruit. Useight (talk) 23:48, 9 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, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of single-point urban interchanges

Bloated list of SPUI interchanges with little value. Millbrooky (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indiscriminate information and very hard to source. On top of it, this would be very hard to maintain as a complete list. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Aside from roadgeeks (raises hand) I don't see who has any interest in these making them notable. If there were a roadgeek Wikia it would fit right in, but it's well below encyclopedic. Include a few illustrative examples in the SPUI article, but a list is just an invitation to "add your local SPUI here". --Dhartung | Talk 23:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indiscriminate, unmaintainable, unencyclopedic, cruft-magnet. A few examples in the main article suffice. Nick Graves (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just as I posted on the article's discussion page about 4 months ago. Looks like TMF & NE2 would concur. The roadgeek in me just couldn't bring me around to nominating it myself... I still get a tear to my eye thinking about when I nominated the list of roundabouts. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 00:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dhartung. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They forgot the intersection of Lake Avenue and Interstate 35 in Duluth, Minnesota. I think Lake Street (Minneapolis) at Hiawatha Avenue qualifies as a SPUI as well. I nearly got run over at this intersection when bicycling through it a weekend or two ago, on a trip to take photos of buildings on the National Register of Historic Places. I'm trying to populate a list that's much more notable and much more maintainable than this list of interchanges, which should be deleted. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to SPUI. I hate snowball deletes, which is where this is headed. I think this "Single-point-urban-interchanges-allidocious" list could go into the parent article. Mandsford (talk) 19:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have any input on its potential to clutter the main article; and how to maintain a list which is likely to become bloated & difficult to keep up-to-date to ensure completeness & accuracy? If there's some way to keep this sort of info, then the roadgeek in me is all for it; but I just can't see a good way for it to be done. If given the choice between merging it into SPUI and keeping it as a separate list (disregarding outright deletion), then I'd probably opt to keep it as a list. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 19:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Just thought I would point out that all the SPUIs listed under Missouri are in the St. Louis area and that there are plans for 9 more in the St. Louis area alone that are not already listed.~~ The Gwinnet Place CID website has a comment mentioning there are over 300 SPUIs in the US. Way too many to list. --Millbrooky (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, organized, and verfiable). Any concerns can be addressed by Wikipedia:SOFIXIT. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that it is organised and verifiable, but is it discriminate? Just to be devil's advocate: how is a SPUI any more notable than a stack interchange or a parclo? --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 16:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the many well reasoned comments above. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:04, 13 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.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 03:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Synco telecom

No assertion of notability. Created by User:Syncotelecom (who has no other contributions) - sort of looks like spam, doesn't it? Biruitorul (talk) 23:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. per #11 blatant advertising. --S.dedalus (talk) 23:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Spam. Izzy007 Talk 23:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Yes it is a spam (my opinion). Some new users don't know much about wikipedia yet, and so they create articles like these. I do know many good new users though. This user is probably still learning the ropes.--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 23:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are some excellent new users. This one, though, given his username, is quite likely a company employee promoting it through Wikipedia. Biruitorul (talk) 01:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laurentiu Bulareanu

No assertion of notability. The fellow was an avid mountaineer and died pursuing his hobby - but so do plenty of other people. Nothing here indicates added significance to this particular death. Biruitorul (talk) 23:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteNon-Notable.--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 01:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. Dahn (talk) 04:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Having spent a bit of time trying to clean it up, I couldn't find any indication that he was notable for much apart from his death, and nothing in his climbing CV immediately jumps out as significant, so WP:NOT#NEWS and probably WP:NOT#MEMORIAL seem to apply. I say "weak" as with all foreign subjects, there's always the possibility that I've missed some more substantial coverage in their native language. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 06:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 07:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Renee (talk) 00:02, 11 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. --MCB (talk) 06:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kjetil Thue

Doesn't seem notable, a google search turns up few results Izzy007 Talk 23:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. The article bears some resemblance to a resume and may have been intended as such. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable person. Terraxos (talk) 05:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable and probably not passing notability guidelines - assuming nothing turns up in non-English sources.--Beloved Freak 21:43, 13 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 G4. Daniel (talk) 01:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will Beggs

Lawyer who doesn't meet WP:N ♥Shapiros10 Wuz Here♥ 22:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the above, non-notable. Izzy007 Talk 23:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, bent like a WP:COATRACK. --Dhartung | Talk 23:32, 9 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 ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheapcore

I had prodded it, but it was removed. This article is unverified, and has no indication of notability. seresin ( ¡? ) 22:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem to be a widely used term; at the very least, it's not appeared in any reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Googled all three terms and no news hits for the first two terms; a few for the last term but actually it was for a band called "Casiotone for the Painfully Alone." Renee (talk) 22:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable neologism. Terraxos (talk) 05:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:38, 10 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. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 02:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Open sources of information

This page appears to have been created for advertising purposes. It has since been abandoned, but even if it were still active, it would not be appropriate for Wikipedia. The title is a vague neologism, so I don't think there's any need for an article here. Terraxos (talk) 21:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inappropriate use of Wiki space. Consider speedy delete. Renee (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No non-automated edits since 2006, a bunch of sections are empty, and there's still a "temporary note" atop the article? Looks like an abandoned project to me. Zetawoof_(ζ) 22:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Urban (rapper)

Non-notable rapper, failing WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, and WP:RS. Created by a WP:Single-purpose account that has a nasty habit of removing notability tags, so we'll have to watch this nomination closely. Qworty (talk) 21:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, vanity site. Renee (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Tool2Die4 (talk) 23:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks notability per WP:MUSIC -- no major albums, no chart singles, etc. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC as above. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only does it fail WP:MUSIC, but it seems to have been made by a single purpose account who coincidentally ALSO lives in Tennessee! Wow, shocker there eh? phoenixMourning ( ^talk/_contribs ) 14:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary Duff's 5th Album

No sources. Crudely faked references. WP:CRYSTAL Kww (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I concur with Kww. --Yamla (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, all speculation. Only "references" (used lightly) are Hillary Duff fan websites and her "personal account." phoenixMourning ( ^talk/_contribs ) 21:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see the deletion log for the rumored movie Still Waiting.... I nominated that page for a speedy delete awhile back. I know that this is music and that was an album, but I guess the premise could be considered the same. phoenixMourning ( ^talk/_contribs ) 21:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This can't be speedied. Hilary Duff is, for whatever reason, a notable performer, so unless it can be proven a hoax, it isn't speediable.Kww (talk) 21:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No no I understand, but the point I was trying to make is that they both are speculated. I'm not at all requesting that this be speedily deleted (I wish I could...). phoenixMourning ( ^talk/_contribs ) 21:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The album hasnt been released yet and its pretty much no source there until October so the editor who did that did a complete waste of time.--Pookeo9 ^{Say What you Want} 21:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources exist to prove the album even exists yet; WP:CRYSTAL applies for certain. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet Wiki standards for article in terms of sourcing. Renee (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL strikes again. Spellcast (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely useless speculation. Herunar (talk) 07:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unverified speculation --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 03:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Bencherlite ^Talk 21:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Luther King, Jr.

Yes, the mighty reverend who engineered the civil rights movement is being nominated for deletion. I know this is quite a controversial AfD, but I feel it has to happen. Although the article is full of content, racial discrepancies can be a serious problem here, as well as copyright violations. The content here is quite useful - and moving it to Civil Rights Movement may be the better option than keeping this article. Once again, this nomination is a little dicey and won't likely succeed, but a point may very well be proved. --StedmanStang (talk) 20:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy strong super keep First you admitted that this is to make a point. Secondly, you have the fact Dr. King was a Nobel Prize Winner, numerous places, streets, etc. named after him, etc. AfDs should never be used to make a point, period. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool it, dude --StedmanStang (talk) 21:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very cool, just bewildered and confused by this AfD. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very speedy very strong keep. Dude. Klausness (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remember though, the tag says this article is being CONSIDERED for deletion. Therefore, it does not mean it will be deleted, so its not at all a certainty. --StedmanStang (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what an AfD is. I also understand what trolling is. See WP:POINT.Klausness (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious, speedy keep. AfD is not cleanup; newbie editor should have a read of WP:DELETE. April Fool's day has been and gone. PC78 (talk) 21:08, 9 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. I could redirect but I honestly see zero point in it. Wizardman 18:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Report Card (song)

Fails notability requirements of WP:MUSIC. PROD was deleted by IP w/ no explanation. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Delete per WP:MUSIC#SONGS This article is a good one if rap is a topic of intrest. No official info has been released yet on this single so time will make this article better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randolph.mike (talk • contribs) 05:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC#Songs. This isn't a noteworthy song and should be turned into a redirect page. phoenixMourning ( ^talk/_contribs ) 21:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Souljaboytellem.com, only notable within the album. Nate • (chatter) 21:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. per above. Renee (talk) 22:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No Delete per WP:MUSIC#Songs. hells No! throw some D's on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.158.202 (talk) 23:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Souljaboytellem.com Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not sure if a redirect is necessary. There are only a handful of articles that link to it, and this is an unlikely article name that anyone would type in. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Redirect isn't necessary, this song isn't notable, so deletion just might be the best option. Reverend X (talk) 11:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main Souljaboytellem.com article, but can restore the song article once it charts or whatever WP:MUSIC says is notable for songs. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 03:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. the "Cole Harbour" article can be updated to include (with references) the information about this particular recreation centre. It is not notable on it's own, according to consensus here. ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cole Harbour Place

Article is simply a biased advert for a small towns recreation centre, and the foundation which runs it, neither of which claim any notability Jac16888 (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, cut and paste of a brochure for NN community center. --Dhartung | Talk 21:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Renee (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I actually live in Cole Harbour and why not merge it with cole harbours article? Thats just my point of view.--Pookeo9 (talk) 23:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is unsourced and reads like it's been copied from a brochure or planning document. Reggie Perrin (talk) 18:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. This does not rule out merging or redirection, should consensus later determine that this is more appropriate. Sandstein (talk) 06:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gourmet

I believe this article falls under what wikipedia is not, as in: a dictionary. It's an article on a word. I don't see any reason why it should stay when they can already look up the meaning of the word in the wikitionary, or any other dictionary for that matter. — Dæ dαlus^{→quick link} / Improve 20:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball keep. Vast subject. Tens to hundreds of thousands of reliable sources, likely. It is a distinct thing (cultural phenomenon, cuisine subject, history of food, etc), not just a word.Wikidemo (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I've just reorganized the article into sections, which should help us figure out what's there and what isn't. It's really a sorry article. Probably only two or three sentences of encyclopedic material, and even those need work and aren't sourced. Maybe the whole thing should be stubbed down. But even two sentences is the start of an article. The principle is that if the subject is notable and there's anything at all salvageable the right course is to build, not delete. Wikidemo (talk) 23:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldn't have to do this to demonstrate the obvious but as a partial response to the baffling claims that "gourmet" is no more than a dictionary term or that no encyclopedic article can or will be created for it, I've found a few sources describing the gourmet food movement and gourmet concept / social trend in America. Certainly, each of these subjects (gourmet food sector, gourmet entertainment, gourmet tourism, gourmet person/lifestyle, gourmet products) could be its own article, and perhaps they are there already under different terms. However, as of now this is a good place to centralize the content of all things gourmet, which is truly a different thing than gastronomy and the other subjects being mentioned. Wikidemo (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The concept itself is notable and encyclopedic, especially as a cultural phenomenon (like virtuoso, a good model for this article). The article as it stands is more than mere definition. Anturiaethwr (talk) 21:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many encyclopedia article have at their core a definition of a word; from time to time someone wants one deleted. The idea of a Gourmet is a piece of cultural history; if that does not come through, then the article is insufficiently clear and emphatic. --Wetman (talk) 21:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep ... ... ... ... This probably has more potential as an article than any of the other accusations of DICDEF that show up here. The idea of gourmet is a notable cultural idea that has been around for like, ever. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Doesn't fall under WP:DICDEF, as it's more than just a simple definition. Bfigura ^(talk) 22:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails the tests of WP:DICDEF#The differences between encyclopedia and dictionary articles which are policy. The existence of the separate articles: gourmet, gourmand, foodie, epicure, fooding and aristology shows that the authors have not the slightest clue about the policy of writing about topics rather than words. The topic here is Gastronomy or Food and we don't need all these fancy dictionary entries for different ways of describing people who like it, i.e. just about everyone. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, gastronomy is too broad, let alone food. But I would support a general treatment under gourmet for some of these, particularly epicure. I think foodie is sufficiently differentiated as an amateur culture of fans of food, cooking, and surrounding areas to warrant its own article. I'm unsure about where to merge fooding, but it and aristology seem to be closely related. The point is that while one can easily categorize many things together, that does not make them the same. --Dhartung | Talk 23:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further (Which has brought me to the interesting meta-conclusion that I now understand what mergist means in a visceral way. Until now I thought mergism was just a variety of or compromise between inclusionism and deletionism ....) --Dhartung | Talk 23:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your attempt to pigeonhole me is incorrect. I prefer separate articles on topics such as fictional characters, for example. In this case, what bothers me is that we have a policy - our strongest form of guidance - and yet few editors seem to understand or apply it. I have suggested that the policy be deprecated (see centralised discussion) but others cling to it. It is absurd as this article is a blatant case of failing this policy. It's all about the word - its etymology and usage - rather than about the topic - the enjoyment and appreciation of fine food. A telling sign is that the only source is a dictionary. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand DICDEF perfectly. I just don't think it applies here, as the article can easily be more than a definition (and even in for the wrong type of word, at that); the subject as an idea can have hundreds, if not thousands, of sources. Thus, I think it should be kept, reworked and improved, rather than deleted and scrubbed with contributions lost forever. More focus on improving, less on deleting. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing any understanding. Looking at the article in its supposedly improved state what we have is firstly a series of definitions of the ways in which the word is used. Just like a dictionary. Then we have a history of the word or etymology, just like a dictionary. Then we have a section on similar terms - just like a thesaurus. The article never manages to break out from its focus on the word qua word. And its only sources are things like Dictionnaire de Trévoux. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As it is now, yes. But since wikis change, I'm not interested in any one version of the article. I'm interested in the subject, and the subject is about as encyclopedic as subjects come, and should be kept as such. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The subject would still be covered by the plethora of other articles on the same topic. I found another one - see tasting. It seems best to cut back to the roots and focus on core topics like Gastronomy and Restaurant before spinning off an article to define every word that is used in these fields. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and let me be the first to say, De gustibus non disputandum est :) Colonel Warden (talk) 08:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think perhaps gourmand, foodie, epicure, fooding and aristology should all be covered in Gourmet. Colonel Warden is right that currently all these articles just say that they basically mean gourmet and give dictionary definition (except epicure which redirects to an ancient greek named epicurius. However I do think a great article could be written on Gourmets and being a Gourmet as a topic rather than just as a word (which is what the article currently is). Think WP:HEY and it's a keeper. Earthdirt (talk) 04:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Keep. In it's current state it probably should be deleted, but I suspect there are several quality sources out there that could flesh this out. Renee (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: After looking at the article due to Colonel Warden's !vote, it seems to treat gourmet as a noun rather than an adjective; it should probably be rewritten to be in more in line with gourmet as an idea and not as a kind of person. But, still, it's a cultural idea that has been around for a while and I don't imagine it'd be that hard to source something about that. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet quality standards. The majority of the material in this article is opinion and cannot be verified by the singe source provided. Unless someone knowledgeable on the topic wishes to rewrite the article, I suggest it be deleted. jcreek201 (talk) 23:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Weak Keep it ~~should be~~ is more appropriate on wictionary, but due to the high amount of uses of the term, an article here is appropriate. More surces should be added Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} (R-OH) 00:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:DICDEF. It's just a list of definitions. <Baseballfan789 (talk) 00:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong/speedy keep. This nomination seems almost as preposterous as Pear above. What Wikidemo said, tens of thousands of sources, very very notable. The page could use a bit of cleanup and expansion though. --S.dedalus (talk) 01:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —S.dedalus (talk) 01:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve Yes, the article could use considerable expansion to take into account some of he many other sources. But its a decent start. the effort spent here in trying to remove could much more usefully have been spent in trying to improve it. DGG (talk) 03:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - essentially an expanded WP:DICDEF. The current article is of extremely poor quality; for those who claim it can be improved, well, I have to say: prove it. If an encyclopaedic, well-written article can be made on this subject, then it should stay; but as little more than a dictionary definition at the moment, this one should be deleted. Terraxos (talk) 05:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, Wikipedia is not working on a 5-day deadline cycle. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 05:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - vast subject, with lots of interesting history. Regardless of what the article looks like at present, there's certainly huge potential. Could perhaps be merged into gastronomy though. FlagSteward (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki (I mark this instead of delete, as I favor {{wi}} for newbies that don't know how wikipedia works) It's a definition, and I don't see how an encyclopedic article could be written around this. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs)
Keep per WP:HEY, lots of potential here, but certainly needs work. There is a lot more to write about being a gourmet.Earthdirt (talk) 02:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep The article sucks, but the subject is definitely notable. The energy spent on bringing it to AFD could've been used to improve the article. Herunar (talk) 07:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentHonestly I'm not that good at writing articles, which is why I usually stick to small tasks like spelling errors, AfDs, CSD tagging, tagging, etc. I couldn't have helped improve this article if I tried, it just isn't something I'm good at. This is in response to all the comments refering to how the article could have been improved instead of been nominated for AfD.

If the article is notable and can be improved, I hope it does get improved instead of just sit in its current state, and if it continues to sit in its current state for say... maybe 2-3 weeks after this AfD is closed, assuming it is kept and not deleted, then I shall nom it again. If no care is taken in expanding the subject, all we are left with is another dictionary entry. I honestly hope this article improved at some point, because I do not wish this to turn into a: article takes after a dictorial entry, article nom'd for AfD, AfD results in keep, article stays the same, article nom'd for AfD.. You get the point.— Dæ dαlus^{→quick link} / Improve 06:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to gastronomy - I can imagine that an encyclopedic article could be written on this topic, but I would not expect it to be; Britannica doesn't seem to have done so, and none of the supporters of this article has made any attempt during the debate to do so. So let's get rid of this nice definition and turn our efforts to real articles. Ma^t_chups 15:30, 13 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. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 02:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Framing Hanley

Fails WP:MUSIC completely. Their biggest hit, "Hear Me Now" isn't certified. phoenixMourning ( ^talk/_contribs ) 20:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, needs sources. Renee (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing all of WP:MUSIC and the majority of WP:BIO. Nominator was right; their biggest "hit" (if you can call it that) has quote "been played on 50 stations." Doesn't seem notable. 216.220.216.180 (talk) 11:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:40, 10 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 01:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World

Per the notability guidelines for future films, stand-alone articles should not exist unless the films have entered production, which is never a guarantee. Any limited detail about this project can be placed on the director's article at Edgar Wright#Upcoming projects. Another of Wright's project, The World's End, was similarly deleted recently as seen here. In addition, Empire reports: Although Cera couldn’t say too much about what Edgar’s planning for the movie, he did fill us in as best he could. “Filming hopefully in the fall, that’s when they’re trying to go,” said Cera (although the impending actors’ strike may have a lot to do with the movie’s ultimate fate). Clearly, there is uncertainty about this project actually entering production, hence WP:NFF's threshold. Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. User can re-post with references if/when it becomes the much hoped for blockbuster hit.Renee (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF - too soon for this. JohnCD (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Is there an advantage to deleting the article as opposed to merging it into Scott Pilgrim? The latter would make it easy to restore the full article if the film begins production. --DocumentN (talk) 04:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a good idea. You could create a "Film adaptation" section there and link to it from Edgar Wright's article for more details. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect per WP:NOTFILM.--EclipseSSD (talk) 18:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Edgar Wright#Upcoming projects. Any material needing to be merged will remain in the page history. The redirect can be converted back into an article when production of this film is confirmed. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Beeks Elementary School

Non notable elementary school without reliable ghits or sources. Textangel (talk) 20:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Children from this school have been involved in a local version of that that "Are you smarter than a fifth grader" show (Fifth-graders, Warm Hearth residents battle for bragging rights: The retirement village put on its own version of "Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?" Lindsay Key. McClatchy - Tribune Business News. Washington: Nov 17, 2007.) But I don't think that makes the school notable. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Montgomery County Public Schools per numerous precedents - future sub-stubs for elementary school can just be merged without need for an AfD. TerriersFan (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 22:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect. Per terriersfan. Renee (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per TerriersFan. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect. I didn't know there was a public schools list hiearchy. That's nifty. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The proposed merge/redirect won't work, because the target is about schools in Montgomery County, Maryland, while this school is in Montgomery County, Virginia - no relation. I don't see an article for schools in Montgomery County, VA.--Kubigula (talk) 19:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. In that case, Merge to Blacksburg, Virginia or Montgomery County Public Schools (Virginia). DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J3HaaD

An article without relevance or notability. Zero reliable/reputable sources to back up unverifiable claims.

You can read the author's discussion on deletion and my reply on the talk page. The article was speedied a month ago. The article was then recreated by the only author. Also a prod was removed by the only author, so here we are. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm seems real but nothing to establish {{notability}}. Reliable source(s) WP:RS are required. SunCreator (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No hits on gnews, ProQuest, Ebsco, or Infotrac. I have no doubt they exist but there's nothing written about them outside of their community. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the article.

Although, I have to agree with you, however can the article be moved as a user-page of the creator till the necessary reliable sources are uploaded?? The clan is in the process of getting recognized by top gaming groups in the country by more active participation and I'm sure they will find their place on Google, etc. very soon. Re-creating the whole article as such (which the creator has been doing since the last month or so) is little troublesome. He had requested for it the first time when he had created the article. I hope that wouldn't be a problem. --Sainik1 (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not against userfying the article. I'm never against userfying articles. It just doesn't belong in the mainspace yet. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping the article

Although J3haad might not have any hits on the internet, but I do have heard of this gaming organisation. They have participated in pretty prominent gaming tourneys in India an I'm sure they will soon find their place on the net. As goes with gaming organisations, it takes time for them to set themselves up, but I fully support the author of the article. --Iconoclastanu (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping the article

J3HaaD is quite a famous gaming organisation of India. They have participated in quite a lot of gaming tournaments in India. The clan comprises of members of Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, one of the top inst in India. As for the proof of there existance, i have got recorded games and videos of the games played by J3HaaD which i'd upload on youtube very soon :). Tinku.vivek (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy or delete. While I'm suspicious of the number of first-time editors contributing to this discussion, userfication seems perfectly acceptable. "It will be notable in the future" fails WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL, though, and I doubt reliable sources currently exist. Anturiaethwr (talk) 21:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this appears a long way from meeting notability and verifiability (as established by Celarnor). If at some point it does become notable, great. But until then, delete as a non-notable organizaton Bfigura ^(talk) 22:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy or delete. Per nominations and reasoning above. Renee (talk) 22:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The days when Wikipedia would willingly provide home pages for such things as MMORPG clans are long gone. Wikipedia is not a webhost. --Dhartung | Talk 23:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7 (club). This is not a notable group of people, just some club it looks like. Admirable, but if this is just some group of gamers, this is not the place for such a page. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to a user subpage. What I saw when checking up on subpage policy was that they can be used to work on artilces. Definite effort must be made to verify notability and such as it comes in though. And subpages shouldn't be used as a way to get around other policies. I'd also suggest that saving to a "word doc" may be suitable as it also allows the user to work on the article until such time that it can be properly cited for notability and such (perhaps as a backup to any userspace problems as well) Jasynnash2 (talk) 07:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete gameclan, the end. (And don't give me the wiseass response that one or two gameclans have articles. 99% of the time they're not notable and this is not different.) JuJube (talk) 10:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have agreed to the fact that my article doesn't have reliable sources right now and have put up a request to shift it as a user sub-page so that I can keep editing it, and adding external links to it. It may require time, but I'm sure that I'll be soon able to do it. But I do NOT agree with your comment that "99% of the time they're not notable". This probably shows your ignorance towards online gaming today. A gaming clan today might be as popular and as notable(Note: I have read the whole page on wikipedia about notability of an article) as a music band. Hence, I think that this comment was totally unwarranted for!

--Sainik1 (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- "Totally unwarranted for"? You make my brain hurt. JuJube (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I thought you needed a brain for that? Or dont you? Do read the link eh, most of the people have it under their skull, some a lil' below.--Sainik1 (talk) 15:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Hey everybody, let's remember WP:CIVIL here. Poor grammar isn't the issue here, nor is its correction sufficient to warrant personal attacks. Now, I think JuJube is referring to the Pokémon defense, or something like it. Sainik1, I recommend that you read about that, as I believe it addresses your concerns. (By the way, I also agree with Jasynnash2's suggestion that you copy the article to your computer locally, in case the outcome is "delete;" that way, you can continue to work on it, and resubmit it if you believe that it has become notable.) Anturiaethwr (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Additional Comment: With this debate getting so hot, I was wondering whose "poor grammar" it was. Because I just did a Google search for the phrase "Totally unwarranted for": [12] and guess what! It had 460 hits! Meaning 1st, sainik1, I'm with you, 2nd, K.O. JuJube!! And last but not the least, in typical wikipedia sense, it has awesome "notability"!!Lets make an article on it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.20.8.166 (talk) 10:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Um? You're going to prove a statement is gramatically correct because it gets a lot of Google hits? Now you're really making my brain hurt. (Also the fact that you think 460 is 'a lot'. Or did I spell that wrong? Hey, "alot" gets over a million google hits, that makes it an actual word, amirite?) JuJube (talk) 11:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have to agree with the anonymous contributor on this one. I do think I have heard this phrase quiet a lot. I think Jujube is trying to be too agressive on this one. Chill dude! Its just wikipedia for heaven's sake! Sometimes climbing down from a debate when your stand is wrong is courageous! And a google search for it did give me around 20,000 odd results, although it doesn't mean anything. --210.212.8.60 (talk) 11:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Last comment before I'm done with this. "Totally uncalled for" is the phrase Sainik1 was looking for. "Totally unwarranted" is also correct, but not "totally unwarranted for". And none of this has anything to do with my !vote (which is still a strong delete), so I'm done now. JuJube (talk) 13:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Completely non-notable group of people, with no sources and none to be found.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep:I have been a frequent wikipedia user since a long time and it surprises me a lot how admins are being persistent about the deletion of this article. I had the inclination that Wikipedia was an online encyclopedia on which topic of various topics (Hobbies, music, sports,gaming, etc.) can be added. Although this group might not get any \\\\\\\"internet hits\\\\\\\", but I think there are a variety of such individuals and groups who are working hard today to get their names on the global scene and they do deserve a place here. If this article is deleted or moved, I guess all of us(non-admins,regular users) were wrong about wikipedia! You need to get your name on google on get your place on wikipedia!--210.212.8.60 (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are mistaken. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a random repository of miscellaneous junk. JuJube (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sniper delete by all means necessary. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 22:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - And can probably legitimately be speedied. Userfication is for articles while they are being worked on to bring them up to status, but that should not be used as a means of preserving information about topics that do not even make claims of notability, or are not likely to become notable in the forseeable future. ◄Zahakiel ► 02:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest Delete: Per nom. --SkyWalker (talk) 06:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Winning a university gaming tournament does not notability make. —C.Fred (talk) 19:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete WhisperToMe (talk) 23:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really Speedy Delete or else every single group will insist on having their local club/ group/gang featured on Wikipedia --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 13:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steek (term)

Unreferenced stub on a non-notable slang term. I had previously tagged the article as {{unreferenced}} and {{notability}}, but the tags were removed withiut comment. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I looked around for some reliable sources. All I could find was urbandictionary. Please add some reliable sources to back up the notability of this neologism. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be a non-notable slang term. Delete as such. Bfigura ^(talk) 22:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. Renee (talk) 22:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge with either Skanger or Chav. Guliolopez (talk) 14:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - Just FYI, delete and merge isn't a valid option due to the WP:GFDL. --Bfigura ^(talk) 16:26, 11 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 per (G3). - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don Crivet

Apparent hoax. Beware of the ginge (talk · contribs) has twice copied and pasted masses of content from other articles into this one and changed a few names. There are virtually no google results for "Don Crivet" in web, books, or news. Jfire (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3 as evident hoax, seems just obvious enough for a G3. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:53, 9 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. This is a good example of a consensus shifting as an article was substantially improved during the AfD discussion. --MCB (talk) 07:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Social network aggregation

Neologism. Statistics are cited, but claims and connections are original research. Seems like someone's essay trying to tie some theory and phenomenon to this apparent service Angrysusan (talk) 18:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads like random stats with a bit of OR. Not that the OR seems to involve much research - people make different friends in different situations? There's zero explanation of how the term has come into use, what it really stands for - the impresion given is it's just a nice user friendly tag for the bleeding obvious. I'm concerned it was created by someone with CoI, plus seems to be owned - as the AfD tag has been removed several times whilst an active AfD present. Unless the ownership gets resolved, plus some semblance of notability gets added, then it's frippery at best. Minkythecat (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upon review, changed vote. My concerns over ownership and CoI are too great at the moment - but not unsolveable - however the notability is a far stronger problem which I can't see being resolved. Minkythecat (talk) 19:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Would need substantial rewrite to meet MoS and notability standards. Huge OWN and COI problems, as above. Considered stubbifying, but then there's no context - bottom line, it's not encyclopedic. Tan | 39 19:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with above, reads like a college essay; or rather a business plan. This is the description and defense of a business idea, with little proof of notability. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:11, 9 Apr 2008 (UTC)
Delete. This lies somewhere in the uncharted islands between Original Research and Spam. It seems to be proposing the idea that soon you will be able to Make Money Fast by collecting and crossreferencing the things people post to networking sites. This seems to me to be using Wikipedia in the service of promoting a new idea - and a new commercial proposition to boot. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - may be notable someday, but for now is a twinkle in various corporate eyes. (At least one of the links given is to a blog posting, which in turn references: the Wikipedia article itself!) --Orange Mike | Talk 20:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR at best. Guy (Help!) 20:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete without prejudice for future recreation. Not notable yet. Barely. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep by redirect to Social network. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You probably mean Social network service which may not be a bad idea., or even Social media. I also think some of the information in the article can be rewritten and expanded to one of these articles. I did not create the article but I would like it userified to my sand box. I will see how I can integrate some of the information in the paret articles. Of course not the Spammy links. Igor Berger (talk) 21:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep rewrite While Social network aggregation does exist and one can probably find sources, the article's form that it is now is not encyclopidic. It does not even have much content beyond some WP:OR. I hope this article can be rebuild in a near future, but it will be hard to find secondary sources because the industry is new, maybe a few years old at the most. This is not Spam or self promotion or WP:COI. The industry is evolving into multi billion dollars. I am not sure how much Yahoo paid for MyBlogLog, but if I had to guess, it would be $1 billion dollars. So this topic has a future. Unfortunately we are an encyclopidia! Igor Berger (talk) 21:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Social Network. This is a valid topic in social network analysis but a separate article on it is not necessary. It does need some sort of answer to the "so what" question and it needs to be re-written to be more understandable in laymen's terms. Renee (talk) 22:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Social network Not to be confused with social network services such as MySpace, etc. or virtual community. Igor Berger (talk) 23:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- per the nomination and WP:OR. Xdenizen (talk) 00:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is obviously not a neologism as these are all long-standing words and their meaning seems clear enough. Per WP:NEO: "use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title." And there seems to be enough discussion of the topic out there to support an article. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Economist had an article on the evolution of social networks from walled gardens to interworking open standards recently. I suppose we have an article on OpenID... Colonel Warden (talk)

Good! If we can get some more sources and maybe rewrite the aticle to make seem more encyclopidic I would recommed keeping it as well. This is definitly a real and useful topic, not Spam! Igor Berger (talk) 12:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So Igor, are you striking your delete !vote in light of these new sources? X Marx The Spot (talk) 12:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will strike it out if we can get a consensus going towards keep. Okay, changing to Neutral for now, and I will revise to keep if we see the reasons for keeping it. Igor Berger (talk) 12:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but re-write. Because that's clearly all it needs. Some previous comments (above) have also stated that in passing. Delete through lack of notability, for sure, but not through lack of proper explanation of the subject, which exists at the moment. That's an editing concern, not a policy/guideline infraction. Ref ^(chew)(do) 13:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and I will change my vote to keep. I just did not want to take the resposibility for rewritting this article. I do know about social netwrong services and social media, but I do not know how much time I will have on hand to contribute in building this article. Other editor on Wikipedia also know about this field, but we are all busy with staff. But I guess some of us can chip in and build this article. Igor Berger (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite, my first question upon seeing this article was: Are there any social network aggregators? I see[13] that there are, such as MyLifeBrand and ProfileLinker. This article in Advertising Age magazine[14] also mentions Open ID, OtherEgo, and Profilatic. The Spokesman-Review had an article about social network aggregators in June 2007[15], although that article is primarily about MyLifeBrand. From browsing the Google News Archives, I also notice Upscoop by Rapleaf, SocialURL, ProfileFly, Dandelife, Zoominfo, Spokeo, Plaxo Pulse, FriendFeed, etc. There are articles[16] about social network aggregators in BusinessWeek, Red Herring, and the Portland Press Herald. The humor website BBspot also has a satirical article about a social network aggregator aggregator. I don't know if each of those websites are notable enough for their own article, but taken as a whole, I think social network aggregation is a notable phenomenon. I think this does currently read like an essay or business plan and it should be rewritten. I would support renaming this article to social network aggregator. If people think the current article is unsalvageable, I would support the creation of a social network aggregator article, with this term turned into a redirect. --Pixelface (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter about the title, what ever you feel comfortable with, being that you are voluntiring to rewrite. I just added a few new sources, on the fly, so please take a look at them. See what you can salvage from the original article and build with it. Igor Berger (talk) 15:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The title does matter. I think social network aggregator would be much more appropriate: an article describing a technology. This article merely tries to explain some phenomenon, and it does it poorly. Angrysusan (talk) 18:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recommended a rewrite but I guess I could help with one. I think this BusinessWeek article[17] is a good starting point. All of the sites I mentioned above are not social network aggregators. I suppose topics like OpenID or OpenSocial or Upscoop could be mentioned in an article about social network aggregation, but may seem out of place in an article about social network aggregators. Sites like Spokeo and FriendFeed appear to be actual social network aggregators. I'll see what I can rewrite. --Pixelface (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears to me that much of this article had text from this blog written by Ujwal Tickoo[18] which was linked to on Slashdot[19] in January 2008. On the talk page, the user Ujwaltickoo (who created[20] the article) says[21] "I have used text from my own blog -- giving Wikipedia the rights over the text I typed." I am now in the process of rewriting much of the information. --Pixelface (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With a little help from a few editors the article is begining to take shape. Moving this section to the talk page for now makes it more encyclopidic and less as a WP:SYN. We should just speedy keep it and go about our business. The editors familiar with the topic area can come around when they are available and build the article over time. This one is worth to save! Igor Berger (talk) 20:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
leaning delete - if the blogs used as references are removed is there enough secondary sources to establish encyclpedic notability? I'm not sure. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with other commentators above - particularly the view of this article resting somewhere between Original Research and SPAM - and I note there seems to be a lot of this going on with this area of topic recently.--VS ^talk 00:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Original research has no references, by definition being something an editor has initiated and introduced an angle to. The existence of adequate references in the article towards notability rules out that accusation. The take on spam is off the mark. You cannot accuse reliable sources of being spamlinks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 18:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he was referring to the original version, listed for AfD? Try reading that... Minkythecat (talk) 19:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean, my friend. If you provide a link to the AfD you refer to, I'll take a look. However, that is surely historical - any judgment of this version of the article is surely to be made on this version's notability as evidenced by this version's references. As I say, provide a link, diff or whatever to illustrate what you are on about. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't assume familiarity. Mea culpa, misread your "You" line as referring to a respondant. Regardless, the current version of the article isn't the version listed for AfD - which was definitely OR and Spammy. Minkythecat (talk) 21:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Friendliness aside then, it remains a fact that the AfD has to move with the developments in the article it refers to. So you cannot take a snapshot in time and say "this is the only version we are to comment on". If the article is freely edited (as AfD tags encourage), then all those commenting here need to be aware of the change by constantly checking. Comments for or against can also be changed without limit throughout the duration. Ref ^(chew)(do) 00:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because the article has significally changed, I propose that the editors who voted at the begining of the nomination process be asked to come back and reevaluate their votes. If this does not happen I believe this is a skewed poll. Also if you may check, the editor who has nominated this article for delition has not edited since. The editor is a new editor and may not have interest in the article or the deletion process. Igor Berger (talk) 00:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it appears a skewed "vote" (?we don't actually vote remember?), the closing admin will ordinarily take into account comments about proposed article improvement and actual edited improvements if any. Sometimes this leaves No Consensus, which at least gives the article breathing space for development in the future. As regards your proposition, I can't see how you can compel previous contributors to this AfD to return. They are at liberty to move on, having put in their views at the time of their visit. Ref ^(chew)(do) 01:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge with Social network service. The move toward greater openness between social network sites is clear and validated by a number of references now on the article. --Deadly∀ssassin^(talk) 10:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with existing heading. Social network aggregation is a fast-growing area. None of the other articles that have been suggested for merger address this topic well. There have been adequate references in this article. However, some have been moved to the talk page, and might be edited back into here. Bellagio99 (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being a neologism isn't a valid deletion reason. The other issues with the article are reasons for editing it, not deleting it. Rray (talk) 03:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms#Articles_on_neologisms some neologisms can be deleted. I quote " Articles on protologisms are almost always deleted as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term." --Enric Naval (talk) 21:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Enric Naval, It ain't a neologism. It's a term I commonly hear in the following serious circles: social network analysts, social software developers; HCI developers, and their kindred. Bellagio99 (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments that you hear on social circles are neither WP:V verifiable nor WP:RS, and can be a neologism since you don't state when you started hearing them --Enric Naval (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm familiar with the link you provided. It's still not a valid deletion reason. Valid deletion reasons can be found at Wikipedia:DEL#Reasons_for_deletion. Being a neologism isn't on the list. Rray (talk) 01:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your sarcasm aside, some of us do believe it is on that list - the second bullet point, in fact. WP:NOT. Tan | 39 01:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith? I wasn't being sarcastic. I really have already read the page that was linked to, and being a neologism really isn't listed in the list of valid reasons to delete an article. We can agree to disagree that the 2nd bullet point applies, but at any rate, that wasn't the reason given in the deletion nomination. By the way, most of the reasons you gave in your "Delete" opinion aren't valid deletion reasons either. Needing a rewrite, ownership issues, and conflicts of interest are all problems that can and should be addressed via the editing process, not via deletion. Rray (talk) 02:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I suppose I should assume good faith there. Sounded sarcastic. Anyways, go back in the history and read the article as I saw it - it seemed insalvageable at the time. I still am not quite sure on the notability of the term, but you are correct that a lot of the problems I wrote above have been alleviated. Tan | 39 04:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rewrite as above Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 02:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withington Cotton House

Non-notable building - the only information I can find is on maps. As sources are not cited I am unable to verify the information, and the article appears to contain original research/speculation, which is likely to be inaccurate. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 17:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable building about which little concrete is known. 'Appears' is used a lot. Dreamspy (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable; google's finding no mention of this building. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Little is known about Withington Cotton House, as there appears to be little or no record of the house" The article itself makes my argument for me TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 20:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Renee (talk) 22:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there's no information about the house, and no sources that say it exists, why do we have an article about it? What does Wikipedia know that local geographers don't know? I smell a hoax. Delete. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:42, 10 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. --MCB (talk) 07:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shintai Do

Non-notable style, no sources tagged for 6 months. 605 g-hits for "Shintai Do" martial art -Wikipedia but may also be the name of a manga series (some of the 1st page hits) Nate1481(^t/_c) 16:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Nate1481(^t/_c) 16:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete recent, nn art. JJL (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Make redirect to Shintaido; appear to be duplicates. Your google search probably dropped a lot because you left "Wikipedia" in it; googleing just "Shintai Do" led me to the duplicate name. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if I seemed to be google testing. I tend to use it as information, not as a decider. The modifiers were to give a clearer count as several appear to be mirrors. I was using Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial arts/Notability as a guide, I wrote quite a bit of it but it has been discussed on the project, more input would be good if you get time. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article says it "should not be confused with Shintaido", so it's not a duplicate. Thus, per no reliable, independent source material, it should be deleted. VanTucky 19:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't catch that before. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:42, 10 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. Rudget 17:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shaolin Iron Tiger Kung Fu

Non notable system, no sources apears to be a single school, gets 9 hits on google which isn't a good sign. Nate1481(^t/_c) 15:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Nate1481(^t/_c) 15:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete recently created nn art. JJL (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - non-notable. Dreamspy (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Autopromotion. Zero Kitsune (talk) 04:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Devon (drink)

None notable drink developed by none notable person. No ascertion of notability and no references Tagged since October 2007. Sounds like something someone has made up and named after himself to me. Greatestrowerever (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's had plenty of time for notability to be established in WP:RS, and as has been mentioned it looks like something some kid made up one night after a few too many drinks.... FlagSteward (talk) 17:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC) And while I'm at it, let's cite WP:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. ;-/ FlagSteward (talk) 17:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:MADEUP. Article creator is an SPA; no relevant search results that I see. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: no evidence of notability. Terraxos (talk) 05:02, 10 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 --JForget 23:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flobots

Procedural nom: Contested PROD - originally PROD'd as non-notable band. (I have no opinion on the article.) —Travis ^talk 15:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this continues to be a band which fails WP:MUSIC. It's a classic, "hey: up-and-coming; getting a lot of airplay locally; on the same stage with (marginally) notable bands" not-yet-notable situation. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the band has a Billboard Chart Position on the Heatseakers chart, but only on the Mountain regional chart. The Mediabase Alternative Chart shows their song "Handlebars" at #25, with it being played on several major alternative radio stations (the band is apparently getting far more than just local airplay). Mediabase uses the same radio stations that comprise the Billboard Modern Rock Tracks chart, which means that the song has a pretty good chance of hitting that chart if it already hasn't. Radio & Records shows the song at #27 this week on their alternative chart. Band is signed to Universal Republic, a major record label. The article could use cleanup though. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Doc Strange; Mediabase and R&R are indeed major charts, and the band appears to have a single on said charts. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as they seem to have been on major charts. There are also several sources that discuss them. They are getting on a major label and will be touring with metallica. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celarnor (talk • contribs)
Keep, they charted on the Billboard Modern Rock charts at #27. [22] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.234.197.92 (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per everyone and positioning on the charts. --JeebusSez (talk) 11:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is confirmation of the single "Handlebars" debuting on the Modern Rock Tracks chart this week at #27. Seeing as I don't have a subscription to the magazine, the Website only lets me see up to #20 on the charts, but Mediabase and Radio & Records' Alternative charts are compiled the exact same way as the Modern Rock Tracks chart and every other genre chart in Billboard: by radio airplay alone. The article above confirms chart placement on the most well known chart, Billboard's Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per everybody. Heard this song on the radio this morning, and decided to inquire further. These guys are national, and are on teh Billboard charts. Enough said. Lesserm (talk) 16:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep echoing everyone. I actually landed here after hearing the song "Handlebars" on air in Los Angeles. If that doesn't signify relevance, I don't know what does.Radiomantodd (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Todd (and fpo), just being on the air in Los Angeles does not constitute notability, not even in the U.S.A.! Read WP:BAND. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per everyone else. They have received airplay on both KYSR 98.7 (STAR) and the world-famous 106.7 KROQ in Los Angeles... I even think I heard them on XETRA 91.1 (91X) in Tijuana/San Diego, so their hit song Handlebars is international, now. --fpo (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but also fix. This article shouldn't read like PR for the band.—Wasabe3543 00:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fantastic group, and definitely becoming popular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BBickmore (talk • contribs) 02:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- clarification Notability has nothing to do with quality (see WP:ILIKEIT); and "becoming popular" is not already notable (the aforementioned "up and coming" argument). --Orange Mike | Talk 19:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know it does. Did my research above help you at all? If you want further offical confirmation here's Billboard's listing for the song Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 21:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 01:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A'PEXi PowerFC

This appears to be a cut/paste of ~~the technical specs and/or installation manual~~ the description of every setting in the PowerFC (per comment below) for this automotive product. Not encyclopedic material per WP:NOT#HOWTO and WP:SPAM, not to mention the unreadable format, lack of introduction, and no context. —Travis ^talk 15:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes (although dont remove yet I have the following updates to make)

I have noticed that the style of the article is not yet appropriate...
I intend to reference the footnotes back into the text when I work out how to do it
I also intent to change the style from instructive to descriptive
I would also like to reference the (brake specific) fuel consumption and gas (pressure and volume) equations back into the wikipedia

Robert Blandford (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is the correct place to put this but this page is not a cut/paste of an instruction manual, technical spec or an installation manual --- it is a description of every setting in the PowerFC. At best it is probably to specific/detailed—Robert Blandford ^talk 15:21 + a bit, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Most of the clumbsy formating has been removed
A leading paragraph has been added
Some external references have been added

Robert Blandford (talk) 07:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment & question: Well, you've certainly don't a lot of improvement on the article. :) Although I'm afraid that a good bit of the content remains inappropriate for Wikipedia (it still looks like a manual—not a how-to, but a much overly detailed description of features for an encyclopedia), that's not necessarily a matter for deletion so much as a matter for clean-up for conformance to WP:MOS. I'm considering whether or not I am ready to change my opinion on whether or not the article should be retained. You've added two reviews, here and here. Those are the kind of thing to help demonstrate that the subject is notable enough for inclusion. Are you aware of any other reviews or features in independent sources? Print sources may also be cited, if they are not on the internet. I'm not sure if additional is essential, but it certainly wouldn't hurt. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless notability is demonstrated with reliable sourcing. I heartily agree that as it is the article lacks sufficient context for a Wikipedia article; I sought clarification on this at the talk page a few hours ago. Clean-up is not necessarily a good reason for deletion, but it's hards to determine what this is all even about as it is, much less if it is notable. (I found one trivial reference in google news, here; scanning through regular google results, I did not see anything of significance in a reliable source in the first 10 pages of results.) I'll be keeping an eye on this AfD and the article in case further work alleviates my concerns and changes my opinion about the viability of the article. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No context, and not really enough to make into an encyclopedic article. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again this is not a cut and paste of anything and the subject matter is more than enough for an encyclopedia topic ... Robert Blandford (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've just a left note for you at your talk page after removing your most recent "hang on" tag from the article. I'd like to reiterate here that I think it would serve you well to read over the notability guidelines (WP:N and WP:CORP are guidelines of relevance here) and make sure that your article demonstrates that this product meets them. I'd hate for you to be wasting your time. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Although most of its content is unencyclopedic, it may have some potential. Unencyclopedic sections should be removed, and if the remaining content is enough, just tag it as a stub. Victor Lopes (talk) 18:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The formatting of the article has improved immensely since creation, however, it is still not Wikipedia material. The article consists primarily of technical information about a product. Yes, it is reference material, but Wikipedia is not a technical manual, it is an encyclopedia. Also, even after all of the cleanup, the article still lacks independent reliable sources showing evidence of notability of the product. —Travis ^talk 12:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question I am guessing that the class of 'textbook' being applied..?

I have endeavoured to remove all instructive comments... if any remain then they should be removed. It appears that objection is being made about the level of detail in the description of the unit.
A agree that the sections on turbo sizing and power calculation should be removed... as they do not relate to the product
With regards to notability --- at the time the Apexi PowerFC was brought to market (1992), the number of plug and play programmable ECUs available could be counted on the fingers of one hand. One other company that pre dates Apexi is Motec from Australia (1987) --- but there product was not plug and play until later. I will need to add these details to the page the source is on from the company web sites... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Blandford (talk • contribs) 11:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 19:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cars 2 (film)

AfDs for this article:

Future film that we're too early in history to make good predictions about (I think the general rule is that the maximum number of years in the future a film should be released to have a Wikipedia article should be 3 and for this one it is 4. Georgia guy (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Lots of secondary coverage. An almost ideal candidate for a movie subject that hasn't come out yet. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 15:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep because animated films are different from live-action films in being produced, especially in length, so WP:NFF is tricky to apply here. I don't think that WP:FILM has quite ironed out the differences, so I'm willing to hear any thoughts about keeping or deleting this particular article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Striking out "Weak" -- fully OK with keeping it now. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If this is kept, it should be moved to Cars 2. No need for the (film) extension. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Celarnor's sources, seems to be easily verifiable even if it's four years down the road (no pun intended). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It may be worth listing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cars 2 (October 2006) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cars 2 (2nd nomination) (January 2008), since the title is slightly different. How can this be done? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's enough here to support a stub, at least, so long as the promotional garbage can be kept out. There's no point in deleting it and recreating it later at some arbitrary time because it's "close enough to the release". --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Disney-Pixar announced the film today in a press release: therefore it's being animated and will be released: animated films perfect their story and do not suffer development hell like live action films. Alientraveller (talk) 19:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment *cough* The Black Cauldron *cough* But yes, the track record of Pixar and Disney today is quite strong in this regard. --Dhartung | Talk 23:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: The announcement is an official document that shows the films future release, and until otherwise should be kept as an upcoming film. CJMylentz (talk) 19:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Pixar has a track record that would indicate that this film will be released. The lead time for their features is about that long. At the very least, it would be notable as a film that they did not release. Group29 (talk) 02:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alientraveller. It was announced yesterday (9 April) that it will be released within the next few years Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} (R-OH) 04:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Officially announced, plenty of sources. No WP:CRYSTAL issue here. Previous AFDs were done at a time when this was legitimately a crystal ball issue, but now that the announcement has been made, circumstances have changed. I have taken the liberty of changing the deleted Cars 2 article page into a redirect to this one, as the name format is more appropriate. 23skidoo (talk) 13:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't need to do that. If there is no other article on Wikipedia titled "Cars 2", then the film article belongs there. Since we can't move it there now, I'm going to have to request a move from Cars 2 (film) to Cars 2 after this AFD closes. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has been officially announced, but if you want to spoil the release of the future films to others 4 years earlier, then go ahead. Azzstar (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's new... spoiling people about the very existence of a film. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't think having a guideline for how many years in advance of release there should be an article is much use. I've been keeping an eye on these things for a few years, and I've noticed that predictive reliability varies greatly among different studios; some studios can't give a reliable date within the same year, while others are reliable 4-5 years down the line. Disney/Pixar is one of the latter, which is why I think this should be kept. Their history has shown that they take their deadlines pretty seriously. Esn (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The WP:CRYSTAL thing no longer applies, as demonstrated. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Toy Story 3 article was around for a long time before anything came to be, and giving this has had a press release, it should definitely stay. - ǀ Mikay ǀ 13:08, 13 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. Sandstein (talk) 06:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Sovereignty Restoration Act

Article is about a bill that continues to die in committee every time it is proposed. Coverage in the media seems to be more about Ron Paul or bashing the UN, than on the actual bill, in addition many articles seem to be letters to the editor. Article should be restored (and an article concerning the downfall of the UN written) should the bill pass. Burzmali (talk) 14:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: If consensus is to delete, please userfy the article at a subpage of my userspace with the same title. Although Wikipedia isn't working on a 5 day deadline, this article has hundreds of potential sources to be used, and not all of the them are presented. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 16:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This is a fairly major piece [http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32379 of] legislation. It's being passed or not passed has nothing to do with it's notability. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Try to be a little more selective with those references:

This doesn't mention the bill in its synopsis

is doesn't mention the bill in its synopsis

a isn't independent

fairly isn't independent as the author is a vocal RP supporter

major has a trivial mention

piece is a letter to the editor

[http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32379 of] mentions the bill in the first paragraph, but chooses to attack the UN instead of discussing the bill

legislation is just ... wow.

In the end, there is a lot of puffing by people who want to get out of the UN, so maybe a merge is in order, but is earning mention in every anti-UN screed written between 2001 and 2003 enough to satisfy WP:N? Burzmali (talk) 18:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the full text, not just the synopsis. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 16:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. the article needs to be sourced up to show notability, but simply because a law doesn't pass doesn't make it non-notable. It gets enough attention, even if it is an exercise in futility. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Equal Rights Amendment:

1) was a proposed Amendment not a bill

2) made it to a vote and didn't die in committee

3) had a snowball's chance of causing some impact on something other an a politician's ability to fund raise. Burzmali (talk) 18:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Non-admin closed by Dustihowe as speedy keep ("Note: To delete an article because of it being shot down in congress then to restore it if/when it gets passed is not a valid reason to bring an article to AFD") 19:03, 9 April 2008. Per WP:ANI#Exceedingly WP:BOLD editor at AFD filed by Burzmali, reopened by ChrisO 00:54, 10 April 2008. Discussion continues below.

- - My point is that it's a law that didn't pass. Your argument here is that because this law hasn't passed, it's not notable. I'm providing a counter-example. I think your argument is flawed...if you truly felt this bill were non-notable, it wouldn't matter if it were passed or not. Not every law passed is notable, and not every law not passed is not notable. --UsaSatsui (talk) 01:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was an amendment that got close to passing. This is a bill that will lkely never even be discussed in committee. My point is that this bill is non-notable as a proposed piece of legislation. If, by some divine miracle, it were to pass, it would be massively notable. It's like an article about a high school kid who wants to be the next Nolan Ryan, he isn't notable now, but if he does become the next Nolan Ryan, the article should be recreated. Burzmali (talk) 12:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:RS: it has not received serious coverage from independent, reliable sources. (Of the sources provided, only one of them could be called significant coverage, and WorldNetDaily is arguably not reliable.) As the nominator says, not all bills are notable. There's nothing worth keeping in this article that isn't in United States withdrawal from the United Nations; it should be deleted and merged there. Terraxos (talk) 04:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, there's already a relevant article? Make my vote a Merge then. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significant news coverage. Stifle (talk) 09:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP You can't have your cake and eat it too!!! (for those who don't understand this, you cannot delete an article, then restore it if the bill eventually survives. The bill is a part of history and should be kept here on Wikipedia. Dusti^{talk to me} 12:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, more later. John J. Bulten (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC) There are NINETY-ONE Google News articles about this. I don't know when I've had so much material to build from in an AFD. It will take all five days just to go through all those (there are some repetitions and letters to the editor, e.g., but also some decent criticism of the ASRA) and to deal with all the other stuff Burzmali wants deleted. So I really need add nothing more here. But I probably will. Had considered merge based on the viability of the proposed merge article, given what I knew prior to the Google News list, but with all that stands to be added, it would be undue weight at that article. John J. Bulten (talk) 21:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John, this isn't a contest, I don't win a toaster if I get 10 articles of Paulcruft deleted. My reading of WP:N suggests that the bar is set fairly high for articles about failed (or failing) legislation. I glanced through the top two pages of those google news hits and as I listed above, they tend to be anti-UN or anti-government screeds that cite this bill as an example. 91 google news hits isn't too impressive considering the "campaign" waged by Ron Paul supporters to get anyone to care about this bill. Looking at this bill's compatriots at Category:United States proposed federal legislation, it seems like the whole category could use bit of clean up. Burzmali (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re winning a toaster, consult Burzmali's recent edit history. Re the bar, WP:N does not mention legislation. Re the campaigners, they are not only Paul supporters (and certainly not only "Paul 2008" supporters; the bill is a decade old). Re the campaign, if it is more significant than 91 news hits would indicate, it's even more notable. Re WP:OTHERSTUFF, feel free to clean up. JJB 20:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Could I also recommend that John (and anyone else who wants to comment on this article) should review WP:SOURCES for what constitutes an acceptable source. Fringe sources shouldn't be taken into consideration. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe sources should not be considered as sources for contentious material, but what we're talking about is several other classes: media and advocacy orgs that favor the bill can be cited for the noncontentious fact that they favor it; trustworthy local papers can be cited as finding the letters to the editor publishable; and sources with brief mentions can be cited if there is enough to establish notability. Here's my list:

Independently notable as first (if not only) legislative expression of a notable POV, United States withdrawal from the United Nations.
2400 Google hits, 91 news hits, 10 book hits, and plenty more when pay sources are added.
Advocacy by John Birch Society, Sovereignty International, Liberty Committee, WorldNetDaily, Cybercast News Service, NewsMax, and more, often independently covered.
Significant independent coverage from reliable sources National Review, Victoria, Texas, Advocate, Yale Law Journal, a U.S.-Canada policy text, and more.
One letter to the editor might be ignored, but dozens of grassroots letters each independently esteemed worthy for publication combine into another mark of notability. I also found one letter against the Act (Hastings Star-Gazette).
The bill is the subject of other legislation, such as at least two failed resolutions in the Arizona Legislature; several other states too, if the WorldNetDaily clues are followed.
Many sources remain to be added, and 5 days is enough to gauge that they do exist even if they don't have time to be added.
Deletionist arguments started as "impassable", shifted to "nonnoted", then were salvaged as dividing and conquering the hundreds of potential sources for this article into significant unreliable and reliable insignificant. However, there is significant reliable coverage in, for example, NR and the Victoria Advocate (a local editor that knows and endorses the bill is still presumed to be independent and reliable). When dozens of smaller papers find the topic worthy of inclusion in letters to the editor, that becomes significant. And the many reliable mentions in anti-UN articles would argue for merge instead of delete, or (with the other notability marks, as I said) would show that merge would create imbalance in the parent article.

In short, if you told me one bill got dozens of letters to the editor published, several notable advocacy organizations, several mentions in legislation by state houses, independent coverage in books and journals, and several detailed discussions in news sources which favor it, I'd find it notable no matter what it said. Imagine a bill that would legislate the worst pseudoscience or cultism or political error you can imagine. Yet if so many nationwide legislators, editors, advocacy groups, alternative media, and authors are taking note of it, um, it's notable. One can't dismiss them all as excluded just because the NYX-WSJ cabal ignores it. JJB 20:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete - there isn't really the reliable sources to make this piece of non-legislation notable -- Whpq (talk) 11:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Have any of those in favor of deletion looked at the sources? There are more valid references here than are had by most GAs; that's ignoring the hundreds of other articles that can be found on a ProQuest search. I've never seen anything this obviously notable before brought to AfD; please, please, please review the relevant material and keep American politics out of AfDs. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 16:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like the massive number of letters to the editor with broken links that John J. Bulten (talk · contribs) keeps adding to the article, or the article sourced to Ron Paul's website, or the one from the college newspaper? Burzmali (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, like the one from the US Federal news service (American Sovereignty Restoration Act US Fed News Service, Including US State News. Washington, D.C.: Mar 1, 2007), and the one from the San Antonio Express (Focus: United Nations; [METRO Edition]. San Antonio Express-News. San Antonio, Tex.: May 20, 2001. pg. 4G). Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do they do anything more than mention the bill and then go on an anti-UN screed or mention the bill and then praise Ron Paul for his efforts to fight the "man"? Burzmali (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They present information about the bill and the implications it would have on US foreign policy. Call it whatever you want; although, no, these aren't partisan like some of the other relevant sources. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I do question the inclusion of mentions and links to letters to the editor on the subject, tehre are adequate reliable and verifiabel sources to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is certainly notable. Much more so than many other things on WP. I went ahead and removed the letters to the editor section however. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm just curious, why is it notable? As it is a piece of Ron Paul legislation, it has essentially no chance at becoming a law or even being discussed in committee. Some fringe elements have latched on to it, some vaguely mainstream sources have printed letter's to the editor about it or used it as an example of how wacky Ron Paul is. To call a spade a spade like 90% of all Ron Paul legislation this bill is an attempt for Ron Paul to appeal to his base. Burzmali (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete still don't see the notability. Could be merged elsewhere. Lots of bills get to Congress; many year after year after year. Even the discussions of "what it means for the US" are purely speculative. King Pickle (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of philosophy is speculative in nature, but that doesn't stop the various philosophical systems from being considered notable since they have received coverage and academic discussion. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closing Admin, please read this WP:N says:

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable.

"Presumed" means objective evidence meets the criterion, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors.[1] Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable.[2]
"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.[3]
"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.[4]
"Sources,"[5] defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.[6]
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.[7]

A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia. Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article

Where is this article failing? Answer that for me please (not trying to be sarcastic, just asking the question). Dusti^{talk to me} 15:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles that have "Significant coverage" tend to fail "Reliable" (letters to the editor, college newspaper), or "Independent" (LewRockwell.com). Articles that are "Reliable" tend to lack "Significant coverage" (anti-UN or Pro-Paul/Libertarianism). How about one article from the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, or any other major national paper? Burzmali (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

here you go, look through the hits, you'll find several with the NYT Dusti^{talk to me} 17:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Try that one instead Use of google news and quotes to ensure that the two phrases are found in their entirely turns up zero hits. Burzmali (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - And if you do it here you get something (I added quotes around each. Either way, there are hits all around for the bill. Why do you feel it necessary to delete? When obviously (just googling the name with quotes) you get 2,440 hits. That fails WP:N how? Dusti^{talk to me} 18:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - All NYT articles are listed on Google News, so no articles about this bill have appeared in the NYT. I nominated the article for deletion because I believe that legislation that does not or will not make it through committee is non-notable unless there is good evidence that it passes WP:N. Personally, I think that the topic belongs on the United States withdrawal from the United Nations article (where it is already mentioned) until the actual mainstream media bothers to take notice of it. Since the bill has existed in some form since at least 2001, I have significant doubts that this will happen. Burzmali (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - You are entitled to your opinions and I have offered mine. I have established notability by pointing out numerous hits on Google, and you fail to recognize those because its not with the New York times or whatever. There are notable hits on the google links above. Since there is so much discussion here, this AFD will likley close as No Consensus. I suggest you withdraw. Dusti^{talk to me} 20:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Withdrawal isn't possible, it's not unanimous. --UsaSatsui (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I do not understand Burzmali's latest statements. If he thinks it belongs in the other article, why did he go to AFD instead of proposing a merge in the first place? How can he base his rationale partly on the notability of legislation that "will not make it" without a WP:CRYSTAL ball? If he thinks all such legislation is nonnotable, why do his latest deletion nominations include only five Paul bills, Carol Paul, and Paul-friendly The American View, if they are not POV nominations? Why does he use the 2001 date when it's obvious the bill was first introduced in 1997? Why does he think the hundreds of citations should defer to silence by "actual mainstream media"? JJB 21:17, 14 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. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

University of Exeter Halls of Residence

Beyond doubt, the University of Exeter is notable. But that doesn't apply to each of their buildings. I also fail to see how this amount of detail coverage (including list of resident tutors, pricing, etc.!) can reasonably be attributed to independent sources. Notability concerns have not been addressed within almost a year. B. Wolterding (talk) 14:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But there isn't an article about each of their buildings - this is one article about a considerable number of their buildings. I would however agree that this article contains a lot of current detail that should go. It should mainly contain information of longer term interest to the history of the institution. Pterre (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am against individual articles on each hall but an omnibus article seems just fine. TerriersFan (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree with TF's comments. This omnibus article was created to prevent proliferation of non-notable articles. There is a whole category of UK Halls of Residence - and I couldn't spot any other article within the category which is AfD. Why should UofExeter HoR be taken out and shot? Surely the whole category needs deleting if this argument holds. Ian Cairns (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - having had look around this Category:University and college residential buildings and Category:University and college buildings I am even more disappointed at this nomination. We all have a deep and abiding knowledge of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, WP is not run by precedent etc etc but I think that we should try to have a consistent approach to like pages. Taking one University at random, I looked at Category:University of Pittsburgh buildings which contains wholly nn buildings such as Mervis Hall as well as several highly notable buildings. These cats would benefit from more omnibus articles pulling out what is actually important from buildings of lesser notability. The point I am making is that rather than randomly deleting one omnibus article the project would benefit from a holistic approach. TerriersFan (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Comment: I know it appears like this article is being singled out among University buildings, but I don't think that's the case in truth. It's been tagged with {{notability}} since May 2007, which happens to be the month we're up to in working through the 15,000+ article backlog over at WikiProject Notability. If similar articles had been so tagged in that month, they'd probably be undergoing a similar evaluation. That said, I approve of having this sort of omnibus article, and I think that, in aggregate, a respectable and reliably sourced article can be written about these buldings. Jfire (talk) 23:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - that is a helpful explanation, thank you. TerriersFan (talk) 23:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per nom. In principle I support omnibus articles (I very much support district articles, for example), but I don't see anything notable when looking through this article. The information (if continually updated) seems like it would be useful, but not encyclopedic; perhaps something for a university wiki. On the other hand, TerriersFan thinks it's notable, and that should count for something. Thus I !vote weakly rather than normally. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator: As Jfire has pointed out, I chose this article for nomination (and not another university's) because it had been tagged with notability concerns roughly a year ago. If there are other articles which share the same problem, you may want to place the {{notability}} tag on them. --B. Wolterding (talk) 21:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
enormously better than articles about the individual residence halls, and this serves as a useful compromise place to merge them. Without articles like this, we'd be debating each individual building. DGG (talk) 01:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This arose after a AfD on articles on individual Halls of residence. They are sufficiently important to be brought together in a single article. --Bduke (talk) 01:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —Noetic Sage 18:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article looks ok actually. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 18:01, 13 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. Rudget 17:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Audimus

Does not establish notability per WP:SOFTWARE or cite sources per WP:V. Stifle (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable software. The few non-latin ghits are for a speech recognition system. Jfire (talk) 15:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless evidence of notability is provided. Terraxos (talk) 04:51, 10 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 as a substantially identical copy of material previously deleted via a deletion discussion, and which does not address the past deletion bases (CSD G4)..--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goon Of Fortune

Non-notable drinking game, no RS. ukexpat (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: There are just short of 2000 hits for this on the Australian Google, and not completely soft ones either. No reliable sources, no, but this might pass the "cult buzz" bar. RGTraynor 14:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One ref isn't multiple significant sources of coverage; fails WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Again? One Two spryde | talk 19:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per G4 per spryde. DarkAudit (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a G4 per Spryde. Tagging as such. Bfigura ^(talk) 22:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Sherry

Notability neither asserted nor established. even his band is redlinked. Delete per WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. Rodhullandemu (Talk) 12:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Yes, the article needs work. But this story was widely covered, even by MTV and the BBC. Also, this article was not created as a Memorial site. Kingturtle (talk) 12:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this is a tabloid news story about someone who was not famous before he died and will not be famous afterwards. Sad, but Jim Morrison this is not. Guy (Help!) 13:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: individuals made "famous" by one event are not notable. See WP:NOT#NEWS.
- WP:BIO - Basic criteria states: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." There is no depth of coverage for this person, and his death seems to be trivial coverage by MTV, and BBC seems to be local/regional passing news, in part because the venue at which he performed and the manner of his performances had to be described, indicating he was not well-known.
- - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sad as it is, Wikipedia is not a memorial site, and he wasn't famous before his death, and having died doesn't change that. Corvus cornix_talk 17:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - non-notable. Dreamspy (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not noteable Theshoveljockey (talk) 23:20, 9 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) 17:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Reilly (Journalist)

Sub-stub article on non-notable journalist from Belfast, fails WP:BIO. The only references are links to articles which he has written, though I also found his own website at paul-reilly.com, which suggests that he is a young journalist just starting his career. A google search for "Paul Reilly" journalist throws up plenty of hits for his own website under several different domain names, and his own youtube uploads, but after the first page of hits the results all seem to be about others. The contribs list of the page's author Psr84 (talk · contribs) lists this as his only article, and from Reilly's website it would appear that he was born 1984 or 85, so this artuicle may be an autobiography, in breach of WP:COI. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if someone else created the article, just being a journalist isn't enough for an article according to WP:BIO. Wait until some other reliable sources outside Wikipedia write about him before creating an article here (based on those sources). --Minimaki (talk) 13:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - non-notable. Probable vanity article Dreamspy (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - no coverage from reliable sources. Terraxos (talk) 04:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons as given here: [23]. Non-notable, journeyman journalist. Qworty (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Artist is not notable - While imdb may be a good place to start, it in itself is not considered a reliable source and cannot establish notability. Nor do Youtube, Geocities, free webhosts, online stores, official homepages, etc. Fails WP:N. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Heart

Fails WP:RS other than MySpace pages. Anthony Rupert (talk) 00:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment More citations added, his imdb page and links to former labels website. Adam Heart does not have an independent homepage, however this does not make him irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greatomega (talk • contribs) 01:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It's a good article, and i think it's notable enough. LukeTheSpook (talk) 08:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Although this may be a WP:HEY instance, regardless that the article superficially follows good form, there is not a single reliable source in it. Google's little help; the vast majority of hits are for coronary disease-related topics. As it stands, this article does not pass WP:V. Ravenswing 14:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He was in the Illiad, which passed fine through here, his producer is multi-platinum, and he's on the imdb which is no cakewalk to get onto, he's been covered by notable musicians, what is not reliable here? I could maybe see some content needing removed but the entire article? It just seems very spiteful given the amount of proof that is there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greatomega (talk • contribs) 16:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC) — Greatomega (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Reply: IMDB is in fact quite easy to get into -- any extra or wannabe auteur with a 5-minute indie short can do it -- notability is not inherited, and this article still doesn't pass WP:BAND or contain any reliable sources. I strongly recommend reviewing WP:RS, which will give you a notion for what we are looking. Ravenswing 21:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Well, smarty pants, he didnt do 5-minute auteur films and he isnt an extra, and I really don't think you have grounds for that argument. Are YOU on imdb, do you know anyone who is? He did established straight to video releases. They're complete crap, and they suck, and even his soundtracks arent that good, but that doesnt make them illegit. Look, what if I cited proof of his movie work, Tempe video, Amazon? I'll just go do it and maybe that'll help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greatomega (talk • contribs) 22:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Funny you should mention it; my brother-in-law, in fact, has an IMDB entry [24], as an extra appearing in a handful of films. That being said, while you're reviewing WP:RS -- because we still require reliable, independent, third-party sources about the subject -- I also commend to you WP:CIVIL and assume good faith. Ravenswing 00:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hooray for Hollywood. Good faith would be refraining from the snobbery you exude in each opinion you express. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greatomega (talk • contribs) 06:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, while you're continuing your uncivil antics, Heart's supposedly passing because his band passes muster probably isn't going to survive the band's own AfD. Cheers, Ravenswing 00:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think he's notable enough. LukeTheSpook (talk) 21:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't necessarily think this guy should be deleted, but some changes definitely need to be made. It is notable that he is on imdb, but I would not consider four films to be "a long string of films" or whatever they called it. Also, the article says that these four films are his most notable scores, but imdb clearly states that they are his only scores. As far as deletion, it's definitely a topic of debate. There is no significant third-party info about this guy to be found anywhere except for that crazed fan who is trying to start a cult (not a reliable source). He is not on allmusic.com, he has fewer than two-thousand fans on myspace, he is unsigned, he hasn't released an album yet--self-released or otherwise--and as far as being covered by "notable musicians," he seems to only have been covered by nicholas megalis (whoever that may be). More sources would be nice, but I just don't think there is much information out there on this person. There is definitely a case for deletion, but let's at least clean up the article a little, and please make the writing a little more encyclopaedic. I feel like a tourist (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom and others. I now agree that this person simply cannot be considered to be notable if no one is talking about him (and thus, no way to verify the majority of the article).I feel like a tourist (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I checked out the entry for the band you mentioned he was in (The Iliad), and it, too, needs some work. I fixed some formatting problems, but the entry has no sources at all. Check it out. Something should be done about this; a discussion should be started.I feel like a tourist (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a former member of a non-notable band and worked on the soundtrack for some non-notable independant films and in pre-production of a solo album (which is non-notable per WP:CRYSTAL). I see no establishment of notability beyond that. Until a reputable source is actually talking about him (not just listing his works), I see no reason for an article on Wikipedia. -Verdatum (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep- As per LukeTheSpook —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.93.192.236 (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: What evidence is there that this non-recorded artist is notable enough to be on Wikipedia? What 3rd party sources verify these claims? I feel like a tourist (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One generally should avoid justifying their position by citing the comments of a user who also failed to justify his position. Also, this is only the second edit on record for this anonymous IP address. -Verdatum (talk) 20:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tein and the Pojksnopps discography

Discography of apparently non-notable Swedish band. The only links I can find are http://www.lastfm.fr/group/9Natur and http://se.myspace.com/teinandthepojksnopps Prod was removed without comment. Eastmain (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable discography of a non-notable band. PeterSymonds | talk 22:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A discography for a NN band (who doesn't even have an article) who have only released one single (but I can't find a reliable source if it even charted) and fails WP:MUSIC filled with original research and POV ("The reason to why they have decided to cease creating smash hits remains unknown to the public, which literally is screaming for more.") Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 13:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Admin comment: I was going to close this as a speedy, but I couldn't find a criterion or policy letting me do this. I'll let this go, but I'd rather invoke WP:SNOW/WP:IAR. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Band isn't notable and doesn't have an article. No need for a discography page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:29, 9 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) 06:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry O'Neel

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jerry O'Neel

Fails WP:BLP, WP:NPF and sounds like WP:NOR. Triwbe (talk) 11:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failing of WP:BIO. No independent coverage of topic (2 ghits were the article and this afd page). Gwguffey (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of ghits or google news hits indicate this is a pretty non-notable fan.--Fabrictramp (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - non-notable, and unsourced and unreferenced. Dreamspy (talk) 18:14, 9 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. Pigman☿ 02:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Buhrmaster

Candidate for a congressional seat. While his candidacy has made some news [25], he otherwise fails WP:BIO, and neither local delegates nor candidates are inherently notable. Huon (talk) 11:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Perhaps a redirect to something like United States House of Representatives elections, 2008 or United States Senate elections, 2008 (whichever is appropriate). He only deserves his own article if he is elected. Paul20070 (talk) 12:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (unless there is somewhere useful to redirect). Has not yet achieved notability, and we can't keep the article on the assumption he'll become notable later. It can always be recreated if he wins. Terraxos (talk) 04:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I live in this district, and he's less than notable. First of all, he's a third-tier candidate running in a very heavily Democratic district, where the "big guns" of either major party have yet to announce "officially". He's a local office holder, of the minority party, representing a district of a couple thousand people, with no record. There is zero chance he'll win: "Democrats have controlled the congressional seat for at least 50 years, but Buhrmaster later said he didn't make the claim to appeal to the district's Democratic voters."^[1] This is pure spam for his home heating business, and his campaign is an ad for it as well. See WP:COAT. Sorry for the harshness, but this one is a farce. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 01:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^ Times Union article

P.S. The article's creator is a SPA, and almost certainly a person affiliated with the subject. I have my suspicions.... Bearian'sBooties (talk) 01:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 02:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Crazy Frog Presents Crazy Hits --JForget 23:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who Let the Frog Out

This is non-notable song, it fails WP:MUSIC. Reverend X (talk) 11:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per inability to satisfy WP:MUSIC#Songs. The album that contains this song is notable per [26], but not the song on its own. -Gwguffey (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree. The recording isn't notable enough to stand on its own. It's worth noting in the article on the song being parodied, and is already likely listed at Crazy Frog's article and the album article. That's all that's needed. (No objection to a redirect, either) 23skidoo (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A parody song that is not notable. AlbinoFerret (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the album as plausible search term. -- saberwyn 00:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - utterly non-notable. (A redirect to the album would be fine, though.) Terraxos (talk) 04:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - the article itself is not notable, but that doesn't mean someone won't punch that into the search bar at some point. Redirect it to its respective album, there's no harm in that. Red Phoenix (Talk) 15:45, 11 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. Rudget 17:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genji Inc

WP:Vanispamcruftisement, created by commercial-purposes-only account. Appears to assert some dubious notability, so I've decided to bring it here. Hús ö nd 10:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the company was sometimes mentioned in the news, mainly in connection with Whole Foods Market, but there's not enough to satisfy WP:CORP. Sources are scarce and don't talk about the company as a whole, instead focusing on individual restaurants. Huon (talk) 11:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Vanispamcruftisement sums it up pretty well - looking at the refs, the London one is a commercial site that seems to have just regurgitated a press release in return for a free meal.FlagSteward (talk) 17:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:02, 9 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 that since the article has been on AFD for the best part of a month and a consensus hasn't formed to delete it, there is clearly no consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Soleil

The article fails to meet WP:N for an American film director and as an actor. No reliable sources can be found to demonstrate notability. Possible self-written WP:COI.Torchwood Who? (talk) 00:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being so thorough. Here are the references.

http://www.digitalvideofestival.com/film.php?id=63

http://us.vdc.imdb.com/title/tt0395987/releaseinfo

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1534043/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.26.92 (talk) 01:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment imdb is not a reliable source and the digital video festival link does not cover this director, it covers one short film and is just a listing that it was in the festival. If there are articles about the director, or a biography of the director written by a third party... maybe an interview in a reputable publication we could include those sources and see notability established.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 01:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment imdb is a reliable source. Well-respected, professional and often cited in WP. IMHO an imdb listing of itself almost confers notability.. Annamonckton (talk) 14:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It says specifically in WP:NOTFILM That imdb is not a reliable source.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 15:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er... no it doesn't. It says "A page in the database does not by itself establish the film's notability." A source being reliable and a source confirming notability are two different things. I'm not claiming imdb confers notability, just that it's pretty reliable. Annamonckton (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, it is not a reliable source to confer notability. The editor is asserting that the listing on IMDB asserts notability and I am commenting to that.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 16:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Keep Number of minor acting credits. Fails WP:BIO for entertainers, but that standard doesn't seem to be applied consistently, if at all. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it is kept it needs to be stripped of anything WP:COI since the article is an autobiography.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 01:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Torchwood Who? (talk) 04:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant roles + no mentions/reviews = non-notable. (Major deduction for quasi-cutesy name.) Clarityfiend (talk) 06:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I've successfully introduced actor articles on just their imdb profiles. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Clarityfiend (though I couldn't care less about his name). BWH76 (talk) 15:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. A certain degree of publicity. `'Míkka >t 07:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this publicity? I only see featured extra work on imdb and a short film in a festival.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 11:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every television credit on IMDB is entered by the Studios ABC NBC CBS FOX etc...In order for a film credit to be listed it has to satisfy IMDB's criteria as either having a theatrical release or a festival release. I think the system of deciding what is "Weak Keep" or "Notable" needs to be overhauled especially in regards to IMDB. There doesn't appear to be an overall consensus on these matters. To say that this actor has only done extra work on IMDB is a flat out misrepresentation of the information listed on IMDB by studios such as FOX, NBC, ABC etc...and it seems that Torchwood is only interested in having actors further along in their careers listed on wikipedia. If that is the overall consensus for other fellow wikipedian mediators so be it. But even George Clooney and other actors started with smaller roles on established TV shows. If those credits are viewed as "Weak Keep" it seems like they are being viewed so on bias not actuality.— 66.214.251.105 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp [optional] (UTC).

Actually the IMDB information can be entered by anyone. I also contribute to IMDB and there is a simple easy to use form to input new information [27] Also, the information review on IMDB is mostly to make sure that it's not an obvious hoax and to insure the submitter correctly filled out the required form fields. Additionally, the notability guideline includes having been written about by third parties. I don't dispute that this actor has been on the shows they mention, I do, however, assert that their roles have been minor and non-recurring. That is why IMDB is not a notability source. If there was a directory of all ship builders I would expect that every person down the line would be included in it, but I would only consider notable participants as worthy of encyclopedic coverage. On the Clooney analogy, if this actor goes on to do notable work, as Clooney did, he will surely warrant inclusion... but the argument you're proposing asks us to look into the future and back an unproven actor on the basis that other actors started where he is an achieved fame. I can think of few examples of notable professional who started out at the top of their field without paying their dues. I personally feel this article is vanity and little more than a resume of a not-notable actor. The fact that it was written by the subject himself or someone so close that the username is a version of the actor's name clearly shows that this actor is not of a level at which third party coverage is warranted. Also, the actor himself admitted to writing another wiki article about an unreleased short film of his which was subsequently deleted at AfD. This shows a history of WP:COI edits.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 17:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Torchwoodwho, you have gone on a witchhunt against this actor. Most of the actor listings on wikipdedia are vain. No dispute there. But again, if you are going to police this actor for where he is at in his career to date, than what are you going to do with most of the actor articles listed on wikipedia? They deserve this same scrutiny. You seem hellbent on preventing this actor to do what every other actor on wikipedia is doing. It's all vain. Is George Clooney less vain because he's established. Another analogy if I may...If you were examining an article on the California dogface butterfly and the information provided was factual but not as notable, popular or as dense as the Morpho butterfly would that mean that it is not worthy of being on wikipedia. Again, you "Torchwoodwho" are attempting to be the final word in what is appropriate for wikipedia in regards to actors. Prior to wikipedia you didn't have articles in encyclopedia's dealing with pop culture. Wikipedia changed that for better or for worse. If you are going to police you shouldn't do it from a standpoint of judging vanity. You should do research that is worth citing. I'll repeat your erroneous statement "I only see featured extra work on imdb and a short film in a festival". Where is the research? This is a false misstatement meant to slander this actor and their work to date. I do have a problem with your tactics, your judgments and your lack of research to support your reasons. If you were truly trying to manage this site fairly it would not be from a place of trying to police actors that don't fall under your idea of notable. That is a form of vain glory in and of itself manifested in deletion articles.— 76.213.233.119 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp [optional] (UTC).

I'm sorry you feel that way, and I'm sorry that you think this is a "witch hunt". I apologize for making it known that I feel this is a vanity article, that's an argument to avoid in a deletion discussion and it was inappropriate of me to make that statement.There is the argument of WP:OTHERSTUFF that should also be avoided in this discussion. We're talking about one specific article about one specific actor and we should stay on topic to that. If there are similar articles they may very well undergo this exact process during their life and community consensus will decide if they are kept or deleted. That said, do you have any arguments that relate to how this exact actor is currently sufficiently notable for inclusion? --Torchwood Who? (talk) 02:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Keep This person is an extra in some well=known television shows. He even has his own website. However, very few people know him, which makes him not such a well-known person. Brokenspirits (talk) 02:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How did you come to the conclusion that this person was only an extra Brokenspirits? Where in wikipedia does it say that only "well known actors" confer notabality and get a page on wikipedia? How do you decide what is well known? To simply dismiss this actor as "an extra on some well known shows" is a clear display that you have done nothing to ascertain notability except glance at a site (probably IMDB) and negate the work that he has done. After spending a few minutes searching on line I found several links pertaining to this actor. The TV.com links I've provided below list this actor in the credits of the shows he has listed on wikidpedia. Extras are never listed in the credits of TV shows on TV.com. If they are listed on IMDB they appear to have (uncredited) beside them. This actor does have a couple credits like that but they aren't listed on wikipedia only on IMDB. I provided three TV.com links below. Every one of his credits can be substantiated there. I also found reviews of his stage work which I've included links to. I also took the time to watch his reel on his website. While his roles are small they are not extra roles and he does share scenes and has dialogue with actors Kiefer Sutherland, Sally Field etc...Again he's not the lead in these things but he isn't as several people have been quick to conclude an extra. The problem I see here with the discussions about actors is that non-actors appear to be doing the dissections. To simply snub someone or deem their work "weak keep" because they aren't big names that you recognize is wrong. I feel they should have a place on wikipedia. Dare I say it even extras. Wikipedia has it's own Star Wars wiki where even the smallest detail is listed about the smallest character on some far off remote location. Even if it's complete fiction. Nobody is saying "weak keep". "Get rid of that piece of information." That's what appears to me to be happening with this actor and other actors in general. Because you haven't heard of him or you didn't see the films he's been in because they played at remote festivals across the country or you missed his small role when it was on ABC, FOX, or NBC, it doesn't mean it was insignificant or not noteworthy. I propose having an ACTOR area in wikipedia. Similar to Star Wars. An area that includes even the apparent untouchables "THE EXTRAS". To me it would be cool to see a place where every film detail, no matter how small, was listed, just like that remote character or location in the "Star Wars" universe. For those more experienced on wikipedia how would I go about starting that? Here are the links I mentioned for this actor.

http://www.tv.com/ncis/angel-of-death/episode/1024416/summary.html?tag=ep_list;ep_title;23

http://www.tv.com/criminal-minds/the-tribe/episode/613539/summary.html?tag=ep_list;ep_title;15

http://www.tv.com/24/day-5-400-pm---500-pm/episode/638969/summary.html?tag=ep_list;ep_title;9

http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200110/msg00420.html

http://www.spock.com/q/%22american-conservatory-theater%22

http://www.badlit.com/?cat=11&paged=2

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/artsculture/reclaiming__of_the_shrew/Content?oid=283770 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.251.105 (talk)

I appreciate the effort you are making, some of your arguments don't work in regard to wikipedia. For instance, I believe you are talking about wookiepedia which is a wiki run on wikia and not in any way related to the wikipedia project. In fact you will find on-going debates right here at AfD about the notability of fictional characters. Currently there is no clear-cut consensus on the matter. If you would like to start an all actor wiki just visit wikia and sign up for an account. Now, in reference to your new sources, the first three are directory listings and no one is debating that this actor was actually on the episodes of the shows from the directory listings. I do assert that WP:N warrants non-trivial coverage by reliable third party sources. Spok is actually a search engine and I, personally, would be hard-pressed to even include it in the article should the article be kept. Also, The interesting people link appears to be an email correspondence, which is also outside of the scope of reliable sources. I would assert that Badlit and Eastbay are the best sources found so far, however I feel that the mentions are trivial as the articles are about projects in which Sky had starring roles, both of which fall far from both wide release cinema and broadway. If Sky has won an award, was profiled by a journalist for his body of work or it can be shown that he has had a significant guest starring role on a television series where his character was an important part of the plot I would gladly change my view.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 08:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the verifiability of TV.com, again it seems that there is a misunderstanding about where the data for tv.com comes from. TV.com also accepts data in the form of submission tv.com help center. Therefore I assert that it is not reliable as a means of establishing notability.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 08:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I definitely will look into starting an all actor wiki and I appreciate the insightful discourse. Here is a link to an award Sky won in Los Angeles for best actor at the Hollywood MiniDV film festival. http://www.digitalvideofestival.com/showcase.php?year=2003 Also his role in the Criminal Minds episode "The Tribe" was a guest starring role and integral to the plot. I have a question in regards to this. How does someone on wikipedia discern significant? He was not the guest lead in this episode but it was a significant role that was integral to the plot development. He played one of the two lead kidnappers thought to be the murderers in the episode. Same with his role in the NCIS episode "Angel of Death". Another guest starring role, integral to the plot but not the guest lead. What do you need to establish significance here? He has the actual footage on his demo reel on his website that you can watch if you missed the episodes.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Torchwood Who? (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Most of his acting credits are bit parts, but one, "Slip", has him near the top of the cast list. If he had only this movie, or only the other bit parts, I'd say delete, but since he's got a little of both, I'd call him borderline notable. The article definitely needs cleaned up, however. JeremyMcCracken (talk) 04:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Based on what's here and looking at his credits, I don't see a problem with keeping the article for now and allowing it to be expanded and sourced. I've no objection to it being renominated in, say, 6 months if it hasn't been improved as I agree it's a borderline case. Certainly we're not chasing any deadlines here. We have all the time in the world. 23skidoo (talk) 05:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. I don't think I'm going to assist in cleaning it since the creator feels I might have a conflict of interest, but I would like to see it cleaned if the result is keep.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 05:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think this is going to be a keeper based on the arguments above, but I'd like to note that I don't feel this fits the WP:N criteria. Most of the lengthy support seems to come from somebody who knows an awful lot about the acting world - I know there are a lot of actors who would envy the position that sky holds and the roles that he has played but I don't feel the significance is as deeply felt by those outside the business. BananaFiend (talk) 09:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be honored if Torchwoodwho would help clean up the article. I don't see it as a conflict of interest. I feel that through our continued conversation we have gotten past personal opinion and moved onto productive conversation regarding wikipedia guidelines. I did go to the link provided by Bananafriend.WP:N It was very clear.

The wikipedia guidelines regarding Actors are as follows.

Entertainers

Actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities:

Here are the criteria used to assess inclusion.

   * Has had significant roles or been featured multiple times in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions.
   * Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
   * Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.
         o See WP:MUSIC for guidelines on musicians, composers, groups, etc.

Sky Soleil has been featured multiple times in notable TV shows. It also states clearly in the notability section - "Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular" - although not irrelevant - is secondary." Secondary to having been featured multiple times. So when people state that Sky is just an extra or has only played bit parts, aside from being untrue it is not a valid reason for his deletion. If he hadn't appeared multiple times on notable TV shows that would be a reason, but he clearly has. I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here but I do feel people have been quick to make personal judgments about the career level of this actor and given the guidelines that should not be a basis for removal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.213.248.192 (talk) 00:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{talk to me} 17:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The problem I have with the above argument is that he wasn't "featured" but merely just "on". Under such an argument, if I had extremely minor (even walk-on) parts on the biggest shows in the country, I would be worthy of inclusion, simply because the shows were notable. As his parts weren't notable, being on the biggest television shows is not a valid reason for his inclusion, either. I realise that "fame" is a secondary thing, and that he hasn't had just small parts on television. But when I look at his body of work, I still don't think believe him to be worthy of inclusion. He hasn't had important or major roles. He hasn't significantly contributed to the art form in any way, although I do see he's directed a film. And I haven't seen proof of any cult following. Even if he's been on big shows, I don't think that's enough to justify a keep. SKS2K6 (talk) 21:42, 2 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, Torchwood Who? (talk) 10:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - some minor roles don't make him notable, but his award won in 2003 barely does. I'll add it to the article, including the source given above. Huon (talk) 12:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Aside from any other factor, has anyone noticed that this AfD has been relisted four times, three times by the nominator, and has dragged on for nearly a month? Either there is a consensus or there is not, and it sure seems not. At the best, this is process abuse -- is it proper at all for a nominator to relist his own AfD, even once? -- and some neutral admin should close this down immediately. RGTraynor 14:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI don't appreciate an accusation of process abuse, I'm just going by the special situations description [28]. The last time the AfD was relisted (not by me) there was one single comment with a bias toward deletion and the comment just prior to that relisting also had a bias toward deletion. The last listing happened 7 days ago. I'm basing the relist on the fact that no one has seen fit to close the AfD with any consensus or even no consensus and I think it springs from so many "weak keep" arguments. Now that this has been listed for the, I think fourth time, we're finally getting some clear keeps and I think someone will be able to close it out rather quickly. I'm of the opinion that it would've gotten closed out in the last round if the only comment hadn't been for deletion.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: The special situations section you cite specifies relisting if "not enough discussion occurs." Plainly, after the first relisting, with seven commentators, that was no longer the case. That no consensus was achieved often happens in AfDs, and in truth there's no consensus now. There are avenues to prod admins to close an overdue AfD beyond yet another relist which once again takes the AfD off the admins' radar. RGTraynor 16:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I interpret the special circumstance to mean enough discussion to form a consensus, not to reach a no consensus, but we should really stay on topic. If you'd like to discuss on my talk page I'm all ears.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - any WP:COI issues need to be addressed very quickly even if it means stubbing the page but, he does seem to have multiple appearances and be an "award" winner (even if at a minor festival). I also am wondering why the constant relisting is occuring. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC) Comment Oops.. spoke too soon. Already seems stubly. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject has won at least one major award. Barely passes notability guidelines. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 14:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:02, 9 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 (I then created a redirect) - Nabla (talk) 16:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brain Rules

Advert for a recently published book. (Or, if that don't work, how about original research?) -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no relevance of this book. --Abrech (talk) 10:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - shameless advertisement for non-notable book --Orange Mike | Talk 14:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - non-notable and blatant advertising. Dreamspy (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The book has a respectable Amazon.co.uk sales rank for a popsci text (61,211)[29] but doesn't seem to require more than a brief mention in the author's article. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to John Medina. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 23:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect to John Medina - no more content in need of merging. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 07:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted both as vandalism. Dloh cierekim 18:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cristina De Lorenzo

Article is self confessed nonsense, but creator contest CSD and wishes to keep the page, see talk page. Triwbe (talk) 08:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If it were a real novella, I could be tempted to vote keep. However the article says the novella was written in 2008, and the comment on the article talk page says it was written in the 80s. And the page blanking of this AfD hurts the article's case as well, as anti-AGF as that sounds. -- Kéiryn ^talk 08:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. I had no luck find sources on dogpile.com and some gems from the article about a character "based on" the author: "every song ever written is allegedly based on her", "Wrote the original draft of the Book of Genesis", "Has caught all 150 original Pokemon. Is still working on the new retarded ones", "A biography was made about her in 1965 based on her best selling memoir "Cristina De Lorenzo: The Uncensored Files". It was retitled "The Greatest Story Ever Told" and was played by Charlton Heston." etc. You should also check out the related article Christopher Hirano. Especially fun in that article's case is the "catch phrase" and where is he now sections... Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 09:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax and as per WP:MADEUP. --Bonadea (talk) 09:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can Christopher Hirano be included in this AfD or does it need its own? That article is part of the same hoax as this one. --Bonadea (talk) 09:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Done. Note edit warring over AFD tags. --Dhartung | Talk 09:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both If there were any sources, there could be an article. But it looks like this is just made up. --Minimaki (talk) 10:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both:, fails WP:V and certainly WP:BULLSHIT. Yeesh. And edit warring over AfD tags on this nonsense? That's block-worthy. Ravenswing 14:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per WP:NFT and salt due to the action of page creator and his suspected sockpuppets. The proclamations made in this are complete bollocks (wrote the original draft of Genesis, created the Earth with an Easy Bake Oven). This looks like it was madeup by someone while they were bored in school one day. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as hoax. Utter crap. Fictional or not, this is abuse of wikipedia and a waste of everyone's time. Tagged G3. DarkAudit (talk) 18:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom - total guff. Dreamspy (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus falls to delete. WP:FICT does apply, WP:SPINOUT seems a stretch without better explanation of why character is important or significant enough to spinout. Sheer bulk of writing isn't a good reason I think. Pigman☿ 01:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ree Woo

This article was previously prodded [30] in November and deleted. It was then tagged as speedy under A7 [31] in February, but according to the logs it was actually speedied under A1. It was then undeleted out of process yesterday, and the context was somewhat clarified.

A7 admittedly doesn't apply, since Ree Woo isn't a real person (although the version tagged doesn't make that clear). Nevertheless, it still seems to spectacularly fail WP:FICT. An applicable list of minor characters already exists at Tribulation Force (group), although the notability of that article also appears to be in question. Kéiryn ^talk 07:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Left Behind. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing here to merge. The Tribulation Force (group) article already has all the info it needs. Huon (talk) 12:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Left_Behind#Characters_in_Left_Behind.--Fabrictramp (talk) 15:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - non-notable. Dreamspy (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is a lot that can be written about this notable character. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This article has been massively expanded - please reconsider. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is definitely a lot more in the new version worthy of merging. It still seems to me though that this series has an inordinate number of articles on its characters. Comparing {{Harrypotter}} with {{Left Behind Characters}} seems to indicate that the latter has far more articles on its characters, when common sense says to me that it should be the other way around. I'm going to change my !vote to Merge, but I'm definitely stopping short of withdrawing the nomination. -- Kéiryn ^talk 03:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - But why should it be merged? --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:FICT by being entirely in-universe, with no references or evidence of real-world notability. Terraxos (talk) 04:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:FICT is no longer a guideline. This article may still fail WP:N, but I think it is an appropriate WP:SPINOUT and merging will make the main article too large. Ursasapien (talk) 07:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - while the article has been greatly expanded, we still don't have any sources. I doubt that secondary sources exist. Currently we have more info on Ree Woo than even the Left Behind website. We could transwiki the info to the Left Behind Wikia, but I don't see how we can keep it without anything resembling reliable, independent secondary sources. Huon (talk) 09:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Huon Dabbydabby (talk) 17:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ree Direct to Left Behind, since there are apparently still no secondary sources with which to write an article.

Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 20:19, 10 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 01:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Santon (Transformers)

Could not find any non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. Article is original research. Attempt to redirect was reverted. Beeblbrox (talk) 06:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC) Beeblbrox (talk) 06:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only has 7 lines of text. Aronzak (talk) 07:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's an anime character with a small page and picture, and several references. A semi-obscure fictional character with an appropriate page. Mathewignash (talk) 09:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is some (small) notability. The references on the page show that. AlbinoFerret (talk) 20:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All sources given are either fansites or directory listings, neither of which can't be used when determining notability. --Farix (Talk) 01:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This transformer appears in Beast Wars Second only. If this character appears in more series (japanese and american series), I vote Keep. But, I don't. I suggest merge into list of Beast Wars Second transformers. Zero Kitsune (talk) 04:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:FICT with no evidence of real-world notability, and no coverage from anything that could fairly be described as a reliable source. This is nonetheless better referenced than 90% of Transformers articles I've seen, but that just means there are a lot of them out there that ought to be deleted. Terraxos (talk) 04:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:FICT. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Non-notable album. Rudget 17:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last Stop: Crappy Town

Per WP:MUSIC, "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." I do not see significant independent coverage of this album in my own Google search - just one minor one. Will withdraw AfD nom if significant references can be provided. Tan | 39 06:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More detailed info on this album here: http://www.altpress.com/news/index.htm#3743 Zeropunk16 (talk) 06:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:V. I'm afraid a blog post on a site where anyone can "submit a tip" doesn't qualify as a reliable source enough to get past WP:CRYSTAL. RGTraynor 14:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - non-notable. Dreamspy (talk) 18:18, 9 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) 17:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bhakti Sundar Govinda Maharaj

Non notable local leader with no Wikipedia:Reliable sources and does not meet the standards of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 06:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable local religious leader with no reliable sources. Ism schism (talk) 06:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 5390 Google hits. I am also concerned, in the case of Indian religious figures, that it may be harder for us to truly gauge their notability than Western religious figures due to both Internet penetration concerns and also language & culture issues. That said, I am open to being convinced that this guy isn't really notable. --SJK (talk) 06:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: I'd really hate to make a case that India lacks Internet-savvy or penetration; like many others, my company outsources its IT to Bangalore. Ravenswing 14:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 07:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 06:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - non-notable religious dude. Dreamspy (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless evidence of notability in independent reliable sources is provided. The WP:RS policy applies to Indian religious figures as much as anyone else. Terraxos (talk) 04:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are no independent reliable sources that are needed to establish notability. I have also Prod'ed the Sridhar Maharaj page, which is unreferenced since Jan. 2006. Abecedare (talk) 21:02, 10 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 Snow-ball close deletion as something made up. Speedily deleting as vandalism if no one beats me to it. Dloh cierekim 16:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Schleupner

Obvious hoax. Should speedy delete. Tan | 39 06:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete -- hoax. Xdenizen (talk) 06:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Amusing story, but probably a hoax. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax. But darned if I don't want to play the videogame. --Dhartung | Talk 09:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as obvious hoax. Author is User:Matthewschluepner as his only edit. DarkAudit (talk) 13:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:HOAX created by a similarly named user which would make it a WP:COI if the contents weren't complete bollocks Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If any admins wander by here, this might be a WP:SNOW delete close. This AfD was sort of a formality, as hoaxes aren't technically speedyable. Tan | 39 16:12, 9 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 S-Keep. Improper nomination. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 07:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum-Football

If this page is just going to be used as a platform for vandilizem, it might as well not be here. Diverman2008 (talk) 06:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A decent article, though it could use some improvements. Just because it gets vandalized like every other article on Wikipedia at times doesn't mean it needs to be deleted. Jmlk 1 7 06:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: That's not a reason for delation. Just watchlist the article, and ask some other editors to do the same. Redrocket (talk) 06:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It would be a decent article yes if people would leave it alone. If it were a once in a blue moon problem I would aggree with Jmlk, however, it's a continual problem and includes personal attacks. At that point it does more harm than anything else. Thank you for your opinions. --Diverman2008 (talk) 06:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and Close invalid reason for nomination. Vandalism is not a reason to delete. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 06:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, I agree with Daniel J. Leivick. Also, encouraging others to watchlist the article and watch it for vandalism is a far better idea than deleting it. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 06:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Vandal magnet is reason for protection, not deletion. Doczilla _STOMP! 06:30, 9 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 withdrawn. Non-admin close. Jfire (talk) 07:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ranat ek

Comment - Articles may not be copied from elsewhere; they must be written from scratch. However, don't delete it; I'll rewrite it. It's basically the national instrument of Thailand. Badagnani (talk) 06:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. If the editor who created the article copied text from elsewhere, it's simply because s/he is new; simply send him/her a message about this to avoid any future problems. Badagnani (talk) 06:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks, I make some of thai instrument and all i copy and paste please rewrite it Thanks again —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manzzzz (talk • contribs) 06:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn Thanks all. (EhJJ)^TALK 06:12, 9 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. I redirected the article to Trioxin (Return of the Living Dead), which already contains all the content of this article, and is a more appropriate location than the general film series article.--ragesoss (talk) 02:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darrow Chemical Company (Return of the Living Dead)

Delete article about fictional company in Return of the Living Dead. The fictional company is not notable enough to warrant its own article. Content is redundant to articles about the film series. Doczilla _STOMP! 05:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the film series article and try to clarify how the company has had a role in each film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of real-world notability. Terraxos (talk) 04:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Erik. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 02:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge. I merged the content to Trioxin (Return of the Living Dead), which seemed a more appropriate location than the general film series article.--ragesoss (talk) 03:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel Horace Glover (Return of the Living Dead)

Delete article about character with insufficient notability. Content of article is redundant to other articles. Doczilla _STOMP! 05:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the film series article and perhaps establish a "Recurring cast" section for characters who appeared throughout the films besides this one. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable fictional character, or possibly merge if there is an appropriate place to do so. Terraxos (talk) 04:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Erik. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 02:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Count Mospak

Hmm. I can't find any reference whatsoever to this title on Google, Google Books, Google Scholar, or the entire historical archive of Google News. Is it WP:HOAX? It certainly appears to be WP:AUTO and WP:COI and WP:Single-purpose account, and there are no WP:RS of any sort. Without any indication that this both exists and is notable, there isn't any option but to delete. Qworty (talk) 05:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is clearly a hoax --Adamfinmo (talk) 08:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - obvious hoax. Dreamspy (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess I missed your knighting Andrew! Here you have it, You are a spoof!! By the way, Roman did well in writing your article and best regards, see you in Poland. S —Preceding unsigned comment added by Graf stefan (talk • contribs) 00:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC) — Graf stefan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
This is far from a hoax as some have noted. Orthodox titles as well as "land grants" of historical lands as well as current are in our time awarded and recorded by proper agents of office. Perhaps each who question His Grace would like to offer proof of their patents?Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Count_Mospak" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mospak (talk • contribs) 00:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC) — Mospak (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I think the responsibility lies with 'His Grace' to provide proof that his title actually exists, which this article doesn't so far. Delete unless actual references to reliable sources are provided. Terraxos (talk) 04:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is fair to ask and seek what is true. It is something else to take away One's honors that have been earned. The proper links to His Holiness are included in said article. To take away from what this great office has added remains nothing short of insult. Again, provide your patents or drop your pointless insults.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Count_Mospak" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mospak (talk • contribs) 00:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hoax. Proof: [32]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His Grace has nothing to do with those companies. Infact, He resides in the U.S. What he is asking for is you the reader to 1) write to the Holy Bishop so that the Bishop will confirm his corination and 2) show your letter of patent as frankly unless you are a member of nobility you have no idea what you are speaking of. I say this with respect and no harsh tone. Best regards and truely, contact Mar Frederick, His Grace simply wants to help others and his web site is under way. S —Preceding unsigned comment added by Graf stefan (talk • contribs) 01:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hoax. No WP:RS - none of the links provide any confirmation. JohnCD (talk) 11:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Obvious hoax, which the links do not support. Edward321 (talk) 18:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noggin Toboggan

This band appears to be non-notable; tagged as such since May 2007. One or two short album reviews of questionable reliability can be found, but nothing substantial. They don't look to meet any of the other criteria of WP:MUSIC. Jfire (talk) 04:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Xdenizen (talk) 04:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd say speedy, but there are some vague assertions of notability. But nowhere near meeting WP:BAND Bfigura ^(talk) 05:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - non-notable. Dreamspy (talk) 18:21, 9 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. Malformed title not appropriate for a redirect to the author. Sandstein (talk) 06:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Urban form in the Arab world : past and present

Non-notable book, nothing (reliable) on google after performing a search. Authour is un-notable and fails WP:BIO. Fails WP:RS as well Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 04:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, copy vio. (EhJJ)^TALK 04:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No speedy for copyvio, wording is now quite different from the Amazon review [33]. Found one independent review from an academic journal. More may exist, haven't looked too thoroughly yet. cab (talk) 05:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete routine academic books--the material cited arent enough for notability. contributes to the notability of the author, but not notable separately. DGG (talk) 01:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas William Lofthouse

I declined an A7 speedy based on claims that the subject was instrumental in the runup to D-Day, comments about multiple decorations, and additional claims that he participated in the 'Hole in the Wall' plan. While none of these are necessarily claims to notability in and of themselves (and, in fact, they seem to be contradicted by the subject's position as an Apprentice Engineer), I felt that it was enough to warrant a procedural AfD in the hopes of getting further commentary and insight. jonny-m t 04:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Many claims, nothing offered to back any of them up. Notability is not inherited, so one claim of notability is out right there. Three ghits for "Thomas William Lofthouse" (in quotes). One the wikipedia article, second the CSD page, and third an unrelated family web page. Nothing on that third page mentions any of the accomplishments claimed in the article. DarkAudit (talk) 04:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A broad search of several databases turned up nothing indicating notability. Assuming this is a real soldier who served with distinction, that is by itself not notability. --Dhartung | Talk 05:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Quite aside from a complete failure of WP:V, even if this fellow (a) does exist, (b) was "instrumental" in the run up to D-Day and (c) was multiply decorated, that describes tens of thousands of soldiers in WWII. No doubt a lot of them had ancestors who did something marginally notable, too. RGTraynor 15:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - non-notable and unsourced and unreferenced. Dreamspy (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For all I know, he might be notable, but without some specifics and some sources of information, how can we possibly tell. Vague assertions that someone is important do not justify a keep. Declining the speedy was reasonable, but endorsing it also might have beenDGG (talk) 22:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Autoparts

Non-notable automotive parts shop. Tagged for notability and sources since September. Google search found lots of hits, but mostly of the business directory kind. Nothing that would pass WP:N, WP:CORP, or WP:RS. Same or even less for Google news. DarkAudit (talk) 04:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Fails many things such as WP:NOTE, WP:N, WP:CORP, and WP:RS.--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 04:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like pure advertising. Since it was tagged for notability and sources for such a long time without any success, deletion seems the right step now. --Abrech (talk) 10:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as non-notable company. Terraxos (talk) 04:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not place for advertisement. Zero Kitsune (talk) 04:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Franks (band)

Non-notable band page created by a WP:Single-purpose account that has been aggressive about deleting the notability tag. This band fails WP:Music. Most of their potential notability is based on the assertion that an album will be released next year. Qworty (talk) 04:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails this. Speedy delete perhaps? Xdenizen (talk) 05:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: According to the Wikipedia: Notability (Music), A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: 9. Has won or placed in a major music competition. Surely the Glastonbury New Talent competition, as pretigious as it is, constitutes a 'major music competition'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beenie2000 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 10 April 2008
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. The "major" music competition isn't in itself notable. Lugnuts (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - non-notable. Dreamspy (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, n.n. at this stage. tomasz. 16:37, 12 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. Unnecessary page, content already exists on Talk:Church management software anyway. Merge from there. Rudget 18:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of church management software

AfDs for this article:

Speedy deletion per G11 overturned at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 4 with consensus to relist. Procedural nomination, so no opinion. Daniel (talk) 03:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:SPAM definitely, WP:OR probably. Xdenizen (talk) 04:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertizing. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not advertising or spam, as we have several pages of this type and I think it is absolutely fine to include pricing information in such an article as that is a fine comparison metric. However, none of the linked to content seems notable. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Less than blatant aggregated spamvertising. (Ex: "Easy to use" "Contact us for pricing"). Also, as Celanor says, all this for NN software. --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Comparison of X" articles should generally be restricted to comparing subjects which we cover. Not a one of these software packages has an article (Nativity is a false link), so a comparison is premature. We do have an article on church management software, but it doesn't mention any of them - indeed, it's only four sentences long. If any of the contributors are still around, their efforts should probably be directed at improving that article first. Zetawoof_(ζ) 05:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think that an article containing a list of church management software might be of encyclopedic relevance and worth keeping. As long as the article is neutral, I would see no advertising problem. Maybe it would be possible to integrate the article in the other article on church management software? --Abrech (talk) 10:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The head article on church management software is a borderline deletion candidate to begin with; it is essentially a stub made of vague and obvious platitudes, and essentially says that church management software is just like any other non-profit management software. It isn't strongly supported by its given references, either; they seem to be more about electronic Bibles and hymnals than about office software. We don't need a list article full of redlinks that invite the creation of pages about a whole slew of non-consumer, non-notable management software packages. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. That article is now up for deletion. Anturiaethwr (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As original research. Taemyr (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not Choice magazine. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete thinly disguised advert. Pegasus «C¦T» 06:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Church management software--Rtphokie (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into church management software which is also up for deletion but is a considerablt more meaningful article than this one. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 05:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The problem is that the interesting parts of this comparison, ease of use and quality of customer support, is OR. Removing that and there is not much left to merge. Taemyr (talk) 09:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is enough to mention the more notable software. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 13:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into church management software, all software category articles contain comparison charts. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mr. Norton. It seems to be a notable category of software; there just isn't a reason to have the two pages seperate. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into church management software - some useful sourced content that would enhance that page. BlueValour (talk) 19:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 03:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of cards in Dinosaur King

Non-notable list of every card in the Dinosaur King card game. Fails WP:NOT#INFO, WP:N, WP:LISTCRUFT. No salvageable content for a merge into the Dinosaur King article, which already has an adequate (does need cleanup though) description of the card game. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, listcruft and non-notable trivia. KleenupKrew (talk) 03:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and because Wikipedia is not a game guide Collectonian (talk) 04:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Collectonian (talk) 04:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? This is an article about an arcade game. Isn't there a deletion page for the CVG project? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.95.231 (talk) 10:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaur King is a card game, not an arcade game, and an anime series is based on the card game, hence it also being relevant to the anime project. Collectonian (talk) 13:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - was just creating it to clean up the Dinosaur King article. Simply south (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Instead of shoving deletable material to other articles, the deletable material should be removed. :) WhisperToMe (talk) 17:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - non-notable. Dreamspy (talk) 18:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete content and then redirect to prevent recreation WhisperToMe (talk) 21:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you unpack that a little? How does a redirect prevent someone from recreating it? —Quasirandom (talk) 03:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming they either meant "protect to prevent recreation", or was thinking of a protected redirect. Delete; this isn't notable enough, and there's not much point in a redirect. Articles aren't usually protected from recreation unless there have been problems; if it were to be, a redirect wouldn't be necessary to protect it. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:49, 10 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) 17:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Public Good Project

Two Seattle anti-militia activists and their website, not a notable enough subject for an encyclopedia article. Article reads like a promo. Delete. KleenupKrew (talk) 03:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The organisation does not appear to fulfil the notability criteria. Its publications have been cited in reports but that does not establish any notability in itself, and there is no mention of the organisation being influential or well-known. Although there are sources cited in the article, none of them indicate coverage in independent sources. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 23:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Taber is no longer in Seattle. He's in the SF Bay Area, most recently investigating New College of California with a team of local researchers. There's also an IT guy with Public Good. Public Good is covered in independent sources,which need to be cited in this article. The article needs work, not deletion.24.130.184.81 (talk) 19:42, 10 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. SorryGuy Talk 18:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hank Green

AfDs for this article:

I've had this bio of an internet 'celeb' watchlisted for a while, and I can't make head or tail of it still. I'm pretty sure this is non-notable. ~Eliz81 ^(C) 03:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEPHank Green is a published writer who has made contributions several times to reputable publications such as Mental Floss and The New York Times (The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.), and he has also appeared on the Weather Channel. (Has had significant roles or been featured multiple times in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions.), therefore meeting notability requirements. Also he and his brother have appeared on NPR. Also quaintly perfectly fine articles such as the one for Nanosolar cite ecogeek.org, the website that Hank Green has founded, as a source.I will update the page with sources. Also, he definitely has a "large fan base or significant cult following" on youtube, his videos regularly garner tens of thousands of views. Theonejanitor (talk) 12:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC) — Theonejanitor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ~Eliz81 ^(C) 02:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^in response to the above tagging as me being a "single purpose account". I am certainly not new to wikipedia, I registered this account a year or more ago. Also I have edited many many pages, and have created one myself. Try to dispute content, and not the user. Theonejanitor (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the first time. All the information appears to come from the source himself and his videoblogs. Though it's likely more or less true, the vlogs are very humorous in tone, and so who knows what may have been intended as a joke. Without being able to verify this information in reliable sources I can't see how it stays. The amount of verifiable information is at most a paragraph. Has these blogs, is John Green's brother, is about the extent of it and I don't see that making much of an encyclopedia article. I don't remember the old version exactly, but this is possible speediable under CSD#G4, as this new version doesn't address the problems from last time. --JayHenry (talk) 03:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable blogger. KleenupKrew (talk) 03:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article creator is an SPA. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable.--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 04:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - non-notable. Dreamspy (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Hank and his brother John are both reputable writers, Hank may not have yet enjoyed the same mainstream success but that doesn't make him any less awesome. this entry isn't hurting anyone let it go. Hank Green is worthy of an entry even without his youtube celebrity, he is a noted environmentalist and as such deserves to be know. user:ALink — 76.83.105.251 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ~Eliz81 ^(C) 02:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The page is being worked on. The resources are all there, I just cannot figure out how to get them on the page. If someone could help me with that, the issue could swiftly be resolved. Also this is not being written or edited by Hank Green himself, I assure you. I realise the article is somewhat empty as of right now, but his notability is undeniable. He is not just "that youtube guy" He has been published in such notible sources as the NY Times and Mental Floss. He has also created one of the top five most popular eco-blogs of this time, and he played a part in an international movement, the Nerdfighters. While some may trivialise this, Nerdfighters have done for dorks what myspace did for high school students. So it is very notable. 7:26, 16 April 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by DFTBA1 (talk • contribs) — DFTBA1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ~Eliz81 ^(C) 02:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Hank has now been written about in the Wall Street Journal, featured on NPR's All Things Considered, and profiled in many different magazines. I think it's hard to argue at this point that there aren't enough sources attesting to his notability. (I would update the page myself with references to the profiles, but I am still learning wiki coding.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.252.236.80 (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC) — 69.252.238.80 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ~Eliz81 ^(C) 02:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only thing that might be solid is the NYTimes, and it's just that they included him in a group interview--that is not enough for notability DGG (talk) 03:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SorryGuy Talk 18:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Wrestling Report

Unsourced article of dubious notability, the article contains some extreme claims these are not supported by third party sources. Given the creator seems to be a single purpose account and only editor there is also a case to be made for a conflict of interest. –– Lid^(Talk) 03:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertisement, OR and no notability. Hard to believe that a show that is only available on teh Internets and on Milwaukee cable TV is "the world's most watched pro wrestling program". KleenupKrew (talk) 03:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Judging by how many g-hits are discussions of the show, it seems to circulate in the wrestling fandom world. I'm not totally convinced either way. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'd be hard-pressed to figure that 47 unique G-hits were evidence of any measure of circulation. Obviously there is a small handful of fanboys who care about this vblog, but that's not remotely enough to pass WP:WEB or meet WP:V. RGTraynor 15:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless coverage in reliable sources is provided to show notability. Terraxos (talk) 02:43, 10 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 Accusations of sockpuppetry aside (four of the single-purpose accounts have been checkuser-confirmed to be related), most "Keep" votes have no relation to the deletion policy. Those that do were soundly countered by those in favor of deletion. With no reliable sources, there is nothing to meet WP:BIO. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Chacon

AfDs for this article:

Most of the claims made in the article are dubious. Chacon does exist, and has appeared on a few TV shows, but the article seems to be exaggerating his accomplishments. There's no solid evidence that he has investigated "thousands of cases of paranormal phenomena"; all the article has for support are IMDB and some amateurish websites. Because I said so. (talk) 02:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC) — Because I said so. (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Sources aren't very reliable at all (especially not the comcast.net link); none of the claims are really backed up by any reliable sources, and I couldn't find any good sources in a search. (This isn't very relevant, but I find it interesting that this AfD is the user's first edit. Long time lurker perhaps?) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do have some Wikipedia experience under my belt, but my interactions with "paranormal investigators" have always been stressful, so I didn't want to use my established account. Because I said so. (talk) 03:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am a journalist and have been in the process of doing an article on Chacon, as well as several other researchers. I have spent the last two months following-up on the information and sources in the article and after some exhaustive work, have found them all to be accurate. The majority of solid supportable data is in publications that are not yet accessible by the internet or on multi-media sources (TV and radio interviews), but do support the information in the article. In further conducting interviews with individuals and companies he has worked with, as well as his own legal representation, the information was further corroborated as accurate. I have encountered significantly more questionable articles on Wikipedia than this one and see no reason why this article should be changed, let alone deleted. If the only issue is "the number of cases he has been on", (and may I point out that even doctors who are listed on Wikipedia who have clearly seen thousands of patients have no practical logical way of listing them all on here or of proving such a statement), then perhaps we could simply edit the article so it reads "He investigates cases" and remove any reference to the "thousands". I suggest NOT to delete this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scientific Resources (talk • contribs) 04:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC) — Scientific Resources (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Could you list these publications? Even if they aren't available online, one could find them in a library. Because I said so. (talk) 04:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This information should be merged into the article for the show. Beware though, this afd was started by an admitted sock puppet diff and the other comment comes from a suspected sock puppet.--Adamfinmo (talk) 08:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Well, he does have some notability through Psi Factor: Chronicles of the Paranormal - but as the nomination says, sources are IMDB and fansites and so on only. An old version of the article cites some different sources - I couldn't find any of them nor a reason why they got removed from the article, but maybe someone has a way to check them and see if they are more than trivial mentions and can be used as reliable sources. Else I guess there's no way to have an article except for a stub about his role in the show, and as per Adamfinmo the show's article is a better place for that. --Minimaki (talk) 12:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I have stated above, I have followed-up on all the sources and have verified the 'information' in the article to be accurate. If desired, I could list each of the web-links here to show that the sites are not just simple "fan sites" as stated and are clearly substantial articles substantiating Chacon. I am in the process of gathering all the publications and TV news programs that I am using in my magazine article which corroborate this Wikipedia article. Among them is "National Geographic Explorer" TV episode which describes Chacon in almost the same manner as written in this article and also states that he has investigated thousands of cases. Clearly, as prestigious and well-respected organization as National Geographic would have certainly done their background research to have made these statements on the show. Among the publications includes an article from The Writers Guild of America Journal which also states many of the same claims as in this Wikipedia article. I should point out that it appears this article was reviewed/assessed and accepted as a Wikipedia article quite some time ago and so I am a bit curious why after being accepted by several other editors over a year ago is it now being re-reviewed. I feel Chacon's article should NOT be deleted because its sources are authentic and should NOT be merged with the TV show he worked-on because this article is primarily a 'bio overview' of Chacon who does not appear to only work in TV.Scientific Resources (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: When all is said and done, if reliable sources about Mr. Chacon do not exist, then he is not notable enough for Wikipedia. What elements of WP:BIO does this fellow pass? Ravenswing 15:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article that survived AFD had newspaper sources, which seem to have been removed in favor of websites. Because I said so. (talk) 00:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~(2nd vote deleted) I was able to directly communicate with the majority of individuals who authored the below articles to confirm and authenticate their information and stories. The majority of them interviewed Chacon directly and further confirmed his background and information with such credible individuals and organizations such as Dr. Peter Sturrock and Bernard Haisch with The Society for Scientific Exploration. Here are a few of the articles: "Latinola" Hollywood article, review/interview of LA Latino Film Festival lecture: http://www.latinola.com/story.php?story=4009 above article also listed at La Prensa San Diego Publication: http://www.laprensa-sandiego.org/archieve/2007/march30-07/darkside.htm About.com's article: http://paranormal.about.com/od/paranormalgeneralinfo/a/aa073106.htm Old WGA Journal Article: http://writtenbystemper.angelfire.com/ Old LA Weekly Article: http://hollywoodsgettingrealabouttheparanormal.weebly.com/ "Paranormal Frontier" website "Investigator Info": http://www.paranormalfrontier.com/topinvst.htm "World's Most Haunted" website "Investigator Info": http://www.worldsmosthaunted.com/Experts.htm IMDB Information: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1317666/bio further corroborated by Movietome website: http://www.movietome.com/people/49302/christopher-chacon/bio.html "Travel Lady" Article on Haunted Hotels: http://www.travellady.com/ARTICLES/article-hauntedhotels.html "Unexplained Mysteries" website article: http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/viewnews.php?id=69619 I could also list the TV news magazine stories/interviews, but for the sake of keeping this streamlined, will not list them for now. I respectfully feel this article should NOT be deleted and simply keep it as it currently is published.Scientific Resources (talk) 16:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These sources just bring up more questions. I mean, listen to this, from the last link: "Chacon has encountered poltergeist and haunt phenomena that have ripped through walls, slamming anything it encounters to the ground. He has pursued an unknown biped creature twice the size of a human that charged through the jungle at over 60 miles per hour. He has dealt with a volatile demonic possession of an ancient Samarian entity that killed several people by mutilation before being contained. He has encountered an entire village that was experiencing a time-distortion anomaly. He was successful in capturing an individual who was using super-powered psychokinetic abilities to kill people. Chacon is one of the only scientific researchers in the world whose expertise allows him to investigate every type of paranormal phenomena imaginable." That's quite an impressive list of accomplishments. He sounds like a superhero or something. But if he's really achieved so much, then why must one dig through the corners of the internet to find any information about him? Why hasn't this guy been on the cover of Time Magazine, or some other mainstream publication? Because I said so. (talk) 00:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - non-notable. Dreamspy (talk) 18:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~(3rd vote deleted) I cannot speak for the creative interpretation of each journalist who wrote these articles. Since all that was required is that various and credible sources be referenced, I found these and directly communicated with each author in order to confirm their credibility. Each of these articles was used by a credible and legitimate group/organization (i.e. the Latinola Hollywood article was in connection to a lecture Chacon gave at the Los Angeles Latino Film Festival, a legitimate event with confirmable sources). Again, I did not originally create this article, but based on the application and connection of each article to a credible group or website, based on the credible authors who independently wrote each article and lastly and based on the fact that Chacon was the Creator/Executive Producer of a multi-million dollar TV series (not to mention has been interviewed by credible TV new/magazine shows like Eye to Eye with Connie Chung, The Tom Snyder Show, Unsolved Mysteries and NBC Network News, just to name a few), I must give-way to the overwhelming practical facts that weigh toward the credibility of this article and sincerely feel it should NOT be deleted and remain intact and unchanged.Scientific Resources (talk) 01:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please use the comment heading when adding further comments. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 03:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lets firstly consider the undisputable facts in this article: 1.) Chacon is a real person. 2.) He is a

reputable individual in the entertainment industry, having created, written and produced for TV. 3.) Chacon is involved with researching paranormal phenomena (whether he is regarded as an “expert” or not is irrelevant since it is a relative term and many of the web-articles and TV appearances consider him an “expert” and therefore has the right to use the term). Taking into account these three simple facts alone, this article should remain and not be deleted. Irrelevant to who wrote the articles on other websites and whether “all the facts” in those articles are accurate, the common denominators between all sources are the three facts I just pointed out. Because Wikipedia cannot stream or post video data from other mediums, specifically news or TV programs, means that those sources cannot be readily accessed, however, that does not mean that they cannot be used as a credible sources (if we cannot use NBC Network News as a fact source, than what can we use?). That being said, the additional fact that Chacon has been featured on numerous credible TV news and magazine programs, should add considerable credibility to him and his involvement in the researching of paranormal phenomena. This should be taken into account when considering this article.

After reviewing all the previous discussions, I’m quite honestly having some difficulty in understanding why this person’s article is getting so much attention. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to see that Chacon is being recognized by other TV and website sources as a credible expert, even if Wikipedia editors don’t acknowledge it. I have encountered many other articles on Wikipedia that are more questionable, have more issues and in much more need of attention then this one. I think my points referenced herein strongly recommend, once and for all, to keep this article and either leave it just as it is or revise it so that the “wording” meets with everyone’s requirements (if that is actually possible).JusTheFacts (talk) 06:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC) — JusTheFacts (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I'd like to know exactly what these television programs said about Chacon. Many transcripts are available from Lexis-Nexis, so if you could provide some specifics, that would be great. Because I said so. (talk) 06:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If Chacon has not been the subject of non-trivial coverage by independent reliable sources, then there is no proof of notability - and no way we can write an encyclopaedic article about him. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 20:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lexis-Nexis might have some of the transcripts of these news programs, however, you need to be a subscriber to their services to access their database and I for one am not going to spend any money just to research sources on a Wikipedia article. I do however, personally remember seeing Chacon on one or two episodes of “Unsolved Mysteries”, a live news broadcast on KCAL Channel 9 News in LA and a couple of episodes of a series titled, “Sightings”, all featuring him as “a paranormal expert” and using his “scientific methods” to analyze cases of reported phenomena. I also recall that each intro to Chacon included the claimer that “he has investigated thousands of cases”. Obviously, none of these TV news/magazine programs are going to feature someone who is not a credible expert, so by reason of their utilization of Chacon, he must logically be regarded as a legitimate and credible professional in his field, at least according to all these news and TV programs, as well as the authors of each website. Taking into account all the information and sources and Chacon's credibility, the article has enough supporting sources to confirm it legitimate. I vote to “KEEP” this article.Wippersnapper (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC) — Wippersnapper (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: The notion that TV programs only host credible and legitimate professionals is a giggler, I must admit. That aside, where are the reliable sources? Ravenswing 19:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm glad you made that statement, since it brings us back to the primary reason we are even commenting on this article. You asked for “reliable sources”, but when you get right down to it, based on what you are implying in your response, there really are no such thing as reliable sources. Aside from all the other TV programs, if you do not consider “NBC Network News” as a reliable source, than how can you consider any source as reliable. Granted, there's no way of reading the transcripts from that old news report on the internet, but the facts remain that Chacon was featured on this news report, as well as many other news and magazine programs. And if you do not consider the Writers Guild of America Journal article, the IMDB Information and Bio or even the colorful lecture review from La Prensa San Diego Newspaper on Chacon’s lecture at LALIFF, as reliable sources, than I ask again, how can you consider any source as reliable? After reading the source articles in Chacon’s bio/article, as well as the various articles listed above in ScientificResources comment, I found that the total collection of all information warrants a degree of legitimacy to Chacon’s bio/article. I empathize with your scrutiny, after all, New York Times in recent years has proven that ‘reliability’ with information can be compromised at every level, but in taking this stance, aren’t we creating a massive slippery slope that will eventually result in the ongoing questioning of every article, no matter where the sources originate from? Based on your approach, all sources are questionable in one way or another which implies that this article, and for that matter, ALL ARTICLES, including those that have been previously accepted should all be reconsidered for deletion. Even if we were to personally contact the authors of each of the articles and the producers of each TV show and personally get them to confirm the validity of the information, how can we be “absolutely certain” of them or their own interpretation of the information? As much as Wikipedia is suppose to be about the “facts”, we have to at some point give some degree of the benefit of doubt to the writer of an article, which is exactly why every article has its sources listed at the bottom, so that the reader can gauge on their own the validity of the information listed. There really isn’t much to Chacon’s article as it is, let alone any claims that can be considered outrageously questionable. I still strongly vote to keep this article.Wippersnapper (talk) 02:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: If you would like to debate what kind of sources fit Wikipedia policy, there are talk pages at WP:V and WP:RS where you can do that; feel free. As far as anything else goes, WP:V requires that every assertion "challenged or likely to be challenged" be sourced by a reliable source. None of the sources you have listed are; they are a series of web-only blog posts, without any notion that they were ever published by publications with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, as is required. You've given no verifiable evidence that Chacon actually was featured on NBC Network News, nor do we know if the website article claiming to be from the WGA Journal actually was. And so on. Ravenswing 15:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see the big deal here. The article and sources seem acceptable to me. Its been posted on here for over a year with no issues. Lets move on.1WikiEnforcer (talk) 18:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC) — 1WikiEnforcer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Very interesting and articulate discussion over this article. After thoroughly checking-out the sources and looking over the actual posted article, I'm fine with it and also think it should just stay as is.T A Watson (talk) 21:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC) — T A Watson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment There certainly are a lot of SPAs who claim to have have checked out the article sources. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What? Should I have not made a comment?T A Watson (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You are most welcome to make a comment. Just bear in mind that the admin who closes this AfD may put less weight on your opinion when they see your contribution record. For maximum effectiveness, you should make an argument based on Wikipedia's deletion policy. Arguments based on our policies of verifiability and notability also tend to carry more weight. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 03:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drognahalla

Prod contested and removed. This article falls under WP:CRYSTAL as there is no reliable coverage in second/third party sources. [34] or [35] Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 02:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 02:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Author is a red link, and there are no sources about the book yet. Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:BK as a result. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note - There might be a potential WP:COI issue given the last name of the article creator. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 03:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Xdenizen (talk) 03:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "... is expected to be submitted by early to late summer 2008" kinda says it all: it's not even sold yet, let alone published. Does not meet the notability guidelines for books. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danyael Williams

Self-promotional page from non-notable musician who fails WP:MUSIC. Major WP:AUTO and WP:COI problems here too, of course. Qworty (talk) 02:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. May also fail WP:NOTE by the way.--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 04:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article dresses things up with descriptions of associations to other artists, but does not actually make any strong claim to notability. There are no reliable sources provided, and none can be found in searching. -- Whpq (talk) 12:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - tries hard to look notable but just isn't. Dreamspy (talk) 18:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - user who created the page is Danyaels and it looks a lot like an autobiography that tries to make himself seem really important even though no sources are there to say that he is notable. --Bobianite (talk) 05:21, 11 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 after all. Non-admin closure. Zetawoof_(ζ) 04:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timer Virus

It is a malicious hoax Chris the speller (talk) 01:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a malicious hoax, then Speedy delete G3 as that's what we do with malicious hoaxes. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's a better way to handle it. I have adjusted WP:HOAX, which discouraged the use of speedy deletions for all hoaxes, which was at variance with WP:SPEEDY. Chris the speller (talk) 02:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case the speedy deletion fails, strong delete as unreferenced nonsense. Zetawoof_(ζ) 04:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it's gone. Zetawoof_(ζ) 04:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of New South Wales Police killed in the line of duty

Memorial page. If any of the incidents themselves are notable, we should write articles for them, and could potentially have a "List of incidents in which NSW police officers dies in the line of duty", as it stands, this page is just a memorial. -- Mark Chovain 01:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC) -- Mark Chovain 01:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - delete per nomination. Xdenizen (talk) 01:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial. KleenupKrew (talk) 02:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 02:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Fairly clear precendents have been set regarding articles such as this. There is a link to the police honour roll included in this article, the appropriate location for this material. Perhaps the link could be included in the New South Wales Police Force article -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge reference to appropriate article and delete. Wikipedia isn't a memorial, but we shouldn't delete viable references. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I created the list to unclutter the parent page on the NSW Police. As Mattinbgn said, I place a link on the parent page. Journeyman (talk) 03:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#MEMORIAL Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 13:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Lord Foppington (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - non-notable. Dreamspy (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete As before wikipedia is not a memorial site, but a merge would be good to but it would make no sense at all.Pookeo9 ^{Say What you Want} —Preceding comment was added at 21:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only thing to include in the other article is the link to the honor role, at the most. As all police forces have them a link to the main web site would quite possibly be enough by itself. DGG (talk) 03:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as pointed out before, Wikipedia is not a memorial. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: per WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom -bdude the duck (talk) 03:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete by User:East718 per BLP concerns. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mulberry cheerleader beating

Non-notable subject, just because an incident receives media coverage doesn't mean it's notable per WP:NOT#NEWS. There are concerns that minors are named in the article. Article was previously tagged for speedy deletion. Xdenizen (talk) 01:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for BLP concerns, and this one incident and the resulting news coverage does not warrant an article on here. ~Eliz81 ^(C) 01:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at this point, unless such a significant body of press coverage turns this into a phenomenon such that there would be an expectation for there to be encyclopedic coverage. Few true crime type stories ever get to this point. We're talking JonBenet Ramsey territory. Anything less isn't notable. Erechtheus (talk) 01:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP concerns due to minors being involved. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Savage Hypocrisy

This page is essentially an essay. It is entirely POV, and doesn't seem to be the sort of thing that could every develop into an encyclopedia article. Also, it contains no sources, failing the verifiability policy. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 01:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as apparent POV OR. Erechtheus (talk) 01:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. TheMile (talk) 01:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a blatant violation of neutral point of view and no original research Bfigura ^(talk) 01:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I have replaced the article's content with a brief paragraph more neutrally stating the basic premise of the argument. I still think the article should be deleted, but no article—even one in the middle of an AfD discussion—should have neutral point of view issues like that. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 02:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR, personal essay, entirely unsourced. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 03:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete prior to Pyrospirit's edits (which were a good thing), this was an OR essay, what remains now still fails WP:V, WP:RS etc. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete might qualify as WP:HOAX; the phrase "a savage hypocrisy" referring to hate crime laws is from the South Park episode Cartman's Silly Hate Crime. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It sounds like a hoax essay. No sources and no ghits. Textangel (talk) 04:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - non-notable. Dreamspy (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete NN and a hoax without a doubt, Savage Hypocrisy sounds more like a 2-3 person story and not for wikipedia.--Pookeo9 (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:OR. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:50, 11 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), Withdrawn by nominator. --Bfigura ^(talk) 01:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mandalorian language

Had been kept with instructions to merge, but that hasn't happened two+ months later. Content here remains unsourced summary/OR probably not worth merging. --EEMIV (talk) 01:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In cases like this (where a previous merge consensus exists), the best thing to do is to redirect the article and leave a note to editors of the target page that they can merge whatever content they want from the history of the source page. I will now boldly do this and unless there's a further objection, I'd suggest this AfD be closed. cab (talk) 01:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I note also that the article has external links pointing to various sources from Starwars.com; of course these don't prove notability, but they presumably can be used to support most assertions in the article. cab (talk) 01:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okie doke; withdrawn. --EEMIV (talk) 01:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 03:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pine cone golf

Is this a legitimate sport? None of the sources go to an article about a sport called "pine cone golf," and googling the phrase just seems to give similar sources referring to some specific golfer hitting a pine cone with a golf club. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources linked from the article- where the links work- fail to establish this as a distinct phenomenon that has received serious attention from third parties. While I'm certain that people do this on occasion, there doesn't seem to be anything to it- sometimes, people get bored and hit pine cones, but it's not a cultural touchstone, a game or sport with distinct rules, etc. No more warrants an article than 'throwing rocks at stuff' would, unless someone can find some significant commentary on the activity.

Reply. I suddenly have an almost uncontrollable urge to create Throwing rocks at stuff. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Stoning and Stone skimming. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn, possible hoax. JJL (talk) 00:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, if heavily cut down A stub on this might be decent, as there are a few (if not very good) newspaper references Such as this letter (though I did say not very good) , but therte's a lot of OR, speculation, and citing Youtube as evidence of a popular new phenomenon that MUST go. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn, and hoax BoL (Talk) 00:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not-notable. Xdenizen (talk) 02:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Made-up sport that hasn't yet received coverage in reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Golf ball, as golf balls have been made of many things. This seems to be to golf as Whiffleball is to Baseball. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above: nn and very hoaxy. Nothing to really elevate pine cones over any other small, vaguely spherical items. Basically: no frog tennis, no pine cone golf. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 10:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - non-notable. Dreamspy (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Double bogey delete. References amount to Trevino hitting them while on vacation, another golfer when he was 2; three broken links; and a video of some kid trying to hit a burning pine cone. Clarityfiend (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Valid and notable stub (non-admin closure). PeterSymonds | talk 08:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gross examination

Very short article, should be merged into another article. Fails WP:RS. Rk OR To N 00:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a stub, I'll give you that much, but while it seems to be little more than a definition, it's hard to imagine that it can't be expanded. As far as sources are concerned, a bery quick google search turns up a myriad of results pertaining to it, so I doubt it should be hard to find a single reliable source. Calgary (talk) 00:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Pathology. Shortness of article is irrelevant to Afd, as can be expanded and there is no time limit. As pathology is not my area, I trust the wikiproject to supply some WP:RS. Marking as {{notability}} SunCreator (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's hard to imagine that something like this can't be expanded. Obviously encyclopedic, however; solution is to improve, not delete. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously, needs to be expanded. JJL (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a valid stub that needs work. (Deletion isn't a substitute for improvement). Bfigura ^(talk) 04:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Space Marine: The Guardians

Article on a fictional topic. appears to be made up by various anonymous IP addresses, a search for the any of the 'characters' turns up nothing. Wongm (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn, hopeless essay/game guide. JJL (talk) 00:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can't even make out the context for this. Is it Warhammer 40,000? or what? —Quasirandom (talk) 00:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. They're army lists (i.e, what miniatures you have in your army) for 40k. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Good army list. :P Not good for Wikipedia, though. :P Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is poor material written by a drooling fanboy trying to spread his foul ill concieved seed across the internet. DELETE IT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.120.148 (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fan-created materials for what looks like a local-level gaming group's campaign. No sources to demonstrate the importance of this campaign and associated fluff to the greater world, and I would be suprised if multiple reliable sources could be provided. (Not to codexes or published materials confirming the contents of the army lists... it needs multiple news articles and reviews of the campaign itself). -- saberwyn 02:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not useful, maybe merge some information with List of Chaos Space Marines and Warhammer 40,000..--Comet styles 10:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete first line is "The Guardians These are pretty much unknown." oops. It's 40K related alright - but it doesn't look like canon (or anything remotely approaching) to me. If it was, it should be in the warhammer article and even then would probably end up being copyright material. I can see no reason to keep this one I'm afraid BananaFiend (talk) 10:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right. It isn't anything remotely approaching canon. -- saberwyn 10:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this definitely isn't Warhammer 40,000 canon, seems to be an invented army list idea Lord Foppington (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - non-notable. Dreamspy (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone speedy delete this, please? (per WP:MADEUP.) I think we've got consensus here... Terraxos (talk) 02:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not seem to appear in any GW publication. Must be a fan made chapter which is not suitable for Wiki. Symos —Preceding comment was added at 12:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In the name of the Emperor, purge with fire! (As non-notable and made-up.) --Craw-daddy | T | 23:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete A7 by User:KnightLago, non-admin closure. I also fixed the improper formatting of this AfD. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shockwire

I have created this page but i massivles screwwed up and i was wondering if you could delete it for me please so i can redo it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bestone5 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was keep. John254 19:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Star Sonata

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

Per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 4 and new information. Procedural nomination, no opinion. Daniel (talk) 03:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pre-emptive tagging due to the types of comments on the deletion review. Also, incase it is referred to, don't believe the 100k characters claptrap (that was referred to in the deletion review). It's obviously misleading (quoted figure of 760 subscribers as of Feb 11 2008). --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 09:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note for closing admin dependent on the out come of this AfD consideration should be given restoring two fair use images that were deleted as orphans after the previous closure. Gnan garra 12:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article passes the notability requirements as set forth in the Wikipedia guidelines for independent 3rd party reviews and mentions. JeffL (talk) 16:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really, really weak keep there are exactly two refs to coverage in reliable sources, rather than players' sites or blogs. WP:N isn't clear about whether sources have to be independent of each other, so I'll have to give this the benefit of the doubt. The inline refs need work. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, based on the references provided during the deletion review as well as in the article. It definitely needs more reliable sources in the article itself to show notability, though. Terraxos (talk) 02:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 22:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Cleanup - the article needs more third-party reliable sources to flesh it out and should not be reliant on self-published sources per WP:SELFPUB Gazimoff (talk) 07:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but relist - the article lacks reliable third-party sources at the moment and I'm not sure if there even are a reasonable amount available, so keep the article and allow sources to be added but if they aren't, relist for deletion.

Weak Keep but Cleanup - There are at least two non-trivial published works from reliable secondary sources mentioned in the deletion review (three if this interview with the author qualifies), at least weakly satisfying criteria 1 of WP:WEB. Although the game is not popular, it does have some interesting features identified as such in reviews from reliable sources: (1) "NPC units that follow your orders... automated ships and space stations" - GameZone, (2) vying "against other teams to become emperor of the galaxy" - GameTunnel. In comparison to other games in the genre, I believe these make the game at least somewhat "worthy of notice" (equated with notability in WP:Notability). Thanar (talk) 04:22, 12 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 for lack of reliable sources. Tikiwont (talk) 10:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prefix Magazine

No sources suggesting this passes WP:WEB. Spellcast (talk) 13:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, listed by Metacritic as a reliable purveyor of music reviews ([36]), also seem to be referenced in a few places (eg: [37]), indicating that some people view them as respectable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

The magazine is only one among many Metacritic uses. It doesn't mean it's notable. For the second site, it fails WP:WEB #1 because it's reprinting Prefix Magazine's content. As WP:WEB says: "The published works must be someone else writing about the site". Spellcast (talk) 14:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply, Getting onto that list is no easy feat, I should know, as I've been trying to get my site on there for years. Also, people tend to not reprint material from websites and magazines if they're "not notable". Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Metacritic only reprints quotes from various publications and WP:WEB says "media reprints" don't count as substantial coverage. There's no sources that discuss the magazine in detail (and that's probably because there isn't any at this time). As it stands, it doesn't even pass WP:CSD#A7. Spellcast (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the site is notable and has many users , but the article needs to be expanded with more info .--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 14:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The number of users doesn't mean it's notable. It doesn't seem like it can expand because of no reliable sources that discuss the site. Spellcast (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - well but some editor may expand it , anyhow lets wait and see some more comments on this topic before coming to any conclusion , i agree to the fact that there is a lack of reliable resource .--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has been a perma-stub for nearly 2 years because there are no reliable sources at this time. No prejudice if anyone can recreate it if it becomes notable. Spellcast (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A non-administrator close of this debate by Skomorokh has been overturned at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 4. This debate is being relisted on the April 9, 2008 AfD log. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:50, 9 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, Daniel (talk) 03:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage in reliable sources that I could find. Jfire (talk) 04:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't seem to be covered by much in terms of reliable sources. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete given the lack of reliable sources to meet verifiability Bfigura ^(talk) 05:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless significant coverage from reliable sources is provided to show notability. Terraxos (talk) 02:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment :o wp:web is tough. this is a site that's gets the same traffic as atrios. its reviews are quoted everywhere. wp:web is really tough. google news brings up mentions in Kansas City Star, iAfrica, Gothamist. 86.44.28.245 (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Site traffic means nothing without reliable sources. Atrios seems to have a multitude of reliable sources; this doesn't. I could find no detailed coverage after searching this magazine in Google or Google news. Spellcast (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. 86.44.28.245 (talk) 02:06, 12 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--Pookeo9 (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicle registration plates of Colorado

Have listed a single article, however there are numerous similar articles for different US states. Unconvinced that a table which informs us the Colorado number plate includes a picture of mountains is encyclopedic. PhilKnight (talk) 09:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC

Delete Too much about specifics. The article doesn't establish what's important or significant about the plates. PeterSymonds | talk 09:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete U.S. license plate numbering and lettering has all the same information and is easier accessible, no point duplicating part of it in a separate article. --Minimaki (talk) 13:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok, now there's more info (especially in History of vehicle registration plates of Colorado). And the topic itself certainly can have an article, so changing the vote. I have some slight WP:NOT concerns about listing all number plates, but if someone wants to list them all.. --Minimaki (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This page was just started a few days ago. Several users are working on the plate articles for the states - why don't we give it some time? Qqqqqq (talk) 15:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article shall grow as all of the American number plate articles. Having just a small seed can make a large tree grow. Ãt the least, it describes the current number plate issued by Colorado. -Bolly Nickers (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep per above rationales. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 21:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All of the state plate articles are in the process of being expanded. This one will have some more content, just give it some time! --Plate King (talk) 01:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems a reasonable quality (given its youth), and reasonably detailed article of encyclopedic interest. No reason for a delete. Benmoreassynt (talk) 17:20, 10 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 CSD A7: no assertion of notability whatsoever, 20 words about a football club who doesn't even have a first team "due to lack of funds". --Angelo (talk) 14:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relâmpago Nogueirense

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Relâmpago Nogueirense

Non-notable Portuguese football club?-- Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:34, 9 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 list of terrorist incidents in London. Sandstein (talk) 17:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1996 West End Bus Bombing

Article is just a news story with no real historical impact or analysis of the event, no room for expansion and it's only ever going to be a few line news story. BigDunc (talk) 21:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect The incident happened, and had coverage at the time, but it was one of a number of incidents and probably did not have much lasting impact as an individual event. There is information, and a reference, that is not in the list of terrorist incidents in London, but this should probably be merged into the list and left as a redirect, as I don't think that there is much potential for expansion into a full article. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 23:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge - insufficiently notable for an article in its own right. We already have Edward O'Brien (Irish republican), which has more than enough information; this can be merged and redirect there. Terraxos (talk) 02:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Its just a news story, and going nowhere.--Domer48 (talk) 13:42, 10 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 03:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rome Rule

Non-notable phrase with no significant coverage from reliable sources BigDunc (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A pretty common term during the Home Rule crisis, and there is certainly enough coverage. There is no reason for WP not to have an explanation of this for anyone looking it up. The article's talk page has a more in depth discussion. -R. fiend (talk) 21:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough coverage of the phrase in reliable sources. The article is very short, not much more than a dictionary definition, and if there is not much potential for expansion then it should probably be merged into another article, but that can be decided separately from the AfD discussion. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 23:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The slogan encapsulates the Protestant objection to Home Rule and it definitely should not be deleted but expanded. Contrary to the suggestions that it is peripheral to the issue of Home Rule and not important at all, I will give a few examples from reliable sources:

"Only sometimes enunciated but always present was the commonly held belief that 'Home Rule meant Rome Rule' ".--Alan O'Day, Irish Home Rule, 1867-1921 (Manchester University Press, 1998), p. 113.

"The economic argument [against Home Rule] carried conviction with all sectors of unionist opinion. But it was not basic to unionist rejection of Irish nationalism. 'Home Rule is Rome Rule' was the slogan that touched a really responsive chord in Protestant hearts".--Joseph Lee, Ireland, 1912-1985: Politics and Society (Cambridge University Press, 1990), p. 8.

"However, from the unionist point of view, 'home rule' meant 'Rome rule' since any future Irish parliament, unlike the wholly Protestant 'Grattan's parliament', would have a built-in Catholic majority".--S. J. Connolly (ed.), The Oxford Companion to Irish History (Oxford University Press, 2007), p. 184.

"In Wales, as in Ulster, many opposed the Irish home rule bill of 1886 on the grounds that home rule meant Rome rule".--S. J. Connolly (ed.), The Oxford Companion to Irish History (Oxford University Press, 2007), p. 613.

There are also books and pamphlets on "Rome Rule" as I stated on the talk page. Widespread amongst Protestants in Northern Ireland (even in the 1930s) was the view that the Irish Free State was dominated by the Catholic Church and discriminatory against Protestants, as can be seen in Dennis Kennedy's The Widening Gulf. Northern attitudes to the independent Irish state 1919-1949 (Blackstaff, 1988).--Johnbull (talk) 00:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In initiating the delete debate on the article's talk page, I said that the topic had not received significant coverage in reliable sources, as opposed to mentioning it or quoting the slogan. Johnbull has now produced sources which may or may not "cover" the topic in that sense, so I find myself unable to vote delete or keep. I would like to see the "keep"s provide positive evidence of notabilty by expanding the article. At the moment it is only a dictionary definition, and shows no signs of ever becoming more, Johnbull's sources notwithstanding. It may be that the answer will be a merge, per Snigbrook, but only if there is at least one respectably-sized paragraph to merge. Scolaire (talk) 07:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge: A fringe term, as evidenced by a lack of citeable sources to its widespread use, relying on comment and opinion to suggest this instead. All we can provide is a dictionary type definition. For example Tiocfaid Ár Lá, (Our day will come), can be referenced to countless books on the IRA, T-Shirts, music CD’s, songs, magazines and even mouse mats, which express the belief of Irish Republicans that Irish unity is inevitable. Do we have an article on it, of course not? We include the term in the relevant article were it is applicable. Is Tiocfaid Ár Lá, in widespread use of course it is, more so than “Rome Rule” most definitely, do we have an article on it no. Same thing here, delete and merge the term into the relevant article were it is applicable. --Domer48 (talk) 07:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, Tiocfaidh ár lá is an article. Scolaire (talk) 08:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Stick a {prod} template on it and I'll support it. Sorry about the wording there. Same thing, delete and merge the term into the relevant article were it is applicable. I would even suggest it as a footnote. --Domer48 (talk) 08:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Scolaire (talk) 09:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Comment: "delete and merge" is usually not valid, as any merge needs to retain the article history, and while there are exceptions I fail to see how this is one. If the material covering the term is suitable for inclusion somewhere, why should the term itself not redirect to that article? I think a merge/redirect to a suitable article would be fine, but no one has suggested an appropriate article, and I don't know of one.

Furthermore, I don't think a prod is appropriate for Tiocfaidh ár lá either. Prods are generally for articles that are likely to be uncontroversially deleted, usually just shy of being a CSD. The non-notability rationale is appropriate for articles on that guy who falls down the stairs in that commercial, the guy who's running for city council, the guy who rants about crap on his blog, etc. Domer makes a pretty good case for the notability of the term above, and then supports deletion on the grounds of non-notability (again, saying "delete and merge", but not explaining why there should not be a redirect, or where it should be merged). Articles like that and this really need to go to AFD. As a general rule, any article with a long edit history should be sent to AFD rather than prodded. While there's no real harm in prodding it first, one has to understand the almost inevitability of the tag's removal. Last time I was criticized for removing the tag without discussion, however, if it requires discussion it's not a prod. (So this is what it feels like to be an inclusionist...weird). -R. fiend (talk) 13:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "A Protestant Parliament for a Protestant people" an alternative example. Can be referenced no problem, a slogan / catch phrase, and a belief of some unionists. A quote by Craig, referenced in Irish Nationalism: A History of its Roots and Ideology, by Sean Cronin p.177, Modern Ireland, by Mark Tierney, p.230. Just to illustrate a point, its referenced and could be expanded way beyond "Rome Rule." Dose it deserve an independent article? I don’t think so. But if it did, "Rome Rule" would go in it. Same thing, delete and merge the term "Rome Rule" into the relevant article were it is applicable. --Domer48 (talk) 09:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except that Craig never said that, he said "we are a Protestant Parliament and a Protestant State" after he cited the boast in the Free State that they are a Catholic state. Also, I'm not sure where people think this article should be merged into.--Johnbull (talk) 14:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Oh Please! "All I boast is that we are a Protestant Parliament for a Protestant people," said just after he became Lord Cragavon. A "reward for his rebellion against the British government during the Home Rule crisis." Also cited! It should be merged into the Home Rule article, I thought that was obvious? --Domer48 (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that isn't right. Craig said on 24 April 1934 (seven years after becoming Viscount Craigavon): "The Hon. Member must remember that in the South they boasted of a Catholic State. They still boast of Southern Ireland being a Catholic State. All I boast is that we are a Protestant Parliament and a Protestant State".--Jonathan Bardon, A History of Ulster (Blackstaff, 2005), pp. 538-9, taken from Parliamentary Debates (Northern Ireland House of Commons), vol. 16, cols 1091, 1095.--Johnbull (talk) 15:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well Diarmaid Ferriter, Ireland 1900-2000, p.281, Patrick Buckland, The Factory of Grievances: Devolved Government in Northern Ireland 1921-1939, p.72 and the two previous sources I cited would disagree. So much for a fear of Rome Rule either way. --Domer48 (talk) 16:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have given the official Hansard reference, which proves beyond doubt what Craig said. So far you have given neither the date nor the place where he supposedly said what you and others attribute to him. I think you should use accurate and reliable sources from now on.--Johnbull (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to pick one. Because I'm not sure which to use. --Domer48 (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of them; they are all unreliable since they don't give the date or the place, and when they do ("declared in Parliament in 1934 that the Northern Ireland regime was..."/"Although it was not until 1934 that Craig notoriously spoke of a...") they are misquoting him. Like I said, I would only use reliable sources. It has been proven wrong anyway since I gave the official report from Stormont's Hansard.--Johnbull (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbishing of 154 sources, let me suggest one for you.--Domer48 (talk) 22:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're getting pretty desperate now, Domer48, please just admit Craig never said "a Protestant Parliament for a Protestant people". That link just shows two speakers misquoting Craig, just as all your other "sources" do. I have given the Hansard: let it rest.--Johnbull (talk) 22:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to pick one of 154 cited sources. --Domer48 (talk) 22:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be he said both? In any case, it's irrelevant to this discussion. If someone wants to write an article on that phrase they are free to, and it can be discussed on its merits, but it doesn't have any bearing on this. And note that articles on phrases are not uncommon. I've collected a sample of but a few here; it is by no means an exhaustive list, just a few I came across after a quick search. -R. fiend (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You're right that it's irrelevant, but it nicely illustrates the danger of using as "sources" otherwise authoritative authors that misquote a phrase and/or quote it out of context - in this case 154 of them! Notability must be based on more than just "such-and-such an eminent author alluded to it here." Scolaire (talk) 07:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is my whole object in carrying on a Protestant Government for a Protestant people [38]. I suspect the two phrases have become intertwined. Aatomic1 (talk) 11:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. - Kittybrewster ☎ 09:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This was a political catchphrase of the late 19th/early 20th century and beyond. That it was even proposed for deletion is amazing. But we've seen the tag-team of BigDunc and Domer48 in action before!--Damac (talk) 21:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damac are you still harping on with your conspiracy theories get a grip would you. This AfD has nothing to do with your alleged conspiracies, so grow up and stop with your rubbish.BigDunc (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) That it was a catchphrase doesn't make it notable; the grounds for deleting it are reasonable, whether they are judged to be correct or not; and a personal attack is not a proper or an intelligent argument for keeping. Please remain civil. Scolaire (talk) 22:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason given by BigDunc for deleting the article was "Non-notable phrase with no significant coverage from reliable sources". This has clearly been shown to be false, making BigDunc's justification unreasonable in my book.--Damac (talk) 17:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect in your book, maybe (and Google Books searches prove nothing, as we've seen), but it was not unreasonable. At any rate there is and can be no justification in talking about 'tag-teams'. AGF, NPA and CIVIL apply in AfDs as elsewhere. Scolaire (talk) 18:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last time I will take personal attack from you Damac and I will report the next time you do.BigDunc (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:N with significant coverage from reliable sources Aatomic1 (talk) 16:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I’m still not seeing significant coverage of its use or coverage of the term its self? The example I have used above shows 154 publications (be they right or wrong) which cite the phrase/slogan/catch phrase “A Protestant Parliament for a Protestant people.” --Domer48 (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:What about some of these 657 hits?--Damac (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Domer, if you think there should be an article on A Protestant Parliament for a Protestant people feel free to write one. I won't nominate it for deletion. We've already established plenty of slogans and phrases have articles here. It just has nothing to do with this article. -R. fiend (talk) 01:25, 12 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.

[1] Times Union article

[1]